Vought ADAM and ADAM II V/STOL projects

So hard to find a nice ADAM model we made our own. About 16 inches long and looks period if I say so myself, I painted it......... Here is a before, during and finished. Enjoy..... Now working on the Zichek VSTOLS.

I WANT ONE!

Great model. Superb work.

Moose said:

Great model. Superb work.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

hesham said:

From NASA;
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730017270_1973017270.pdf

Click to expand...

This link seems to fail. Is there anything else I can search the website on, to find it?

Amazing work, Allyson!! And it DOES have that period feel indeed.
Vought produced so many great unbuilt designs!

Steelpillow - only thing I could find was this about fan-in-wing commercial transport designs:


Enjoy the Day! Mark

steelpillow said:

hesham said:

From NASA;
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730017270_1973017270.pdf

Click to expand...

This link seems to fail. Is there anything else I can search the website on, to find it?

Click to expand...

The URL suggested by the link is not the one that it actually points to!
... works pretty fine.
... doesn't.

Thanks all. Turns out some of the files at NTRS are available for free download, some are not. That one isn't.

Mark Nankivil said:

Greetings All -

First ADAM design I have seen with a name attached to it - The Persuader...

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Click to expand...

Mark, May I ask the provenance of this drawing? It carries the initials B.R.W., presumably those of B.R. Winborn, and both a date and design consistent with the ADAM III strike aircraft proposal, but no other identification.

Not sure if any concept artwork for it has been posted here yet, see top left corner from 1989:
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1969/1969%20-%202169.html

NASA's ADAM II 1/16th wind tunnel test photos:

https://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/Test_228:_Adam-II_1/6_Scale_VTOL_Air_Powered_Model

ADAM II Phase 2 wind tunnel tests 1970:

https://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/Test_248:_Adam_II_-_Phase_2

SDASM collection

View: https://flic.kr/p/N9yybG

PaulMM (Overscan) said:

SDASM collection

https://flic.kr/p/N9yybG

Click to expand...

Oh my God,fantastic my dear Paul.

Very Thunderbirds. Nice find.

PaulMM (Overscan) said:

SDASM collection

https://flic.kr/p/N9yybG

Click to expand...

That appears to be a *really* flawed design, if it was intended for VTOL. The engines seem to provide vertical lift from the vicinity of the wing training edge... which would seem to be *far* behind the CG. For this to work it would need a substantial lift jet(s) near the nose. Perhaps the design had just that (lift jets buried behind the cockpit, or ducts tapping high pressed exhaust from the engines) and the artist left them out. But as shown, it'd be a disaster.

From Ailes 5/11/1960.

Good Day All -

I am done cleaning out Mke "The Artist" Burke's apartment and now sorting out the variety of things I packed up. One was this unfinshed painting he did of an ADAM design, no doubt inspired by his trip to Vought with me back a few years ago.

Miss him already.... Mark

I like his work, even when completed it's more impressionistic but pleasing.

overscan (PaulMM) said:

I like his work, even when completed it's more impressionistic but pleasing.

Click to expand...

Indeed. That ADAM painting is frankly crude... and yet there's more life in it than in a hundred computer rendered images. I've got nothing against CG art, but I just have a preference to old school paintings.

From Aviation magazine 1971.

If the Pegasus engine did not empower the Harrier, could an ADAM system have been viable for that role ??

Configuration without long-ducted hot gasses ? And, per Scott's comment, c/g such no plumbing ahead of cockpit fire-wall etc etc ??

Stargazer2006 said:

steelpillow said:

hesham said:

From NASA;
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730017270_1973017270.pdf

Click to expand...

This link seems to fail. Is there anything else I can search the website on, to find it?

Click to expand...

The URL suggested by the link is not the one that it actually points to!

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730017270_1973017270.pdf

... works pretty fine.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710065271_1971065271.pdf

... doesn't.

Click to expand...

Latest URL: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19730017270

Nik said:

If the Pegasus engine did not empower the Harrier, could an ADAM system have been viable for that role ??

Configuration without long-ducted hot gasses ? And, per Scott's comment, c/g such no plumbing ahead of cockpit fire-wall etc etc ??

Click to expand...

In my piece on the outboard tail ("Outside Edge", The Air Historian, 38, January 2022, pp.106-116) I note the similar wingspans of the ADAM III attack aircraft with the twin-engined B.Ae Kingston p.1216 Harrier replacement. Both these configurations meet your stated plumbing criteria and, according to their designers at least, would be viable solutions. Where the one solves the tail problem by moving the engines part way outboard, the other does so by moving the tail similarly. Oddly enough, it is the one that moves the engines which also moves the tailplane all the way out, although B.Ae did briefly study the equally fully outboard-tailed P.1219 as well.

Shame there was never a real prototype fly-off between the two proposals!

overscan (PaulMM) said:

Latest URL: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19730017270

Click to expand...

Thank you my dear PaulMM,

In addition to Scott's concern regarding the vectored thrust versus CG, would the "wing" create adequate lift for horizontal flight with the engines occupying its entirety thus no true leading and trailing edge as on a normal wing?

When I worked for Boeing, I was discussing the Blended Wing Body with one of the Aeronautical Engineers. There were various engine mounting designs proposed for the BWB including engines in normal round nacelles mounted above the wings, but also large flat horizontal nacelles on top of the wing (similar to the B-70 nacelle, but inverted and relatively short). The Engineer noted that the flat horizontal nacelle would not allow that section of the wing to create much lift, where the round nacelle mounted on a pylon would not cause that problem. I wonder if this would also impact the ADAM wing.

"...flat horizontal nacelle..."
May be a silly question, but did that vast upper surface have to be flat / featureless ? Given was above the wing, so effectively immune from runway FOD ingestion, it would seem to offer options for eg local 'boundary layer' intervention...

SAustin16 said:

There were various engine mounting designs proposed for the BWB including engines in normal round nacelles mounted above the wings, but also large flat horizontal nacelles on top of the wing (similar to the B-70 nacelle, but inverted and relatively short). The Engineer noted that the flat horizontal nacelle would not allow that section of the wing to create much lift, where the round nacelle mounted on a pylon would not cause that problem. I wonder if this would also impact the ADAM wing.

Click to expand...

The horizontal multi-engine arrangement is coming back into vogue for V/STOL electric air taxis that will be certified "real soon now". But it has a lot of traps for the unwary, as the air pressure distributions for the engine intakes and wing surface interact very strongly and many of the usual design rules are useless. Airspeed, boundary layer flow and the fore-aft positioning of the engine intakes all play complex roles.

But the real killer is the stall. In this event, the airflow into a short nacelle on the upper rear surface of the wing becomes turbulent and the engine not only drastically loses thrust just when you need it most, but in consequence this also reduces its counteracting downward-pitching moment so the nose rises even more and deepens the stall. The same also applies to the typical overwing pod-on-a-pylon arrangement. Historically, many a propeller-driven flying boat has been lost to such a self-induced stall when engine power was suddenly cut. Frankly, I do not see an overwing-engined BWB gaining safety certification (although drone designers are currently hopeful, and I know some denizens of this forum disagree with me). BWB designers need to accept that their dreamed-of efficiency gains must be sacrificed to the sordid realities of leading-edge pod-'n'-pylon mounting, whether below per convention or above per the VFW-Fokker 614.

ADAM is different again, as it is a kind of pseudo-biplane with the engines sandwiched in between. Aerodynamically it is more accurate to think of the wing as a monoplane, with the top surface of the "upper wing" and the under surface of the "lower wing" together contributing to lift in much the same way as a single conventional aerofoil. With the engine intakes at the leading edge, there are no boundary layer or wing-stall engine intake flow problems; the key adaptation is in the leading edge profiles of the upper and lower structures, to accommodate the engine airflow without affecting the upward vector of the lifting flow circulation at that point. Add a huge blown flap, which contributes significant lift in normal flight, behind the engines and you win V/STOL performance too.

I thank you both for your comments and answers.
Vought had such a rich history innovative designs, including ADAM. This is a very interesting and enjoyable thread.

In February 1960, Chance Vought and Pratt and Whitney completed Air Force study requirement SR-175 for a VTOL logistics and support transport that was to be operational in the 1965-70 time frame. The proposed aircraft was to be powered by four P&W JT12A-7 engines (SR-175 ADAM VTOL Military Transport.jpg). General Dimensions: Length 53ft, Span 43ft, Height 19ft 2in. Max gross weight was targeted at 25,100lbs. The operating cost was pitched as favorably comparable to the Lockheed Electra, Jet Star and Convair 540. In addition to the targeted VTOL aircraft of the study a STOL version of the ADAM was included (SR-175 ADAM STOL Military Transport Swing Tail.jpg).

From Interavia 1969.