Douglas F6D Missileer & Competitors

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
0
Fleet Air Defence Aircraft (FAD)

Although this once banished to history project, has continued to resurrect itself from time to time, I thought I would flog this horse one more time. With the hope that I can get the information I so desperately sorted for many years.

The 1957 US Navy submitted a Request for Proposal (RfP) for a Fleet Air Defence (FAD) aircraft.

Although Douglas would be winner of the Request for Proposal with its F6D-1 Missileer, what of the other five aerospace / aviation companies submitted designs?
Does anyone know of these other designs?
Who they were they submitted by?
Do you have any artwork, drawings and specifications for these other five submissions??.

Does anyone have a 3-view drawing of the Douglas F6D-1 Missileer?
I have been looking for a 3-view drawing of the Douglas F6D-1 Missileer for years.
The only picture I have and have ever been able to find of the F6D-1 is a very boring one, that everyone uses (as per attachment)

Regards
Pioneer
 

Attachments

TinWing

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
888
Reaction score
0
Pioneer said:
Does anyone have a 3-view drawing of the Douglas F6D-1 Missileer?
Here is a (supposedly) Douglas sourced drawing.
 

Attachments

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,183
Reaction score
0
Website
www.up-ship.com
Pioneer said:
Although Douglas would be winner of the Request for Proposal with its F6D-1 Missileer, what of the other five aerospace / aviation companies submitted designs?
Boeing studied the hell out of the idea. The designs they came up with ranged from the mind-snappingly-dull to the "what-the-hell-were-they-thinking."
 

Attachments

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
0
Thanks Guys

These are great

But as you said Orionblamblam 'what was Boeing thinking'?

Keep them coming!

Regards
Pioneer
 

Sentinel Chicken

American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
576
Reaction score
0
Website
www.tailsthroughtime.com
I think it's a pretty safe bet we all know which of those Boeing designs fall under the "what-the-hell-were-they-thinking" category.......
 

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
0
To the best of my knowledge, Grumman looked at three basic design approaches for this one.

1) Supersonic - Basically a variation on their XF12F proposal
2) High-Subsonic - Using the basic Intruder airframe as a starting point.
3) Low-Subsonic - Using a derivative of the S2F or W2F airframe.

I don't currently have any drawings of these.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
0
Hay Orionblamblam

The 3-view drawing of the Boeing Model 835-6 looks as if it has the designs specifications / technical data, to the right of the drawing. Are you able to please post a copy of those on this forum, as I would like to see the designs specs when compared to the Douglas F6D-1's

Regards
Pioneer
 

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
0
Sentinel Chicken said:
I think it's a pretty safe bet we all know which of those Boeing designs fall under the "what-the-hell-were-they-thinking" category.......
Actually, I'd be tempted to call it "What were they smoking?", 'cept the funny stuff wasn't that available back then, as far as I know.
 

frank

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
618
Reaction score
0
I think Lockheed offered a version of the Neptune.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,680
Reaction score
0
Another F6D-1 3-view from Steve Ginter's Naval Fighters series No.4 'F3D Skyknight'
 

Attachments

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,471
Reaction score
0
Greetings All -

I've seen but do not have archived images and drawings of the Douglas F6D Missileer. I do have drawings for Vought's proposal which I've attached below. Who else had proposals? Seeing as the hardware from this program evolved into the F-14, there's some importance to the program though I doubt anyone at the time could have imagined the end result being the F-14!

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
0
Reminds me of my thought that a variant of the two-seat A-10, with a large AAW radar in place of the GAU-8, would make a good stand-off interceptor missile platform.
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,471
Reaction score
0
Thanks Overscan - missed that in my search.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

TinWing

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
888
Reaction score
0
Mark Nankivil said:
Greetings All -

I've seen but do not have archived images and drawings of the Douglas F6D Missileer. I do have drawings for Vought's proposal which I've attached below. Who else had proposals? Seeing as the hardware from this program evolved into the F-14, there's some importance to the program though I doubt anyone at the time could have imagined the end result being the F-14!

Enjoy the Day! Mark
Thanks for an incredible contribution.

I can only assume that the aft podded turbofans are TF-30s, but this very flexible configuration would have lended itself to true high bypass turbofans, such as the later TF-34 that powered the eventual S-3 Viking.

From the standpoint of the late 1950s, the Missileer concept didn't seem quite so radical. Keep in mind that the "night fighter" concept was still entirely current. Only a few years before the low performance Douglas Skynight had be entirely successful against the MiG-15 over the skies of Korea!

Concentrating on avionics development while taking advantage of the loiter time afforded by the newly developed turbofan actually made quite a bit of sense. The airframe itself was a risk free proposition - in contrast to the very high risk, and expensive avionics suite.

It is fair to say that the final F-14 benefited from the fact that its radar and long range missiles had started development in the late 1950s. Similarly, the F-14's variable geometry airframe benefited from all of the lessons learned from the failed F-111B. The F-14 was beneficiary of previous cancellations, which seems like a very odd thing indeed - until you realize that the cancellations in question had never been as absolute or destructive as the cancellation that had occured in the United Kingdom in the same era. The Pentagon killed Missileer and F-111B for good and sufficient reasons, not for misguided notions of economy.
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,471
Reaction score
0
Was the P&W TF30 first proposed for the F6D Program? Seeing as it did not appear until the F-111, it seems a wee bit early to me though a quick google says otherwise. Just wondering....


Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,245
Reaction score
0
Yep, the TF30 did originate with the F6D and, if you look at the specs, it's obviously intended as a subsonic engine with a higher bypass ratio than most first generation supersonci turbofans (heck, the JT8D/RM8 has a lower, and more suitable for afterburning, bypass ratio, at least in the early JT8D variants). Almost certainly there was component development work going on between the end of the F6D and the start of the TFX, but the bypass ratio didn't change and, IMHO, probably should have.
 
Top