• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

General Dynamics ATS, pre-ATF and ATF designs

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,086
Reaction score
983
General Dynamics 1986 Supportable Fighter study (Configuration 700)
 

Attachments

  • gd1986suppfighter1.jpg
    gd1986suppfighter1.jpg
    136.2 KB · Views: 1,921
  • gd1986suppfighter2.jpg
    gd1986suppfighter2.jpg
    120.1 KB · Views: 1,669

TinWing

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
887
Reaction score
56
flateric said:
General Dynamics 1986 Supportable Fighter study (Configuration 700)

I have seen a drawing of a proposed F-16 derivative with a similar trapezoidal wing planform - although it dates from 5 years later.

Flateric, is this the original size of the scan or did you downsize it for this forum? It would be interesting to see the data table, and few other details.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,086
Reaction score
983
I've changed atached image with higher-resolution version.

That 'Working height of 5 percentile woman' side cutaway remark looks pretty)))
 

TinWing

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
887
Reaction score
56
Flateric, do you have any weight numbers for this design? This thing is the size of a Rafale or Hornet, but it has the wing area of a F-15.

I would also have to wonder about the engine choice. Judging by the date of the project and the drawings, I would guess that the PW-1120 or the F-404 might have been baseline powerplants.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,086
Reaction score
983
It's generic 20 000 lb thrust ones.
 

Attachments

  • 1986.jpg
    1986.jpg
    126.1 KB · Views: 933

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,593
Reaction score
3,901
Dating from the late 1970s, in the earliest stages of what became ATF when the strike role was dominant. We've seen other ATS designs from e.g. Northrop but I don't recall seeing these posted.

Source:
Albert C. Piccirillo, Origins of the F-22 Raptor
 

Attachments

  • GD-ATS.jpg
    GD-ATS.jpg
    55.8 KB · Views: 2,112

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,180
Reaction score
205
overscan said:
Dating from the late 1970s, in the earliest stages of what became ATF when the strike role was dominant. We've seen other ATS designs from e.g. Northrop but I don't recall seeing these posted.

Source:
Albert C. Piccirillo, Origins of the F-22 Raptor


I see the GD "Model 100" was alive and well that far back.
 

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,848
Reaction score
292
I believe I've seen pics of the bottom design, a model of it, in an old issue of Combat Aircraft or Combat Arms, I think I have it somewhere. I'll see if I can dig it up, later in the year, when I've finished moving.
 

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,515
Reaction score
249
Albert C. Piccirillo, Origins of the F-22 Raptor

Do you recommend this book? I have no clear idea about the contents ???
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,180
Reaction score
205
pometablava said:
Albert C. Piccirillo, Origins of the F-22 Raptor

Do you recommend this book? I have no clear idea about the contents ???

You can preview some of it on Google Books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=uCI5KhlGM4kC&pg=PA118&dq=general+dynamics+atf&lr=#v=onepage&q=general%20dynamics%20atf&f=false
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,593
Reaction score
3,901
Its pretty authoritative as a history of the ATF program, which you would expect given the authors. Its not got many pictures and is a bit "dry" in tone, so its not a thrilling read.

This book traces the history of the ATF program and the evolution of the ATF requirements from the beginning of the program through the start of the engineering and manufacturing development.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
563
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Model of General Dynamics Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) design submission.

According to F-22 Raptor (Enthusiast Color Series) by Bill Sweetman, MBI Publishing Company, 1998:

Runner up to Lockheed and Northrop was General Dynamics, with a tailless delta design that reflected the success of the F-16XL. The dramatically serrated trailing edge has the same alignments as the leading edge of the wing. General Dynamics proposed to put two radar arrays in the leading-edge root extensions, above the inlets, and an infrared sensor in the nose. The single vertical tail, however, detracted from its all aspect stealth.
 

Attachments

  • GeneralDynamicsATFproposal.JPG
    GeneralDynamicsATFproposal.JPG
    18.5 KB · Views: 1,032

XP67_Moonbat

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,162
Reaction score
56
In my LEGALLY PURCHASED copy of "Warplanes Of The Future", it's stated that one of the ATF designs GD looked at was at a classification so high that USAF officials were not allowed to see it.

As a substitute, they showed drawings of a notional plane nicknamed "The Marshmallow".

I'll go out on a limb and assume that super-secret design was the Model 100 ("Sneaky Pete")? But has anybody ever seen the design for "Marshmallow"?
 

Matej

Multiuniversal creator
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
2,613
Reaction score
133
Website
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
XP67_Moonbat said:
And has anybody ever seen the design for "Marshmallow"?

yes

One of two early General Dynamics candidates for ATF was a descendent of Sneaky Pete. The company, however, was not allowed to show USAF officials actual drawings of this design because of its classification. The company substituted surrogate drawings of a notional fighter that USAF officials soon dubbed the marshmallow. The real design was the starting point for all-wing studies explored in the next phase of the program.
 

Attachments

  • ATF_Evol_part1_10_1267828237_4749.JPG
    ATF_Evol_part1_10_1267828237_4749.JPG
    75 KB · Views: 2,059

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,180
Reaction score
205
XP67_Moonbat said:
In my LEGALLY PURCHASED copy of "Warplanes Of The Future", it's stated that one of the ATF designs GD looked at was at a classification so high that USAF officials were not allowed to see it.

As a substitute, they showed drawings of a notional plane nicknamed "The Marshmallow".

I'll go out on a limb and assume that super-secret design was the Model 100 ("Sneaky Pete")? But has anybody ever seen the design for "Marshmallow"?

Not 100% true. ASD had run the Sneaky Pete effort with GD and it was considered sensitive. A hypothetical, representitive silhouette was used as a stand-in in some places to prevent revealing the shape. ASD had extensively studied and tested the shape and thus used it as a yardstick for other things. Sneaky Pete and the Marshmallow though didn't have anything in common.
I've been working on a more detailed history of Sneaky Pete but my occupation has been getting in the way. As far as I have been able to tell, Sneaky Pete was not revolutionary at all.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,087
Reaction score
3,766
Hi,

http://books.google.com.eg/books?id=fVQRmQo-bfUC&pg=PA85&dq=A/F-X+aircraft&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1979&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=2009&num=100&as_brr=3&cd=12#v=onepage&q=A%2FF-X%20aircraft&f=true
 

Attachments

  • GD ATF.JPG
    GD ATF.JPG
    34.1 KB · Views: 851

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
984
Reaction score
36
Ironic that while General Dynamics tried to get their design to able to fly and had to compromised themselves with a vertical tail that contributed to their downfall, Lockheed won with a unflyable design.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
563
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Model of General Dynamics ATF design submission.

Source: www.codeonemagazine.com
 

Attachments

  • ATF_Evol_part1_17_1267828237_2436.JPG
    ATF_Evol_part1_17_1267828237_2436.JPG
    76.4 KB · Views: 726

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,201
Reaction score
39
Yup. There's a picture of that one in the Aerofax F-22 book I think, that or Sweetman's Lockheed Stealth. The picture should've been captioned "DAMMIT. WE GIVE UP ALREADY." ;D
 

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,848
Reaction score
292
The twin tailed versions look awesome, but IIRC, they were the heaviest. Which would make sense, given how much the wing structure would have to be strengthened to support/transfer the loads.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
984
Reaction score
36
I remember there's another version with the twin tails closer to the centerline like the x-32?

EDIT: just checked. Yes, there was such configuration along with numerous others.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
984
Reaction score
36
from the new Code One magazine website:

The General Dynamics design for the dem/val phase evolved from a variety of inputs. During the previous program phase, the company had focused on three separate families of aircraft: conventional, all-wing, and semi-tailless (denoted in the configuration studies by C, W, and T, respectively). The conventional family derived from the Model 21 designs of the previous studies. The all-wing family strove to carry Sneaky Pete's minimum observables into the supersonic regime. The semi-tailless family, which had a single vertical tail, fell in between these two extremes. After a series of internal design competitions and trades, the company went with the semi-tailless approach.
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?item_id=38
 

Attachments

  • ATF_Evol_part1_11_1267828237_1659.jpg
    ATF_Evol_part1_11_1267828237_1659.jpg
    187.6 KB · Views: 981

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
984
Reaction score
36
So the picture of this model in the red circle that I asked of Overscan in another thread would belong to the family derived from Model 21, then.
 

Attachments

  • atf11.jpg
    atf11.jpg
    99.7 KB · Views: 496

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,848
Reaction score
292
I've seen conflicting reports here at Secret Projects about what "Sneaky Pete" was/is. I notice that they are officially regarding the flying design as "Sneaky Pete" in those images, so is it official now, or was there a competing design from another manufacturer?
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,180
Reaction score
205
Sundog said:
I've seen conflicting reports here at Secret Projects about what "Sneaky Pete" was/is. I notice that they are officially regarding the flying design as "Sneaky Pete" in those images, so is it official now, or was there a competing design from another manufacturer?

Sneaky Pete was the nickname of the GD Model 100. During the period that USAF Aeronautical Systems Division was managing the project (likely as a demonstrator, but not confirmed) it was under the name HAVE KEY. Sneaky Pete was an active project at GD from approximately 1976-1984. There was no direct connection to HAVE BLUE, etc. - GD was running it's own VLO effort for a long time with Model 100 as the output, and ASD showed interest in it.

There was no competition for Sneaky Pete, it started out life as a contractor effort and later gained support from ASD.
 

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,848
Reaction score
292
quellish said:
Sundog said:
I've seen conflicting reports here at Secret Projects about what "Sneaky Pete" was/is. I notice that they are officially regarding the flying design as "Sneaky Pete" in those images, so is it official now, or was there a competing design from another manufacturer?

Sneaky Pete was the nickname of the GD Model 100. During the period that USAF Aeronautical Systems Division was managing the project (likely as a demonstrator, but not confirmed) it was under the name HAVE KEY. Sneaky Pete was an active project at GD from approximately 1976-1984. There was no direct connection to HAVE BLUE, etc. - GD was running it's own VLO effort for a long time with Model 100 as the output, and ASD showed interest in it.

There was no competition for Sneaky Pete, it started out life as a contractor effort and later gained support from ASD.

OK, that's what I thought. I went back and did a search and realized that this isn't to be confused with "Sneeky Pete," which is where some of my confusion came from.

BTW, do we know if Sneaky Pete was actually built and flown? I've read reports as such, but I'm just wondering if it has ever been verified and I've also heard that Sneaky Pete and the Model 100 were two different aircraft.
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
469
Well, from what I gather, the General Dynamics Model 100 (or VX-11) was called the "Cold Pigeon", and was distinct from "Sneaky Pete". The latter is the one shown in camouflage in the diagram above; the Model 100 is attached here for comparison. Two easy ways to tell them apart: Pete's trailing edge is a straight line; the Model 100 shows two separate exhausts at the rear. It would seem that the Model 100 was meant as a sub-scale model, while Sneaky Pete, with its proper cockpit, could have been the manned article, if ever there was such a thing...
 

Attachments

  • General Dynamics stealth flying wing CSIRS - Cold Pigeon Model 100 VX-11.jpg
    General Dynamics stealth flying wing CSIRS - Cold Pigeon Model 100 VX-11.jpg
    13.5 KB · Views: 546

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,593
Reaction score
3,901
Cold Pigeon was the c.1976 early concept and 1/4 scale model (probably the model depicted above) which had evolved by August 1977 into "Sneaky Pete". AFAIK Model 100 applied to the whole program.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
692
Reaction score
39
donnage99 said:
Ironic that while General Dynamics tried to get their design to able to fly and had to compromised themselves with a vertical tail that contributed to their downfall, Lockheed won with a unflyable design.

Do you mean "unflyable" as in naturally unstable or as in it would have been impossible for Lockheed to actually make their chosen design fly?
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,201
Reaction score
39
Colonial-Marine said:
Do you mean "unflyable" as in naturally unstable or as in it would have been impossible for Lockheed to actually make their chosen design fly?

It was literally unflyable. The design had way too much pitch instability generated by the gigantic LERX that extended to the nose. Lockheed noticed that there was no way to counter it unless the tail surfaces pretty much grew past the size of the wings. Obviously this was not going to work, so in 87 or 88 they threw it out and came up with what turned into the YF-22. Which is funny, because of Lockheed's various ATF designs that led to the unflyable submission, one of them was pretty close to the eventual YF-22.
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,180
Reaction score
205
Sundog said:
BTW, do we know if Sneaky Pete was actually built and flown? I've read reports as such, but I'm just wondering if it has ever been verified and I've also heard that Sneaky Pete and the Model 100 were two different aircraft.

Because it has implications for the A-12 court cases, "hard" information on Sneaky Pete is going to take a while. GD was not able to use experience gained from SP/Model 100 on ATA/A-12 because of classification walls and turf battles, and that contributed to the A-12's escalating costs and delays. If details of the program came out it could really complicate the ongoing litigation, and open up a whole new can of worms. It's likely that GD's original cost estimates were based on knowledge gained from that program (SP).

Now, looking at SP with what we know today, the shape itself does not seem nearly as LO as HAVE BLUE or TACIT BLUE, so you have to wonder if there was more to it. Based on the documents in this thread (and many others), the feeling you may get is that GD felt that their VLO "special sauce" was entirely in that design/configuration rather than a process like those developed by Lockheed or Northrop that could be applied to different configurations and missions. GD took the subsonic SP and tried to hammer it into the shape of a supersonic fighter.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
984
Reaction score
36
quellish said:
Based on the documents in this thread (and many others), the feeling you may get is that GD felt that their VLO "special sauce" was entirely in that design/configuration rather than a process like those developed by Lockheed or Northrop that could be applied to different configurations and missions. GD took the subsonic SP and tried to hammer it into the shape of a supersonic fighter.
Very insightful take on it; I never thought of it that way. However, I would have to disagree on the suggestion that the cost estimate of A-12 had been based on knowledge gained from SP/100 which they couldn't used. The cost estimate would have to come from the team that was gonna build A-12, which did not have access to the experience and knowledge of the SP/100's team. Therefore, they couldn't possibly estimate the cost based on experience gained from SP/100.
 

Similar threads

Top