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

Lockheed ASTOVL, JAST, JSF projects

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,774
Reaction score
232
Definitely. That was an excellent article. It really got rid of a lot of speculation.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,125
Reaction score
3,027
Nice drawing my dear Rolf.
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
125
LowObservable said:
This is my understanding:

The LockMart design went from canard to quad-tail shortly before the CDA RFP deadline (which was in 1996). The main reason was that the carrier version was going to need a larger wing than the span-restricted (LH-class parking) CV/STOVL aircraft, and larger control surfaces. Scaling up a delta wing, while keeping its sweep angles constant (LO constraint) is difficult configuration-wise because the increase in root chord - in feet and inches - gets very large... so where do you put the (also larger) canard? A wing with less sweep and taper, and an aft tail likewise, made it easier to accommodate two wing designs on the same body shape.

The LSPM (large scale powered model) in the Google Earth photos was built as a canard, but I suspect that they modded it to get some idea of the difference in suck-down effects.

I attended a speech/dinner of the America Helicopter Society the other day. The keynote speaker was from ADP and participated in the early CALF/JAST/ASTOVL/JSF studies. He mentioned that besides carrier suitability, one driving consideration for switching to a conventional configuration from the original canard was a question of weapons bay placement. He mentioned that the bays ended up "too far aft" (i'm assuming because they have to straddle the cg; this could have all sorts of implications in aerodynamics and structures but he did not elaborate). The other reason, which i would have never anticipated, was that the canards could, under some conditions, mask the field of view of air launched weapons.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,949
Reaction score
648

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,125
Reaction score
3,027
Amazing find my dear Rolf.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,125
Reaction score
3,027
The Lockheed STOVL; Luftwaffen-Forum 1988-03
 

Attachments

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,713
Reaction score
1,268
Bringing this thread back. M. Bevilaqua LinkedIn prfile says that he worked at Rockwell between 1975 and 1985
he was Manager of Advanced Programs at Rockwell International’s Navy aircraft plant, where he led the design of VSTOL interceptor
I have a suspicion he worked on the ill-fated XFV-12 thrust augmented fighter. Which was an utter failure. This probably helped when he "invented" the F-35 lift fan 15 years later.

I've found this paper on NTRS. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19770052116

Ok, looks like Flateric ninja'd me long ago. This forum is so good.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,119
Reaction score
1,181
Archibald said:
This probably helped when he "invented" the F-35 lift fan 15 years later.
Given that he got the patent for it, why would you imply he didn't?

https://www.google.com/patents/US5209428
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
125
Bevilaqua most definitely worked at Rockwell doing augmentors. There are AIAA papers of his on the topic.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,125
Reaction score
3,027
Hi,

http://archive.aviationweek.com/search?exactphrase=true&QueryTerm=northrop+V%2FSTOL&start=120&rows=20&DocType=Article&Sort=&SortOrder=&startdate=1916-08-01&enddate=2018-11-12&LastViewIssueKey=&LastViewPage=
 

Attachments

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,395
Reaction score
1,620
Ghostrider. Unfortunately, in what can only be called an act of pure stupidity, practically all of the technical data from this design is reported to have been later deliberately destroyed.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
672
Reaction score
32
Since the fighter was limited in overall length due to the requirement to fit in LHAs and LHDs would the canard-delta layout have provided superior performance compared to the "conventional" layout eventually adopted?
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
672
Reaction score
32
Is there any more detailed information on the development of the design between Configuration 141B (which included the three-bearing swivel nozzle) and the final configuration selected for the X-35 prototypes?

I'm uncertain of the source of this image but it's all I seem to be able to find on the matter.
C160-230.jpg

What I find interesting is the single vertical tail utilized for a period of time which to the best of my knowledge is a cardinal sin if you are hoping to achieve a VLO radar signature.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,395
Reaction score
1,620
What I find interesting is the single vertical tail utilized for a period of time which to the best of my knowledge is a cardinal sin if you are hoping to achieve a VLO radar signature.
It primarily was supposed to be a cost reduction measure if I'm not mistaken, with a bit of engineering simplification as a secondary objective I think. The old 'pennywise, pound foolish approach' in other words.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,949
Reaction score
648

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,305
Reaction score
527
Lockheed Martin - The Hat Trick History: Mission X
On July 20, 2001, Lockheed Martin, U.S. military officials and the aerospace community focused their attention on a single X-35, the concept demonstrator aircraft that would later be known as the F-35, stationed in Edwards Air Force Base, California, as it embarked on a journey to pass one of the most significant flight tests in aviation history – Mission X.
Video:
Code:
https://youtu.be/JlyUUIQxtyA
 
Top