USN VFX Competition (Alternatives to the F-14)

F-14D said:

Only McDonnell's and Grumman's designs were able to meet the Navy requirements, and McDonnell's only barely. Grumman's design was head and shoulders above everyone else's. But like all the designs, it was based on the Gov't being able to deliver the F401, which didn't happen. The F-14A was never meant to be a production model, it was supposed to be a development version of which only 13-69 would be built to d a lot of the testing since the airframe was running well ahead of the engine development. The [original] F-14B was to be the first production standard model with the definitive engine and other changes for series production (including an APU). In effect what happened would be the equivalent of the vast majority of F-22s being EMD models.

Click to expand...

elmayerle said:

F-14D said:

Only McDonnell's and Grumman's designs were able to meet the Navy requirements, and McDonnell's only barely. Grumman's design was head and shoulders above everyone else's. But like all the designs, it was based on the Gov't being able to deliver the F401, which didn't happen. The F-14A was never meant to be a production model, it was supposed to be a development version of which only 13-69 would be built to d a lot of the testing since the airframe was running well ahead of the engine development. The [original] F-14B was to be the first production standard model with the definitive engine and other changes for series production (including an APU). In effect what happened would be the equivalent of the vast majority of F-22s being EMD models.

Click to expand...

It should be noted that the inability to deliver the F401 was partially due to a crusade against it by a member of the House of Representatives in 1974. His battlecry was "The TF30 is good enough!" and, after two F401 test engines were brought back from the test cells in pieces over the space of a week, he managed to marshall enough support to kill the program. Four years later, with the TF30, which he forced the USN to keep, causing real problems, he charged that "The Navy bought a "Turkey", not a 'Tomcat'!" needless to say, he said nothing about his role in this mess. To some degree, he was emulating his mentor and the sernior senator from his state, WIlliam Proxmire, but with less, IMHO, intelligence. This Representative went on to become president Clinton's first SecDef, Les Aspin.

If you're wondering how/why I remember all this, the F401 cancellation got me laid off from P&W's FLordia R&D Center.

Click to expand...

hesham said:

Hi,

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1969/1969%20-%201308.html?search=VFX

Click to expand...

overscan said:

hesham said:

Hi,

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1969/1969%20-%201308.html?search=VFX

Click to expand...

Aha! So it seems Flight made the mistake about this being the Grumman design....

Click to expand...

Mark Nankivil said:

Hi All -

Some artwork from the Greater St. Louis Air & Space Museum archives showing the design evolution of the McDonnell Douglas F-15.

Based on the photo print numbers, this appears to be a decent timeline at what was transpiring.

I have some more to scan from this set but those pretty much fit into the final design layout though you'll see some of the details disappear or morph into what we all know as the Eagle.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Click to expand...

norseman said:

With these engine problems I am even more baffled why the option on the TF41/Spey wasn't looked at further especially with 17,500/27,000lb available in this timeframe (and an option of 28,000lb reheat on customer requirements - RR option from 71). Considering the reliability record the Spey derivitives had created (not least with the A-7) would have been an interesting fit and even better fuel economy and improved servicing was on the cards from what I have read. The British Phantoms with these engines would have been very interesting indeed.

Click to expand...

TinWing said:

norseman said:

With these engine problems I am even more baffled why the option on the TF41/Spey wasn't looked at further especially with 17,500/27,000lb available in this timeframe (and an option of 28,000lb reheat on customer requirements - RR option from 71). Considering the reliability record the Spey derivitives had created (not least with the A-7) would have been an interesting fit and even better fuel economy and improved servicing was on the cards from what I have read. The British Phantoms with these engines would have been very interesting indeed.

Click to expand...

While the thrust levels were improved over the TF-30, the TF-41 had its own issues, both with maintenance and reliability.

Click to expand...

overscan said:

you obviously never read page 2 of this topic then

Relevant patent is here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,229.msg3999.html#msg3999

Click to expand...

F-14D said:

TinWing said:

norseman said:

With these engine problems I am even more baffled why the option on the TF41/Spey wasn't looked at further especially with 17,500/27,000lb available in this timeframe (and an option of 28,000lb reheat on customer requirements - RR option from 71). Considering the reliability record the Spey derivitives had created (not least with the A-7) would have been an interesting fit and even better fuel economy and improved servicing was on the cards from what I have read. The British Phantoms with these engines would have been very interesting indeed.

Click to expand...

While the thrust levels were improved over the TF-30, the TF-41 had its own issues, both with maintenance and reliability.

Click to expand...

The notional Advanced Technology Engine that the F-14 designed around had to meet other requirements besides just increased thrust (unrestricted throttle movement, rapid response, function at high angle of attack, improve reliability, etc.). I doubt if the TF41/Spey could have met those, and if it couldn't what would be the point of moving to it? Come to think of it, the F100 didn't meet those requirements until it was faced with competition from the F110. Also, the TF41/Spey was still pretty much a "paper" engine. The TF41 was excellent in the A-7, but that was also a much less demanding role.

The Navy didn't have the money anyway, and if they did, they'd rather have put the money into something that would give them what the gov't originally promised. They finally got it with the arrival of the F110.

Also, the Navy watched what happened in the UK with the Spey on the F-4. The Spey Phantom was a disappointment, and in retrospect many concede that doing it was a mistake, given its performance vs. its cost. The USN probably saw no reason to spend all the money, even if they could have gotten it, on a similar experiment.

Click to expand...

elmayerle said:

F-14D said:

TinWing said:

norseman said:

With these engine problems I am even more baffled why the option on the TF41/Spey wasn't looked at further especially with 17,500/27,000lb available in this timeframe (and an option of 28,000lb reheat on customer requirements - RR option from 71). Considering the reliability record the Spey derivitives had created (not least with the A-7) would have been an interesting fit and even better fuel economy and improved servicing was on the cards from what I have read. The British Phantoms with these engines would have been very interesting indeed.

Click to expand...

While the thrust levels were improved over the TF-30, the TF-41 had its own issues, both with maintenance and reliability.

Click to expand...

The notional Advanced Technology Engine that the F-14 designed around had to meet other requirements besides just increased thrust (unrestricted throttle movement, rapid response, function at high angle of attack, improve reliability, etc.). I doubt if the TF41/Spey could have met those, and if it couldn't what would be the point of moving to it? Come to think of it, the F100 didn't meet those requirements until it was faced with competition from the F110. Also, the TF41/Spey was still pretty much a "paper" engine. The TF41 was excellent in the A-7, but that was also a much less demanding role.

The Navy didn't have the money anyway, and if they did, they'd rather have put the money into something that would give them what the gov't originally promised. They finally got it with the arrival of the F110.

Also, the Navy watched what happened in the UK with the Spey on the F-4. The Spey Phantom was a disappointment, and in retrospect many concede that doing it was a mistake, given its performance vs. its cost. The USN probably saw no reason to spend all the money, even if they could have gotten it, on a similar experiment.

Click to expand...

The F401 was cancelled due to a crusade led by Rep. Les Aspin to kill the F401 engine (it didn't help that just after he started this crusade two F401's came back from the test cells in bushel baskets - in one case, there was a manufacturing problem in a second-stage tubrine disk that wasn't caught; the other was a new vibratory mode that was dealt with by re-design for both the F100 and the F401)> I have to assume, given their lack of fight for it, that the USN had lost fiath in the F401. Mind you, Aspin's cry that'The TF30 is good enough!" was manifestly in error as was proved later in the 1970s. Of course, when he later said, "The Navy bought a Turkey, not a Tomcat!", he did not own up to his role in neutering that Tomcat.

Click to expand...

elmayerle said:

F-14D said:

TinWing said:

norseman said:

With these engine problems I am even more baffled why the option on the TF41/Spey wasn't looked at further especially with 17,500/27,000lb available in this timeframe (and an option of 28,000lb reheat on customer requirements - RR option from 71). Considering the reliability record the Spey derivitives had created (not least with the A-7) would have been an interesting fit and even better fuel economy and improved servicing was on the cards from what I have read. The British Phantoms with these engines would have been very interesting indeed.

Click to expand...

While the thrust levels were improved over the TF-30, the TF-41 had its own issues, both with maintenance and reliability.

Click to expand...

The notional Advanced Technology Engine that the F-14 designed around had to meet other requirements besides just increased thrust (unrestricted throttle movement, rapid response, function at high angle of attack, improve reliability, etc.). I doubt if the TF41/Spey could have met those, and if it couldn't what would be the point of moving to it? Come to think of it, the F100 didn't meet those requirements until it was faced with competition from the F110. Also, the TF41/Spey was still pretty much a "paper" engine. The TF41 was excellent in the A-7, but that was also a much less demanding role.

The Navy didn't have the money anyway, and if they did, they'd rather have put the money into something that would give them what the gov't originally promised. They finally got it with the arrival of the F110.

Also, the Navy watched what happened in the UK with the Spey on the F-4. The Spey Phantom was a disappointment, and in retrospect many concede that doing it was a mistake, given its performance vs. its cost. The USN probably saw no reason to spend all the money, even if they could have gotten it, on a similar experiment.

Click to expand...

The F401 was cancelled due to a crusade led by Rep. Les Aspin to kill the F401 engine (it didn't help that just after he started this crusade two F401's came back from the test cells in bushel baskets - in one case, there was a manufacturing problem in a second-stage tubrine disk that wasn't caught; the other was a new vibratory mode that was dealt with by re-design for both the F100 and the F401)> I have to assume, given their lack of fight for it, that the USN had lost fiath in the F401. Mind you, Aspin's cry that'The TF30 is good enough!" was manifestly in error as was proved later in the 1970s. Of course, when he later said, "The Navy bought a Turkey, not a Tomcat!", he did not own up to his role in neutering that Tomcat.

Click to expand...

TinWing said:

elmayerle said:

F-14D said:

TinWing said:

norseman said:

With these engine problems I am even more baffled why the option on the TF41/Spey wasn't looked at further especially with 17,500/27,000lb available in this timeframe (and an option of 28,000lb reheat on customer requirements - RR option from 71). Considering the reliability record the Spey derivitives had created (not least with the A-7) would have been an interesting fit and even better fuel economy and improved servicing was on the cards from what I have read. The British Phantoms with these engines would have been very interesting indeed.

Click to expand...

While the thrust levels were improved over the TF-30, the TF-41 had its own issues, both with maintenance and reliability.

Click to expand...

The notional Advanced Technology Engine that the F-14 designed around had to meet other requirements besides just increased thrust (unrestricted throttle movement, rapid response, function at high angle of attack, improve reliability, etc.). I doubt if the TF41/Spey could have met those, and if it couldn't what would be the point of moving to it? Come to think of it, the F100 didn't meet those requirements until it was faced with competition from the F110. Also, the TF41/Spey was still pretty much a "paper" engine. The TF41 was excellent in the A-7, but that was also a much less demanding role.

The Navy didn't have the money anyway, and if they did, they'd rather have put the money into something that would give them what the gov't originally promised. They finally got it with the arrival of the F110.

Also, the Navy watched what happened in the UK with the Spey on the F-4. The Spey Phantom was a disappointment, and in retrospect many concede that doing it was a mistake, given its performance vs. its cost. The USN probably saw no reason to spend all the money, even if they could have gotten it, on a similar experiment.

Click to expand...

The F401 was cancelled due to a crusade led by Rep. Les Aspin to kill the F401 engine (it didn't help that just after he started this crusade two F401's came back from the test cells in bushel baskets - in one case, there was a manufacturing problem in a second-stage tubrine disk that wasn't caught; the other was a new vibratory mode that was dealt with by re-design for both the F100 and the F401)> I have to assume, given their lack of fight for it, that the USN had lost fiath in the F401. Mind you, Aspin's cry that'The TF30 is good enough!" was manifestly in error as was proved later in the 1970s. Of course, when he later said, "The Navy bought a Turkey, not a Tomcat!", he did not own up to his role in neutering that Tomcat.

Click to expand...

My own personal take on the F401 is that it came too late to survive the budget ax. Despite all of its early woes, the F100 was too far along to kill, but the derivative F401 was an easy target. Personally, I'm inclined to say that USN made a mistake by insisting on a slightly higher bypass ratio derivative of the USAF F100, despite the obvious advantages in range and loitering performance. The F401 was just different enough from the vanilla F100 to create additional development costs, risk and delays on top of the early issues associated with the F100. Perhaps a marinized, minimum change F100 would have survived the scrutiny Rep. Aspin? Of course, the decreased endurance of a F100 powered F-14 might have tipped the scales against the entire program?

Of course, the real issue was the high unit cost of the F401 in comparison to the TF30. Even the F100 was substantially more expensive than the TF30.

Click to expand...

Mark Nankivil said:

Greetings All -

Here's the SAC for the Model 225A pulled from the Performance volume of the proposal.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Click to expand...

This photo comes from a vast archive of Original AP, UPI and various other news service photos.

Wire Photo. 10x8. 1/14/1969. Washington, DC. Artist's concept of the Navy's new supersonic, carrier-based fighter, the F-14A. Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. has been selected as prime contractor. The F-14A will be a two-place aircraft with tandem seating and will be equipped with Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-12 afterburning turbofan engines. Present plans call for first flight in early 1971 and operation with the fleet in 1973.

Click to expand...

EEP1A said:

The picture I posted as MDD 225 was taken from Japanese magazine AIREVIEW March 1969, but erroneously captioned "winning design of F-14A by Grumman".
On the next issue, the mock up photos of the real Grumman design was published but still saying that "the rendering of the last month issue was one of the designs studied by Grumman but the mock up shows the final design."
Cheers,

EEP1A

Click to expand...

The F-15N Sea Eagle was a proposed variant of the F-15 Eagle as an alternative to the F-14 Tomcat in Navy service.

During the development phase of the Eagle, the US Navy was instructed in July 1971 to take a look at a possible navalized version of the Eagle, provisionally designated F-15N. At that time, the Navy was satisfied with its Grumman F-14A Tomcat, which was then in its flight test phase, and was less than enthusiastic about a "Sea Eagle", unofficially known as "Seagle".

The navalized F-15N Sea Eagle initial proposed version was estimated to weigh 2300 pounds more than the F-15A.[1] The US Navy was not impressed with this F-15N version since it would be unable to carry or launch the AIM-54A Phoenix long-range missile.

The F-15N-PHX was another proposed naval version capable of carrying the AIM-54 Phoenix missile. The F-15N and F-15N-PHX featured folding wingtips, reinforced landing gear and a stronger tail hook for shipboard operation.[1]

The US Senate briefly revived the carrier-based Eagle idea in March 1973. However, the Navy decided instead to go with a mix of F-14 Tomcats and F/A-18 Hornets, and the F-15N was never ordered.

Click to expand...

overscan said:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2.msg38901.html#msg38901

Click to expand...