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

General Dynamics Convair Models 200, 201 and 218 Sea Control Ship fighters

circle-5

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
92
The original painting of that illustration was discovered a few years ago, forgotten and unwanted in a San Diego art store. It's a nice scene with a CL-84 on deck (Canadair was owned by General Dynamics at the time, so it made sense to push another GD VTOL product in the background). I can't clearly make out the name of the artist, unfortunately.

It's interesting to see how Convair solved the hot gas recirculation issue by having their Model 200 land on a perforated platform. Simple, cheap and effective – ideal for a Sea Control Ship.
 

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,612
Reaction score
702
That's enough to make you cry. :'( I would hope it's now hanging on your wall?
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,337
Reaction score
228
It's really sad the NAVY not took the Convair Model 200 and end up with the Rockwell XFV-12 fiasco.

I wonder, What if: USAF and NAVY took Model 200 as F-16 and FV-12 ?
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,171
Reaction score
39
An interesting distinction between the RB.153, RD-41 and F135 is that the first two used A/B in the hover. Also, by the looks of things, the RB.153 design put the burner in the final stage of the nozzle (hence its German name). How was that done on the Model 200 and the Yak-141?

As for the CL-84 in the background - GD owned Canadair until 1976.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
25,257
Reaction score
2,116
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
From Congress Advanced Aeronautical Concepts hearings July 1974
Nice find my dear Paul.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
651
Reaction score
21
Assuming the Navy didn't pick the Rockwell XFV-12 because they expected it to fail, what advantages did it supposedly offer over the Convair design?
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,826
Reaction score
1,682
It wouldn't melt the carrier's deck when taking off (slower, colder efflux).
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,261
Reaction score
194
If I may....
I have a question having read through this.
How much more fuel would the VTOL version have?
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,724
Reaction score
101
zen said:
If I may....
I have a question having read through this.
How much more fuel would the VTOL version have?
Readying your question Zen, I would think the "VTOL version" would have less fuel than the CTOL variant, due to the two lift engines, due to the volume they occupy and their weight.


Regards
Pioneer
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,261
Reaction score
194
That's weird, I'm sure I typed CTOL.....?
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,570
Reaction score
282
No worries Zen, C & V are within fat fingers range on my keyboard! Mark
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,261
Reaction score
194
Mark Nankivil said:
No worries Zen, C & V are within fat fingers range on my keyboard! Mark
Thanks it's a million times worse on a touchscreen!
And the really weird bit is I had to retype that to force the autocorrect to not turn it to VTOL.
Yet there it is....?

Anyway reading through it seems a little over 5,000lb of fuel for VTOL. But no mention of how much is gained in the switch to CTOL, but it's a fairly big tank they replace the lift jets with.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,826
Reaction score
1,682
You could make a first order assumption if you knew the length and diameter of the XJ99 liftjet.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,261
Reaction score
194
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
You could make a first order assumption if you knew the length and diameter of the XJ99 liftjet.
I might have that too.
Good idea!
:)
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,724
Reaction score
101
Mark Nankivil said:
No worries Zen, C & V are within fat fingers range on my keyboard! Mark
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,724
Reaction score
101
zen said:
That's weird, I'm sure I typed CTOL.....?
No worries zen, all good

Regards
Pioneer
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,612
Reaction score
702
One thing I don't think I've ever seen discussed would have been it's performance. Any ideas? :confused:
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,612
Reaction score
702
One thing I don't think I've ever seen discussed would have been it's performance. Any ideas? :confused:
See this post on the first page of this thread.
I was hoping for something more thorough than, "Mach 2 class". I think we'd both agree that an F-22 performs differently than an F-104 but both are, "Mach 2 class".
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,696
Reaction score
143
I was hoping for something more thorough than, "Mach 2 class". I think we'd both agree that an F-22 performs differently than an F-104 but both are, "Mach 2 class".
IIRC, that Canard Delta Fighter that GD looked at for comparison to the YF-16 when it was being developed was basically the same design. According to Paul's booklet on it, it's maneuverability at supersonic speeds was equivalent to the YF-16, but the YF-16 was superior at subsonic speed. I don't recall there being specific numbers, such as actual turn rates given, for comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,612
Reaction score
702
I was hoping for something more thorough than, "Mach 2 class". I think we'd both agree that an F-22 performs differently than an F-104 but both are, "Mach 2 class".
IIRC, that Canard Delta Fighter that GD looked at for comparison to the YF-16 when it was being developed was basically the same design. According to Paul's booklet on it, it's maneuverability at supersonic speeds was equivalent to the YF-16, but the YF-16 was superior at subsonic speed. I don't recall there being specific numbers, such as actual turn rates given, for comparison.
I wonder how it would compare to something like the Gripen, Lavi, or J-10.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,696
Reaction score
143
I wonder how it would compare to something like the Gripen, Lavi, or J-10.
I would expect it to be inferior, at least at subsonic speeds, as I think it was statically stable at subsonic speed. Whereas everything on that list is an unstable design at subsonic speed IIRC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,665
Reaction score
1,536
Lifting system is almost F-35B. These contributions are amazing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
238
Reaction score
101
Lifting system is almost F-35B. These contributions are amazing.
The lift system (vectored rear engine plus forward lift engines) is what the McDonnell Douglas/Northrop/BAe team adopted for their JSF proposal and that choice was supposedly largely responsible for their non-selection to the prototyping phase. The USMC, which had a long history with both firms (McD and BAe) on the Harrier, saw the configuration as a bet against the V/STOL version of the JSF (their baby) and something of a betrayal, took it personally and exercised a veto.
The lift jet approach produces an inferior V/STOL aircraft (dead weight to provide thrust that's unusable except during launch and recovery, extra fuel and control systems, additional supply chain and maintenance overhead) while being relatively easy to delete from the design if improving the CTOL and CV versions by throwing V/STOL capability over the side became necessary.
Once excluded from the JSF program, it was time for McDonnell Douglas to put the company on the block because there wasn't a whole lot of other business in prospect.
 
Last edited:
Top