Register here

Author Topic: C(X)-6 VSTOL/ STOL projects  (Read 16336 times)

Offline lark

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1771
Re: C(X)-6 VSTOL/ STOL projects
« Reply #30 on: August 27, 2013, 11:01:54 am »
To conclude for the moment , it seems that for only one contender (NAA) the illustrations
are for sure...


Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: C(X)-6 VSTOL/ STOL projects
« Reply #31 on: August 28, 2013, 05:40:11 am »
We can say,the competitors were;


Bell D-2274
Boeing or Boeing Vertol  ---?
Lockheed CL-?
North American  ----?
McDonnell M-?
Ryan  ----?


My dear Lark,


also Boeing,Lockheed and McDonnell were confirmed by Flying Review magazine,to be enter
this competition.

Offline lark

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1771
Re: C(X)-6 VSTOL/ STOL projects
« Reply #32 on: August 28, 2013, 08:10:26 am »
I have the Flying Review magazine in my (paper) collection Hesham
but I was talking about the illustrations..

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: C(X)-6 VSTOL/ STOL projects
« Reply #33 on: August 28, 2013, 08:12:03 am »
OK my dear Lark.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: C(X)-6 VSTOL/ STOL projects
« Reply #34 on: August 23, 2014, 05:12:22 am »
From; Flugwaffe und Fliegerabwehr 1967,


here is an artist drawing to CX-6 proposal,may be it was from Fairchild and
based on C-123 ?.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: C(X)-6 VSTOL/ STOL projects
« Reply #35 on: January 25, 2015, 05:05:41 am »
From Flyinf Review 3/1965,


here is a small info about CX-6 competition.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: C(X)-6 VSTOL/ STOL projects
« Reply #36 on: February 09, 2016, 07:38:24 am »
Hi,

here is un-cleared view to Boeing-Vertol CX-6 Proposal.

http://kulturserver-nds.de/home/hubtest/medien/Typenkartei3953xGUN7x9T3Z7.pdf

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10794
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: C(X)-6 VSTOL/ STOL projects
« Reply #37 on: February 12, 2016, 06:36:25 pm »
Quote
10-Ton-Payload USAF V/STOL Studied

Paris—Boeing Co. and North American Aviation are expected to receive Air Force approval soon for detailed design studies of powerplant configurations for a proposed C-6A 10-ton-payload V-STOL transport. If approved the aircraft would be a direct follow-on to the 4-ton-payload Ling-Temco-Vought XC-142 tilt-wing aircraft now under evaluation. Powerplants to be studied include vectored- thrust, direct-lift and fans.

Current C—6A studies being conducted by Boeing and North American under separate contracts of $330.000 each are designed primarily to determine penalties that must be paid in over-all performance, range and operating costs to gain capability of vertical flight as compared with aircraft designed solely for short takeoffs and landings.

Both firms are scheduled to present their findings this week to Air Force officials at the Pentagon.

The configuration of an early North American C-6A-type design was shown at the Paris Air Show here. It now has been superseded by later designs, including study of a compound vehicle using helicopter techniques for vertical lift and those of a conventional aircraft for range and endurance.

Air Force mission requirements laid down for both companies include a stipulation that the aircraft must have ferry range of at least 2,600 mi. The high-wing model shown by North American here was to have been powered by two high-bypass-ratio. vectored-thrust powerplants, housed in pods on either side of fuselage. Power would have been augmented by direct-lift engines located in root sections of the two pods. A tilt-wing design such as that employed on the XC-l42 is not being considered for the C-6A because of additional strains that would be involved in lifting relatively heavy loads and carrying them over long distances.

Primarily, the aircraft probably would be employed to carry cargo over medium ranges in support of combat troops in the field, although there are some proponents
in the Air Force who would employ it as vehicle to make deliveries from the continental U. S. or other major supply area directly to a battle zone. Current studies by the two contractors also include investigation of safety factors, the minimum time required for the aircraft to remain in an approach stage where it would be particularly susceptible to enemy ground fire and use considerable fuel and new techniques that might be required for identifying landing zones so that pilots could recognize them in various kinds of terrain.

An official of one of the two companies says initial assessments indicate there are no significant penalties for vertical as opposed to short-takeoff flight in an aircraft such as the C-6A if pilots can be trained to make minimum approach and hover. “If he needs 2,000 ft. to make an approach, then there's no need to have a vertical capability' he added. “Then vou might just as well stick with STOL"


Aviation Week & Space Technology,  June 21, 1965
« Last Edit: February 12, 2016, 06:57:58 pm by PaulMM (Overscan) »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline CJGibson

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1105
  • GSATH is coming
Re: C(X)-6 VSTOL/ STOL projects
« Reply #38 on: February 13, 2016, 12:54:08 am »
Looks like they nicked that design from Bristol Siddeley.

Chris

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: C(X)-6 VSTOL/ STOL projects
« Reply #39 on: February 20, 2016, 07:29:46 am »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22023
Re: C(X)-6 VSTOL/ STOL projects
« Reply #40 on: December 02, 2018, 03:59:52 am »

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2053
Re: C(X)-6 VSTOL/ STOL projects
« Reply #41 on: December 02, 2018, 08:00:44 am »
This is an interesting story, because it reflects another effect of the Johnson-McConnell agreement of 1966:  AF fixed-wing, army helicopters.

It seems that after Johnson-McConnell, the USAF rapidly lost interest in anything smaller/shorter-field than the C-130, ditching the Caribou, leaving the Army to fend for itself and eliminating a DoD market for anything ultra-STOL/VTOL that wasn't rotary-wing. So aside from a few special-ops-driven ventures (Scaled Grizzly/ATTT, Boeing SuperFrog and LMSW's fan-in-wing studies) all the $ has gone into tilt-rotor because it was (a) Army-legal and (b) VTOL-biased and hence Marine-compatible.

A Breguet 941-type aircraft, or even the Buffalo, might have been (might still be) a very useful asset for all kinds of operations.

Offline taildragger

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 168
  • You can count on me - I won a contest
Re: C(X)-6 VSTOL/ STOL projects
« Reply #42 on: December 02, 2018, 07:01:59 pm »
The market smaller-than-Hercules market didn't entirely disappear.  The C-23 Sherpa and C-27 Spartan were examples.  The former, developed from the Shorts 360, was, if I recall correctly, purchased to serve USAF logistics requirements within Europe.   I believe that it was retired before serving very long.
The Lockheed Martin C-27, developed from the Aeritalia G-222, was purchased by the Army to support Middle East operations not adequately served by the USAF.  Predictably, the USAF objected and absorbed the entire fleet.  Before long they were declared surplus, transferred to the Afghan Air Force and parked.  After a few years of ownership by the Afghans and very little use, the DoD hired a contractor to scrap them on site.
Apparently the responsibility for the series of decisions that led to the acquisition, abandonment and scrapping of a fleet of new aircraft was sufficiently dispersed within the USAF that no one was prosecuted. 

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1034
Re: C(X)-6 VSTOL/ STOL projects
« Reply #43 on: December 03, 2018, 01:19:17 am »
Don't forget the original ten C-27A Spartans acquired in 1990. I think they were mainly acquired for use in Central America, Panama specifically.

Offline Mark Nankivil

  • Archive Raider
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1413
Re: C(X)-6 VSTOL/ STOL projects
« Reply #44 on: December 03, 2018, 06:51:45 am »
The aircraft that went to the Afghan Air Force were refurbished Italian Air Force G.222s - 16 of them I believe with 20 supposedly contracted for.  Some references then call the aircraft C-27As so not too sure what they really should be referenced as. 

There were 10 G.222s purchased and called C-27As with all being based at Howard AFB in Panama.  Remember seeing a few at AMARC back in the mid '90s. 

Then there were the C-27Js originally meant to go to the Army but redirected to the USAF when they made the claim that their use by the Army overstepped the Army's defined limits.  Maybe Yasotay could add some clarity to that.  Those were going to Army National Guard units (Oklahoma City for one - talked to a crew flying their Sherpa who were scheduled to take training on them prior to their introduction) but then they were taken over by the USAF who then went on to mothball them due supposedly to budget cuts.  There was some talk about some of them (8?) going to the U.S. Forest Service to be converted into fire bombers though that seems to have faded away.  Instead, they went to SOC and the the U.S. Coast Guard.  I saw a couple of the C-27Js in USAF gray but with USCG markings earlier this summer when they came up this way to dodge the hurricane.  Also saw some in USCG colors at Sacramento, CA in June 2017.

The Sherpas went to a number of Army National Guards unit.  Not sure any of them are still in service. A number of these were sold to civilian operators and others transferred to the U.S. Forest Service and are used for smoke jumpers and cargo - saw one fresh from overhaul at Kingman, AZ in June of 2017.

HTH!  Mark
« Last Edit: December 03, 2018, 02:06:24 pm by Mark Nankivil »