• 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
121
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
13,272
Reaction score
1,297
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
4,561
Reaction score
572
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
2,194
Reaction score
104
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
26,332
Reaction score
3,231
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
680
Reaction score
35
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
12,283
Reaction score
2,990
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
1,936
Reaction score
645
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
1,814
Reaction score
182
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
1,936
Reaction score
645
That's weird, I'm sure I typed CTOL.....?
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,614
Reaction score
423
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
1,936
Reaction score
645
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
12,283
Reaction score
2,990
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
1,936
Reaction score
645
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
1,814
Reaction score
182
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
1,814
Reaction score
182
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
13,272
Reaction score
1,297
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
13,272
Reaction score
1,297
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
2,805
Reaction score
247
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
13,272
Reaction score
1,297
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
2,805
Reaction score
247
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

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
299
Reaction score
171
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:

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,283
Reaction score
2,990
His source was my post just above, and my source was the SDASM Flicker photostream:

 

nuuumannn

Cannae be ar*ed changing my personal text
Joined
Oct 22, 2011
Messages
190
Reaction score
330
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.
Agree. Also, pure VTOL operations severely limits load carrying capability and range, aside from the limitations of lugging jet lift engines around. From the outset, STOVL (a simple rearrangement of letters and deletion of a slash, of V/STOL?) has been the preferred method of operating vectored thrust/jet lift aircraft. The Yak-38 and Sea Harrier performed rolling take-offs from their respective platforms; the Yak-38 having jet lift engines, whereas the Sea Harrier did not, which made its load carrying capability far greater and the jet a more versatile platform. In fairness to the Yak-38, it was designed as an extension of a greater weapon system; the Kiev anti-submarine/anti-ship heavy cruiser, so there wasn't perhaps the necessity for a versatile platform like the Sea Harrier FRS.1. It went into service aboard its carrier before the Sea Harrier, too.

The Kiev in all its glory, today at Binhai, PRC as a museum ship. Rather optimistically, on the flight deck, a mock up Yak-38 has been joined by Nanchang Q5s.
 

Attachments

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,283
Reaction score
2,990
In my opinion Yak-38 was an attempt to make a VSTOL aircraft without designing a substantially new primary engine in the Pegasus class, and something to keep Yakovlev busy while they failed to win any real military work.
 

nuuumannn

Cannae be ar*ed changing my personal text
Joined
Oct 22, 2011
Messages
190
Reaction score
330
In my opinion Yak-38 was an attempt to make a VSTOL aircraft without designing a substantially new primary engine in the Pegasus class, and something to keep Yakovlev busy while they failed to win any real military work.
True to a degree, but Yakovlev registered his disappointment that he was not given approval to work on a four nozzle vectored thrust engine in the '10-tonne thrust class'. Yakovlev was told to design something simpler and less expensive, hence the common jet lift configuration of the Short SC.1, Dassault Balzac, VAK-191 and ultimately Yak-38. Its test bed predecessor the Yak-36 did not have jet lift engines though, it had two vectored thrust engines with one nozzle each.

As for work for Yak, hm, you can't really call the Yak-36/Yak-38 'not real military work' - the programme was quite substantial in terms of trials and testing and developing the technology into a workable system, aside from creating a viable military aircraft from a test bed design. Yak always understood that the Yak-36/38 was an interim until the Yak-41 could be funded - that the Yak-141 was not put into production was not necessarily the manufacturer's doing. Also, the numbers of Yak-28s in service throughout the 1970s and 80s kept the company busy - over 1,100 Yak-28s of all marks were produced and it remained in service from 1960 through to the fall of the Soviet Union.
 
Last edited:

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
299
Reaction score
171
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?
It wouldn't melt the carrier's deck when taking off (slower, colder efflux).
I believe that the XFV-12 was expected to be more efficient due to the anticipated eductor effect in its VTOL system. The air bleed/exhaust from the engine was expected to entrain surrounding air, increasing mass flow and lift, reducing the required engine size. That, of course, would translate to lower cost for equivalent payload/range. As it turned out, the eductor effect, which had been demonstrated experimentally, didn't scale up and the XFV-12 couldn't generate enough lift to take off. This risk must have been understood at the time, since the aircraft was really more of a demonstrator (using big chunks of A-4 and F-4 airframes) than a prototype. The fuselage of a production version would have likely been entirely redesigned. I don't know that the Convair program was planned to go through a demonstrator phase. That would make sense since I don't think it relied on any unproven aerodynamics.
I remember following the XFV-12 program at the time in AW&ST and it just seemed to disappear without notice. I didn't read that the airplane had proven unable to take off until years later.
 
Last edited:
Top