Boeing and Republic ADO-12 / "US/FRG" / AVS VG V/STOL Fighter Program

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
9,768
Reaction score
5,150
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
circle-5 said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
This was initially listed in error at $9.99 but my bid came slightly too late as the auction was ended.
$9.99 was a bargain. $99.99 is unfortunately not.

Actually, it would seem that $99.99 would be a bargain if you are in the UK. Because once you bought it for $99.99, you'd also have to pay $16.81 shipping to the UK plus an additional $25.52 in "import charges."

Worse, you'd have to pay it using that phoney-baloney Monopoly money "pound notes" since you'd be, y'know, in Britain and all.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
9,768
Reaction score
5,150
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
For what they're worth, here are some results of efforts to geometrically "correct" the photos. I make no promises to have gotten them entirely right. Safe bet that there is some horizontal compression or expansion.
 

Attachments

  • $_572a.png
    $_572a.png
    75.5 KB · Views: 265
  • $_572b.png
    $_572b.png
    75.7 KB · Views: 264
  • $_573a.png
    $_573a.png
    105.6 KB · Views: 250
  • $_573b.png
    $_573b.png
    98.9 KB · Views: 248
  • $_574.png
    $_574.png
    213.6 KB · Views: 250

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
14,409
Reaction score
10,613
Orionblamblam said:
circle-5 said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
This was initially listed in error at $9.99 but my bid came slightly too late as the auction was ended.
$9.99 was a bargain. $99.99 is unfortunately not.

Actually, it would seem that $99.99 would be a bargain if you are in the UK. Because once you bought it for $99.99, you'd also have to pay $16.81 shipping to the UK plus an additional $25.52 in "import charges."

Worse, you'd have to pay it using that phoney-baloney Monopoly money "pound notes" since you'd be, y'know, in Britain and all.


Actually, I'd have to pay in NZ Dollars, which are like US Dollars only slightly less valuable :)
 

Jemiba

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,421
Reaction score
1,887
Orionblamblam said:
For what they're worth, here are some results of efforts to geometrically "correct" the photos. ...

Thanks for your efforts indeed ! Had started my own attempts, but you beat me and quite probably
your results are better, than mine would have been. Did you try to check the wheels and/or annular
(hopefully so !) intakes of the lift engines against a precise circle ?
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
9,768
Reaction score
5,150
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
No. I used the barely-visible edges of the individual sheets, corrected for perspective and then tried to warp the image until the top and bottom edges were kinda-sorta straight. Not a chance that it really nailed the true shapes, but it's better than the curled-up photos.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
29,112
Reaction score
7,036
hesham said:
here is a contest for V/STOL strike and close-support fighter,and a small info about Lockheed
and North American proposals,I hope to know all tenders in this competition;

Boeing-EWR Type-360
General Dynamics ?
North American NA-? or D-?
Lockheed CL-?
Northrop N-?
Ryan M-?
Repulic A-400


Hi,


for Ryan,I think it was M-182.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
4,182
Reaction score
3,441
This remains my favourite 60s drawing board strike aircraft project

early-avs-jpg.112855


I first saw this drawing in a magazine I found in 1971 and have been hooked on this plane ever since. The idea of a strike fighter for the US and German Air Forces able to leap up from its airbase as in the drawing was so of its time. Of course it was completely mad and reality intervened. But whenever I see picture of the Republic F105 Thunderchief in 60s metal or Vietnam colours I imagine this AVS as the F15 Thunderstrike. Happy days!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dynoman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
678
Two view with mockup of AVS.
 

Attachments

  • AVS.jpg
    AVS.jpg
    67.2 KB · Views: 817

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
29,112
Reaction score
7,036
Artist drawings.
 

Attachments

  • b.png
    b.png
    392.5 KB · Views: 466
  • a.png
    a.png
    354.7 KB · Views: 497

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
29,112
Reaction score
7,036
Hi,

Aviation Week 19 June 1967
 

Attachments

  • EWR-AVS-1967.jpg
    EWR-AVS-1967.jpg
    636.5 KB · Views: 18
  • EWR-AVS-1967b.jpg
    EWR-AVS-1967b.jpg
    343.4 KB · Views: 18
Last edited by a moderator:

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
14,409
Reaction score
10,613
Major features of the winning Republic Aviation design proposal for possible development of a V/STOL strike fighter are shown in model above. The design calls for a variable sweep wing and two podded, fuselage-housed lift engines on either side that swing out into the operating position during the vertical flight regimes. The lift engines. designated XV99-RA-1, are being developed jointly by the Allison Div. of General Motors Corp. and Britain's Rolls-Royce. Retractable panels for the proposed auxiliary inlets for the main cruise engine are located at the top and near the rear of the fuselage. Republic was selected as the American contractor to participate with Entwicklungsring-Sud, the West German participant. Initial versions of the lift engine would have a thrust-to-weight ratio of at least 18:1. Competition for the cruise engine is still under way, with both General Electric and Pratt & Whitney holding study contracts. Both U.S. and West German proponents of the V/STOL fighter project are seeking funds to build 12 prototypes for field evaluations.

Problems Cloud Future of V/STOL Fighter
By Cecil Brownlow


Washington—Future of the proposed U.S.-West German V/STOL tactical fighter is clouded by a myriad of political, military and financial questions, including top level
squabbles within the Pentagon. So far as an operational aircraft bearing U.S. markings is concerned, the project will have to do battle for the defense dollar with a number of other pet service projects, including the Air Force’s Mach 2.8 FX and the Navy’s VFAX advanced interceptor proposals. Defense Dept. and industry officials generally agree that, at the most, only one of these aircraft will be given the green light to go into production.

The U. S. and West German V/STOL aircraft, known popularly as the U.S.-F.R.G. (Federal Republic of Germany) fighter, also recently has run afoul of intradepartmental politics inside the Pentagon, finding itself competing against a visionary concept dubbed the “international fighter” (AW&ST Mar. 13, p. 16). The “international fighter” is the brain child of the Defense Dept.’s Office of International Security Affairs (I.S.A.), which has Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara’s mandate to promote and sell U. S. military hardware on the export market as one means of easing this country‘s balance-of-payments problem.

As envisioned by its I.S.A. backers, the “international fighter" would be a multimission aircraft developed on a multi-lateral basis and capable of replacing the FX, VFAX, the U.S.-F.R.G. V/STOL aircraft and the planned Anglo-French variable-geometry fighter. The U. S. would profit, its proponents contend, by producing and selling major components and sub-components to the other nations participating in the “international fighter” program - hopefully Great Britain, France and West Germany. Backers of the project also realize that it is doomed if the U.S.-F.R.G. fighter receives a production go-ahead, and at least some of them have begun a sniping campaign within the halls and conference rooms of the Pentagon in an effort to block it. This is being countered by supporters of the V/STOL aircraft in the Air Force and the Directorate of Defense Research and Engineering, where it has strong support in some quarters.

While the “international fighter“ plan reportedly has received some encouragement from McNamara. it probably is doomed in any event. Neither the British nor the French have displayed any great enthusiasm over the project because of the future production requirements of their own aerospace industries. The thought of design teams from four countries sitting down to draft and agree upon the criteria for a single aircraft to satisfy the requirements and concepts of all also is painful to technicians on both sides of the Atlantic who have attempted to participate in such programs in the past. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization in its heyday promoted a number of similar projects.
None were spectacularly successful, either financially or from a design point of view, and most broke down completely along nationalistic lines during the early stages of design debate.

To further complicate the probable futures of the U.S.-F.R.G. V/STOL aircraft and the “international fighter.” the British are urging the West Germans to abandon thoughts of both and join with the United Kingdom and France in the development and production of the proposed Anglo-French Variable-Geometry fighter. With the infusion of West German technical talent and financial backing, the British argue, the variable geometry fighter would be a strong contender on the export market against any probable U.S. entrants in the same category.

British Proposal

Backers of the U.S.-F.R.G. proposal here contend that the acceptance of the British proposal by West Germany would be a technical. and probably a financial, reversal for that country. The Anglo-French design, they say, is based largely on 1960 technology similar to that employed in the USAF/General Dynamics F-111A variable-geometry
fighter now nearing the operational stage and will be obsolete well before the end of its service life. The V/STOL aircraft, they contend, is being designed around 1966-67 technology, has a built-in growth potential and, if finally approved and adopted, will be capable of holding its own in the inventory of a first-line air force for 20 years at least.

As currently envisioned, the variable geometry U. S.-West German V/STOL would be a two-man tandem aircraft with a maximum gross weight of 40,000-45,000lb, placing it in the medium-weight fighter class. It would be able to attain near-supersonic speeds in the so-called “low-low-level" flight regime and have a built-in capability for self defense. In the self-defense mode, the aircraft should be more than a match for any of the current series of Soviet interceptors at altitudes below 20,000 ft. Above that level, however, it would be at a distinct disadvantage. since its present design stresses the attack role. Under USAF planning, the second crewman would be a rated pilot with additional training as a bombardier-navigator.

Informal studies are being made on possibilities of the conversion of the basic aircraft design into an interceptor to fill the mission as an “interim" FX fighter, including the use of higher thrust cruise engines with better powerplant maneuverability. Advocates of this approach contend that the aircraft could be employed to fill the gap until
a truly-advanced interceptor could be designed and produced. So far as the present FX concept is concerned, one veteran designer says. “it’s ridiculous to build an aluminum [Mach] 2.8 interceptor that won‘t even be able to overtake an advanced SST [supersonic transport]. It should be a titanium design and able to do better than Mach 3."

For the moment. however. the primary push within the U.S.-F.R.G. program is directed toward the design of a competent V/STOL strike fighter. Planned lift engine, should the aircraft reach maturity in either the prototype or production form. will be the result of a joint development effort currently under way under terms of a government- to-government agreement by the Allison Div. of General Motors Corp. and Rolls-Royce. Inc. The British firm is the definite technological leader in the project, based upon its past design and production experience in this field. Designation of the lift engine is the XV99-RA-1. The podded, retractable, swing-out lift engines probably will be located along either side of the fuselage beneath the variable-sweep wings. Present thinking calls for two engines on either side. The initial versions of the lift engine are scheduled to have a thrust-to-weight ratio of between 18—20:1, with a growth potential of 22—24:1. Both General Electric and Pratt & Whitney have contracts to investigate possible cruise-engine configurations for the aircraft.

Engines Retract

The lift engines. which would be retracted into the body of the fuselage when not in use, also could be vectored and modulated to permit STOL-type operations, with overload payload takeoffs possible from runways with lengths of 2,000 ft. or less. “This could be a tremendous airplane with an overload.” says one USAF officer working on the project. “In the STOL mode. it could be a big truck. We're still conducting studies to see just how good it could be, but it looks as though it will be better [so far as its overload capability is concerned] than any of the conventional aircraft we’ve had experience with." As for its ability to use runways of 2,000 ft. or less in the STOL mode, he adds that there are “many, many strips of that length throughout the world. You could take it almost anywhere, and, if you got in a corner, you could always use ‘V.'"

The next hurdle for the U.S.-ERG. program is to win approval from the two countries to go into the prototype construction stage. Its backers would like to see a total of 12 prototypes built on a joint basis to permit an extensive and prolonged series of field evaluation trials. It appears doubtful, however, that the Defense Dept. will agree to such a quantity, even if it should approve a move into the prototype stage when the current contract definition phase comes to an end late this fall.

The two contractors engaged in the contract definition phase are the Republic Aviation Div. of Fairchild Hiller Corp. and West Germany’s Entwicklungsring-Sud industry consortium. The two firms. selected from four US. and two German contractors that had competed in the earlier design phase, have established a joint management company to supervise the program, EWRFairchild International.

Cost Sharing

With the US. and West Germany sharing the costs on a 50-50 basis, the contract definition studies are being conducted by the two companies in Munich. and approximately 80 Republic engineers. programmers and management experts have been dispatched there to aid in the work. The joint military systems project office has been established at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. About 20 German technicians have been assigned there on a temporary basis to assist in this portion of the project. In addition to these formal channels, the engine and airframe contractors are working closely together to assure that compatibility is maintained in these areas. USAF officials say Republic and
Entwicklungsring-Sud were selected primarily because of the similarity of their original designs. The West German firm's proposal called for a somewhat smaller
airframe, but both companies envisioned the use of swing-out lift engines and a variable-sweep wing. Major difference between the two was in the positioning of the engine inlets. Republic's design placed the main inlets on either side of the fuselage beneath the wing. Entwicklungsring - Sud‘s proposal called for them to be located on the top of the fuselage.

lnlet Problems

In view of the inlet problems encountered in the U. S. with several recent-model aircraft, including the F-111 and the Ling-Temco-Vought A-7A attack aircraft, the decision as to just where the inlets should be placed probably represents the major task confronting the team working on the contract definition phase. according to officials
here. “We’ve done a thorough analysis on the compatibility of the airframe and propulsion systems." says one. "We want to know exactly where the inlets should be before we make a decision, and we’re working hard on this problem to try and be sure that were right.” The contract definition phase studies, when completed, also will include recommendations as to how the production effort of any prototypes should be divided between the two countries and where the formal flight testing should be conducted. Final assembly probably would be carried out in each country. Flight testing also probably would be conducted in each. but it is expected that any high-speed evaluation trials would he held in the U. S. because of the lack of real estate for such purposes in West Germany.

Under present planning, the bilateral aspects of the agreement would come to an end at the conclusion of the prototype phase. Production of operational models of the aircraft by either country would be conducted on a unilateral basis—and this is one area in which the supporters of the “international fighter" cite the superiority of their plan.

The decision as to whether to take the step into the prototype phase is expected to be made by the end of the year. There are no available funds for this in the Defense Dept.’s Fiscal 1968 budget requests, but little, if any, money would be required before Fiscal I969.

Side view of the two-place Republic V/STOL fighter design shows the proposed position for the main cruise engine on the side of the fuselage beneath the variable-sweep wing in model above. Closed panels for the lift engine and swing-out arm can be seen farther forward. German industry participant in the program, Entwicklungsring-Sud, proposed that the main inlets be located on top of the fuselage. Final inlet positioning currently is under study in both U.S. and West Germany.

Aviation Week & Space Technology May 29 1967
 

Attachments

  • RepublicUSFRG.jpg
    RepublicUSFRG.jpg
    284.1 KB · Views: 160
  • RepublicUSFRG2.jpg
    RepublicUSFRG2.jpg
    201.6 KB · Views: 186

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
14,409
Reaction score
10,613
January 1968 artwork showing late revision design.
 

Attachments

  • US_FRGAd.JPG
    US_FRGAd.JPG
    142 KB · Views: 165

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
14,409
Reaction score
10,613
So, no Boeing-EWR 360 drawing still. However, there are some nice drawings of various EWR VJ-101 studies more-or-less forming the pre-history of this design and the relation of the US/FRG to VJ-101.

Source: http://www.klassiker-der-luftfahrt.de/geschichte/flugzeuge/ewr-vj-101-alle-varianten-teil-1/523608

The not-seen 'VJ-101E' seems likely to be the same design as the Boeing-EWR 360. '360' is clearly the EWR type number. Its possible the A400 falls into this sequence too.

Proceeding to the Republic/EWR design, the information presented in Aviation Week says that 4 US companies presented studies for US_FRG along with EWR, and Republic's design was selected partly for its similarity to the EWR proposal, differing mainly in engine intake location with the EWR design using dorsal intakes and the Republic design using intakes on the fuselage sides. It also shows photos of the side intake version captioned specifically as "Republic" not Republic/EWR while the separate dorsal intakes version is captioned specifically as EWR.

I believe based on AWST information that the dorsal intake design with separate intakes is the EWR proposal and the side intake design the Republic proposal, leading to the later joint A400 design. The single dorsal intake design has been stated as an earlier revision to the separate intakes one, so perhaps thats an earlier EWR design?

Thoughts?
 

Attachments

  • VJ-101_Timeline2.jpg
    VJ-101_Timeline2.jpg
    38.7 KB · Views: 107
  • VJ-101_Timeline1.jpg
    VJ-101_Timeline1.jpg
    42.5 KB · Views: 99
  • VJ-101 Evolution.jpg
    VJ-101 Evolution.jpg
    58.4 KB · Views: 321
  • EWR Type 310-3.jpg
    EWR Type 310-3.jpg
    81.7 KB · Views: 333
  • EWR Type 310-2.jpg
    EWR Type 310-2.jpg
    39.9 KB · Views: 324
  • EWR Type 310-1.jpg
    EWR Type 310-1.jpg
    39.5 KB · Views: 323
  • EWR Type 303.jpg
    EWR Type 303.jpg
    35.1 KB · Views: 364
Last edited:

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
14,409
Reaction score
10,613
Here's a possible family tree:
 

Attachments

  • AVSPossibleFamilyTree.jpg
    AVSPossibleFamilyTree.jpg
    197.3 KB · Views: 245

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
14,409
Reaction score
10,613
Aviation Week & Space Technology September 18 1967
 

Attachments

  • LaterAVS.jpg
    LaterAVS.jpg
    238.7 KB · Views: 371

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
14,409
Reaction score
10,613
Meanwhile Flight has a reference to the Republic/EWR A400 (prior to Germany going it alone).
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
14,409
Reaction score
10,613
So - 4 US contenders were selected from 9 bids for US/FRG in August 1965 as follows:
  • Boeing
  • McDonnell
  • Lockheed & Bell (team)
  • Republic

2 German bids were selected from
  • VFW
  • EWR

By September 1966, EWR had won the German competition.
By December 1966, Republic had won the US competition.

Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology August 23 1965, September 6 1965, September 12 1966, December 5 1966
 
Last edited:

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
14,409
Reaction score
10,613
Initial Boeing/EWR 360 (VJ-101E) studies date back to 1964, before the US/German Summit where the US/FRG idea was hatched (by politicians).
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,078
Reaction score
4,570
What were EK-1,EK-11,EK-18,EK-18/29 and EK-type421?
 

Attachments

  • 2016-02-16_1505.jpg
    2016-02-16_1505.jpg
    352 KB · Views: 408

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
14,409
Reaction score
10,613
The EWR EK 421 (VAK 191C) was EWR's proposal to the G.91 replacement requirement (NATO Basic Military Requirements (NBMR) 3b)

Other designs were:
Hawker Siddeley P.1127 (VAK 191A)
Focke-Wulf FW1262 (VAK 191B)
the Fiat G.95 / 4 (VAK 191D)

The Focke-Wulf (later, VFW) FW1262 (VAK 191B) was selected as the winner.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,078
Reaction score
4,570
Thanks a lot. Very very complicated program. ???
Is it a VAK191A?
 

Attachments

  • HAWKER SIDDELEY P1170 VAK191A.jpg
    HAWKER SIDDELEY P1170 VAK191A.jpg
    11.1 KB · Views: 437

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
14,409
Reaction score
10,613
Nice Barry!

EWR was a 3 way collaboration between Heinkel, Messerschmitt and Bolkow. Heinkel left, leaving just Messerschmitt and Bolkow. The design might be a wind tunnel model of an early stage of the Boeing/EWR 360. Fun fact: Boeing bought a minority stake in Bolkow on January 1, 1965.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
14,409
Reaction score
10,613
And the twisted UK/FRG VTOL timeline turns again:

"GE are offering GE1/J1 lift/cruise and lift engines for the Boeing-South Group variable geometry follow-on for the VJ101E, otherwise VAK. 191C or EWR type 360"
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
14,409
Reaction score
10,613
A400

Source: Fana de L'Aviation September 2009 (Part 2 of VJ-101 article from previous month)
 

Attachments

  • A400-2.JPG
    A400-2.JPG
    89 KB · Views: 313

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
14,409
Reaction score
10,613
Revisiting an old post - these two NASA reports can now be identified as reusing the Republic US/FRG wind tunnel model (side-intake version).

Sources:

Carter, Aerodynamic characteristics of a six-jet V/STOL configuration with four swing-out lift jets in the transition speed range
NASA-TM-X-2060


Carter, Effects of ground proximity on the aerodynamic characteristics of a six-jet V/STOL configuration with four swing-out lift jets
NASA-TM-X-2212
 

Attachments

  • RepublicAVS-3.png
    RepublicAVS-3.png
    140.5 KB · Views: 1,336
  • RepublicAVS-1.png
    RepublicAVS-1.png
    77.7 KB · Views: 1,462
  • RepublicAVS-2.png
    RepublicAVS-2.png
    230.8 KB · Views: 1,396
  • RepublicAVS-4.png
    RepublicAVS-4.png
    187 KB · Views: 1,342
Last edited:

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
14,409
Reaction score
10,613
Source:

 

Attachments

  • A400-AVS.jpg
    A400-AVS.jpg
    278.3 KB · Views: 1,284
Last edited:

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
29,112
Reaction score
7,036
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Source:


Nice find my dear Paul.
 

Jemiba

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,421
Reaction score
1,887
Hope, I didn't posted it before: Two variants of the early Republic/EWR designs,
mainly based on the pictures posted here
 

Attachments

  • Republic_EWR-AVS_01.gif
    Republic_EWR-AVS_01.gif
    152.1 KB · Views: 433
  • Republic_EWR-AVS_02.gif
    Republic_EWR-AVS_02.gif
    190.8 KB · Views: 473
Last edited by a moderator:

circle-5

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,158
Reaction score
295
Splendid work, Jens -- as always! If you need specific dimensions or photos, I have three different manufacturer models from the AVS program.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
14,409
Reaction score
10,613
Great drawings. I don't suppose you could forward me in the original vector format, Jens?
 

Similar threads

Top