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

Lockheed & Grumman Multiple Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) studies (1986)

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,043
Reaction score
865
Found at NTRS

NASA CR 175096
Multiple-Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) Multiple Application Propfan Study (MAPS)
D.M. Winkeljohn, C.H. Mayrand
LOCKHEED-GEORGIA COMPANY
A Division of Lockheed Corporation
Marietta, Georgia

NASA CR-179452
MULTIPLE PURPOSE SUBSONIC NAVAL AIRCRAFT (MPSNA) MULTIPLE APPLICATION PROPFAN STUDY (MAPS)
by
N.F. Dannenhoffer, J.S. Herzberg, J.R. Kretzing,
J.R Landfleld, C.L. Mahoney, R.A. Mahoney, H.C. Potonides
GRUMMAN AEROSPACE CORPORATION

-------------------------------------------------------------
Lockheed propfan version studies shown in attachment
 

Attachments

  • MPSNA propfan category 1 baseline.jpg
    MPSNA propfan category 1 baseline.jpg
    365.5 KB · Views: 1,588
  • MPSNA propfan category 1 COD derivative.jpg
    MPSNA propfan category 1 COD derivative.jpg
    385.2 KB · Views: 1,412
  • MPSNA propfan category 2 baseline.jpg
    MPSNA propfan category 2 baseline.jpg
    366.3 KB · Views: 1,263
  • MPSNA propfan selected 2.jpg
    MPSNA propfan selected 2.jpg
    287.7 KB · Views: 1,235
  • MPSNA propfan AAEW.jpg
    MPSNA propfan AAEW.jpg
    293.7 KB · Views: 1,290
  • MPSNA 1.jpg
    MPSNA 1.jpg
    351.4 KB · Views: 460
  • MPSNA 2.jpg
    MPSNA 2.jpg
    90.6 KB · Views: 410

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,043
Reaction score
865
Re: Lockheed&Grumman Multiple Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) studies

Lockheed turbofan versions studies shown
 

Attachments

  • MPSNA turbofan selected 2.jpg
    MPSNA turbofan selected 2.jpg
    214.7 KB · Views: 347
  • MPSNA turbofan category 2 baseline.jpg
    MPSNA turbofan category 2 baseline.jpg
    300.2 KB · Views: 341
  • MPSNA turbofan category 1a.jpg
    MPSNA turbofan category 1a.jpg
    311.2 KB · Views: 378

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,043
Reaction score
865
Re: Lockheed&Grumman Multiple Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) studies

Lockheed STOVL versions shown
 

Attachments

  • MPSNA STOVL baseline.jpg
    MPSNA STOVL baseline.jpg
    341.2 KB · Views: 357
  • MPSNA STOVL folding.jpg
    MPSNA STOVL folding.jpg
    352.1 KB · Views: 343

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,043
Reaction score
865
Re: Lockheed&Grumman Multiple Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) studies

Grumman MR1 configuration
 

Attachments

  • MPSNA MR1 both-s.jpg
    MPSNA MR1 both-s.jpg
    279.5 KB · Views: 434
  • MPSNA MR1 inboard-s.jpg
    MPSNA MR1 inboard-s.jpg
    318.4 KB · Views: 445
  • MPSNA MR1 commonality.jpg
    MPSNA MR1 commonality.jpg
    515.6 KB · Views: 460
  • MPSNA MR1 crew station.jpg
    MPSNA MR1 crew station.jpg
    543.7 KB · Views: 441

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,043
Reaction score
865
Grumman MR1 propfan and turbofan configurations
 

Attachments

  • MPSNA MR1 turbofan-s.jpg
    MPSNA MR1 turbofan-s.jpg
    259 KB · Views: 329
  • MPSNA MR1 propfan-s.jpg
    MPSNA MR1 propfan-s.jpg
    285.5 KB · Views: 322

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,043
Reaction score
865
Grumman MR2 propfan and turbofan confoigurations
 

Attachments

  • MPSNA MR2 propfan general-s.jpg
    MPSNA MR2 propfan general-s.jpg
    268.6 KB · Views: 351
  • MPSNA MR2 propfan inboard-s.jpg
    MPSNA MR2 propfan inboard-s.jpg
    296.7 KB · Views: 330
  • MPSNA MR2 propfan-s.jpg
    MPSNA MR2 propfan-s.jpg
    259.9 KB · Views: 319
  • MPSNA MR2 turbofan-s.jpg
    MPSNA MR2 turbofan-s.jpg
    262 KB · Views: 360

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,043
Reaction score
865
Grumman VSTOL MPSNA configuration
 

Attachments

  • MPSNA VSTOL-s.jpg
    MPSNA VSTOL-s.jpg
    282.2 KB · Views: 391
  • MPSNA VSTOL general-s.jpg
    MPSNA VSTOL general-s.jpg
    301.4 KB · Views: 407

SteveO

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
404
Reaction score
47
Fascinating stuff flateric,

It would have been interesting to see something like these operating off carriers, maybe the Super Hornet wouldn't have needed to be a tanker. I wonder if the Army would have been interested in a land based version for their electronic warfare needs?

Any idea whose Common Support Aircraft concept this is?
 

Attachments

  • s-3-csa-001.jpg
    s-3-csa-001.jpg
    44.8 KB · Views: 693

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,384
Reaction score
532
The VSTOL MPSNA is an interesting design but I have to wonder at how much downwash/outwash those relatively small prop-rotors would have generated. Considering the V-22 creates hurricane force winds that are at the edge of acceptability for operations in and around the aircraft, this one would have been tough. Of course if it was only intended to operate from prepared surfaces that might not have been an issue.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,382
Reaction score
1,422
Another study.
 

Attachments

  • USN.jpg
    USN.jpg
    49.6 KB · Views: 427

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,355
Reaction score
3,377
That was used on a Flight International cover:
 

Attachments

  • Flight-Lockheed.jpg
    Flight-Lockheed.jpg
    105.4 KB · Views: 277

Stingray

Resident retro rainbow rotorhead nerdy girl, uwu
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
415
Reaction score
90
Website
sites.google.com
sferrin said:
Another study.

That picture is also seen on page 55 of a March 1989 copy of International Combat Arms magazine.
(Volume 7, Number 2) ;)
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,023
Reaction score
106
yasotay said:
The VSTOL MPSNA is an interesting design but I have to wonder at how much downwash/outwash those relatively small prop-rotors would have generated. Considering the V-22 creates hurricane force winds that are at the edge of acceptability for operations in and around the aircraft, this one would have been tough. Of course if it was only intended to operate from prepared surfaces that might not have been an issue.

I've been wondering about that. Do you think a Fairy Rotodyne like aircraft would have been a better idea than the V-22 because of downwash and noise considerations?
 

Mark Nankivil

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,629
Reaction score
509
Rotodyne was extremely loud due to the rotor tip jets. Having seen/heard a V-22 doing its thing, it is whisper quiet in comparison.

HTH! Mark
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,222
Reaction score
929
AFAIK, there were attempts to quiten the tipjets, but these didn't come to fruition,
at least not for the Rotodyne. But IF there would have been a series version, it would
have been considerably quiter, I think.
 

boxkite

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
847
Reaction score
146
"The one great criticism of the Rotodyne was the noise the tip jets made, however, the jets were only run at full power for a matter of minutes during departure and landing and indeed, the test pilot Ron Gelattly made two flights over central London, and several landings and departures at Battersea Heliport with no complaints being registered. There was also a noise-reduction program in process which had managed to get the noise level down to the desired level of 96 dB from 600 feet (180 m) away, less than the noise made by a London Underground train, and at the time of cancellation, silencers were in the pipeline which would have reduced the noise even further. In the end though it was funding and not noise that killed the Rotodyne."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Rotodyne

I'm not sure, but the pictures of silencers tested on the Rotodyne were published in Derek Wood's Project Cancelled.
 

Attachments

  • silencer.JPG
    silencer.JPG
    24 KB · Views: 824

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,382
Reaction score
1,422
Do you have a higher res version of that tip jet picture?
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,023
Reaction score
106
Mark Nankivil said:
Rotodyne was extremely loud due to the rotor tip jets. Having seen/heard a V-22 doing its thing, it is whisper quiet in comparison.

HTH! Mark

"Extremely loud"? 96 dB at 180 feet isn't that loud, really. I wonder, how loud is the V-22? How big is the downwash compared to the Rotodyne's?
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,222
Reaction score
929
96 dB at 180 feet was the noise level, that should be achieve with the silencers
and other measures. Before this, I think, it was a little bit louder ! ;)
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,023
Reaction score
106
Jemiba said:
96 dB at 180 feet was the noise level, that should be achieve with the silencers
and other measures. Before this, I think, it was a little bit louder ! ;)

True. However, we should be discussing where the development of the Rotodyne was going, rather than where it had been, if we're comparing it to the V-22.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,763
Reaction score
1,907
I think it was a McDonnell Douglas proposal from the mid-90's or earlier.

SteveO said:
Fascinating stuff flateric,

It would have been interesting to see something like these operating off carriers, maybe the Super Hornet wouldn't have needed to be a tanker. I wonder if the Army would have been interested in a land based version for their electronic warfare needs?

Any idea whose Common Support Aircraft concept this is?
 

SmithW6079

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Re: Lockheed&Grumman Multiple Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) studies (1

Regarding the Grumman VSTOL design, did a portion of the wing rotate with the rotors? If not, it would seem like much of the downwash would be blocked by the wings.
 

boilermaker66

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
yasotay said:
The VSTOL MPSNA is an interesting design but I have to wonder at how much downwash/outwash those relatively small prop-rotors would have generated. Considering the V-22 creates hurricane force winds that are at the edge of acceptability for operations in and around the aircraft, this one would have been tough. Of course if it was only intended to operate from prepared surfaces that might not have been an issue.
The Lockheed MPSNA STOVL design was required to operate only from prepared surfaces, unlike the V-22. The downwash effects were substantially less than the Harrier, and in particular, were much cooler.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Artist's impression of Lockheed Multiple-Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) pusher propfan concept.

Three-view drawing of Boeing Multiple-Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) tanker concept.

Three-view drawing of Lockheed Multiple-Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) airborne early warning concept.

Three-view drawing of Grumman Multiple-Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) carrier on-board delivery concept.

Source:
Hager, Roy D.; Vrabel, Deborah. Advanced Turbofan Project, NASA Glenn Research Center, Jan. 1, 1988
 

Attachments

  • LockheedMPSNA.jpg
    LockheedMPSNA.jpg
    44.3 KB · Views: 1,213
  • BoeingMPSNATanker.jpg
    BoeingMPSNATanker.jpg
    54.8 KB · Views: 518
  • LockheedMPSNAearlywarning.jpg
    LockheedMPSNAearlywarning.jpg
    66 KB · Views: 506
  • GrummanMPSNAdelivery.jpg
    GrummanMPSNAdelivery.jpg
    67.2 KB · Views: 490

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Is the MPX on the tail of the Lockheed artist's impression important? Multi-Purpose eXperimental?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,836
Reaction score
196
I can not but help think, that with the buildup of the PLAN's submarine force (both nuclear & diesel electric), combined with the USN's premature retirement (neglect) of the S-3 Viking. The USN might have to re-instate just such a program!

Regards
Pioneer
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,235
Reaction score
454
Pioneer said:
I can not but help think, that with the buildup of the PLAN's submarine force (both nuclear & diesel electric), combined with the USN's premature retirement (neglect) of the S-2 Viking.

That's S-3 Viking of course...
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,836
Reaction score
196
Stargazer2006 said:
Pioneer said:
I can not but help think, that with the buildup of the PLAN's submarine force (both nuclear & diesel electric), combined with the USN's premature retirement (neglect) of the S-2 Viking.

That's S-3 Viking of course...

Yeah thanks Stargazer2006! ..................... a case of the fingers faster than the brain on that one!! :eek:

Regards
Pioneer
 

Mark Nankivil

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,629
Reaction score
509
Looks like the main gear would be near the same plane as the prop discs - would doubt that is much of an issue.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,763
Reaction score
1,907

northerndancer2000

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Hi Paul


Thank you for the PDF. That is a very clear scan.


I'm used to seeing some of the (older?) V/STOL articles where the print is bad and the drawings almost invisible. (Think bad multi-generation Xerox) Have they changed technology? Any chance that they are going to go back to rescan some of the papers from the 1960s and 1970s?


Thanks.
 
Top