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

McDonnell-Douglas ATS, pre-ATF and ATF studies

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,105
Reaction score
1,082
Thread to discuss McDonnell Douglas pre-ATF and ATF studies
If you have something to share, please post it here.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,656
Reaction score
4,241
Some McDonnell-Douglas projects are found in the AFTI Projects thread

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=133.0
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,656
Reaction score
4,241
McDonnell-Douglas ATF submission.

[Removed low res image - better quality posted later in topic - Administrator]
 

Attachments

  • McDD-ATFh.jpg
    McDD-ATFh.jpg
    8.6 KB · Views: 2,392

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,105
Reaction score
1,082
Yes, delta wing ATS design was one of two total of December 1982 nineteen*hard* ATF submissions.
Canard design with stright wings was submitted as air-to-air concept design.
 

Attachments

  • TI-1-06d2-.jpg
    TI-1-06d2-.jpg
    11.8 KB · Views: 1,766
  • TI-1-06d3-.jpg
    TI-1-06d3-.jpg
    10.8 KB · Views: 654

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,656
Reaction score
4,241
More pre-ATF designs
 

Attachments

  • MDD-CCV-Fighter.jpg
    MDD-CCV-Fighter.jpg
    18 KB · Views: 404
  • atf-mcdd-5.jpg
    atf-mcdd-5.jpg
    35.1 KB · Views: 423
  • atf-mcdd-4.jpg
    atf-mcdd-4.jpg
    42.9 KB · Views: 541
  • atf-mcdd-2.jpg
    atf-mcdd-2.jpg
    25.9 KB · Views: 706

Gavin

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
59
Reaction score
3
By chance, any 3-views or more concept art of the ATF design?

--Gavin.
 

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,861
Reaction score
320
1). Here's a three view of the McDonnell-Douglas SF-1302 shown above; It appears to be sized for F404 powerplants.
2&3).An Advanced Strike Aircraft Concept
 

Attachments

  • McD-SF-1302.jpg
    McD-SF-1302.jpg
    26.6 KB · Views: 2,109
  • McD-ATS-1.jpg
    McD-ATS-1.jpg
    35.1 KB · Views: 606
  • McD-ATS-2.jpg
    McD-ATS-2.jpg
    27.4 KB · Views: 442

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,105
Reaction score
1,082
Top-mounted inlet fighter from 1985 MacAir study “Subsonic Diffusers For Highly Survivable Aircraft”

SUBSONIC DIFFUSER DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE FOR ADVANCED FIGHTER AIRCRAFT
C. C. Lee
McDonnell Aircraft Company
McDonnell Douglas Corporation
St. Louis
Chris Eoedicker
Flight Dynamics Laboratory
Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-6553 5433
AIAA-85-3073
 

Attachments

  • 1985 MacAir study Subsonic Diffusers For Highly Survivable Aircraft.jpg
    1985 MacAir study Subsonic Diffusers For Highly Survivable Aircraft.jpg
    32.5 KB · Views: 919

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,105
Reaction score
1,082
1986-1988 MacAir study of Supersonic Persitence Fighter (SSPF) Alrcraft - air-superiority fighter which emphasizes low drag for efficient supercruise and TVC nozzles for agility.

AlAA 1989-2816
Advanced Thrust Vectoring Nozzles for Supercruise Fighter Aircraft
J. Mace, P. Smereczniak and G. Krekeler
McDonnell Aircraft Company, St. Louis, MO
D. Bowers
WPAFB, OH, Wright Research and Development Center
M. MacLean
GE Aircraft Engines
Cincinnati, OH
E. Thayer
Pratt & Whitney Aircraft
West Palm Beach, FL
 

Attachments

  • macair1988SSPF-1.jpg
    macair1988SSPF-1.jpg
    181.6 KB · Views: 958
  • macair1988SSPF-GE.jpg
    macair1988SSPF-GE.jpg
    137.5 KB · Views: 800
  • macair1988SSPF-PW.jpg
    macair1988SSPF-PW.jpg
    112.1 KB · Views: 711

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,110
Reaction score
213
pometablava said:
Supersonic Fighter Development. Roy Braybrook. Ed Haynes. 1987 ISBN 0-85429-582-8

Anyone can identify the weapons in ths drawing?

Thanks,

Antonio

Well, the under-nacelle weapons seem to be related to the modular missiles in Flateric's earlier post - the only difference is the small canards near the missile nose. http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,399.msg2577.html#msg2577

The general form of the belly missiles - stacked nose-to-tail remind me of the McDonnell-Douglas Model No. 252-111B strike project, as seen in this thread http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,508.0

As for the exact designations - I've only seen these types on McDD projects - so some internal McDD designs perhaps?

Starviking
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,663
Reaction score
1,709
SF-1302 is one that was shown in model form back in the 80s as an ATF concept. Painted ghost gray as I recall.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
985
Reaction score
38
*better quality painting of the MD ATF proposal*

Anyone notices the striking similarity with the mig wind tunnel testing model for their 1.44/1.42 project (more than the similarity between the test model with the 1.44 prototype itself). Or are they the same thing :eek: ? Did anyone confirm that the wind tunnel testbed is actually 1.44? I see these images alot around the net claiming to be 1.44 study model, but no confirmation or reliable source that states so. Anyone more knowledgable can shed some light for me?
 

Attachments

  • 4216.jpg
    4216.jpg
    38.7 KB · Views: 481
  • untitled.JPG
    untitled.JPG
    49.1 KB · Views: 586

KJ_Lesnick

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
32
That inlet looks a lot like the XB-70's and additionally looks like the inlet used on the McDonnell's Mach 6 Navy Interdictor concept...
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,656
Reaction score
4,241
The above picture was originally associated with MFI by Alexei Gretchikhine on his RAP website (http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/MiG1.42.html) back in 1997. In fact he said only

Another wind tunnel, another scale model. Although it has no connection with 1.42, the model displays some rudimentary stealth features. Note that forward fuselage is triangular in crossection. TsAGI.

Yefim Gordon included the same picture in his Red Star on MFI, and claimed it represented the 1.42 intake configuration.
 

Merv_P

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
115
Reaction score
5
donnage99 said:
*better quality painting of the MD ATF proposal*

Anyone notices the striking similarity with the mig wind tunnel testing model for their 1.44/1.42 project

I first saw this painting a few years ago, and that's what struck me, too. The painting and the profile posted by Overscan earlier in this thread are the only pictures I've seen of this design, though someone on this forum (I can't remember who) was able to build a model of it along with models of the other four ATF contenders.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
985
Reaction score
38
Merv_P said:
donnage99 said:
*better quality painting of the MD ATF proposal*

Anyone notices the striking similarity with the mig wind tunnel testing model for their 1.44/1.42 project

I first saw this painting a few years ago, and that's what struck me, too. The painting and the profile posted by Overscan earlier in this thread are the only pictures I've seen of this design, though someone on this forum (I can't remember who) was able to build a model of it along with models of the other four ATF contenders.
Can you or Overscan direct me to where this guy built his models of the ATF contenders? Thanks alot in advance!
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
985
Reaction score
38
Merv_P (or anyone who knows), do you know which design it is on the far left of the picture; right above the boeing design?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0289_(2).JPG
    IMG_0289_(2).JPG
    61.9 KB · Views: 860

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,656
Reaction score
4,241
Yes, its the twin-tail version of the GD submission. GD tried many different tail configurations but were unable to find the right combination of stealth and stability. The final submission used a single tail which must have adversely impacted side-on RCS.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,663
Reaction score
1,709
Also the one with the forward-swept everything is NOT the actual Grumman submission. As I understand it it was the model builder's "best guess" based on some of the other Grumman pre-ATF stuff out there.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
985
Reaction score
38
anyone got a picture of GE early design (The one in the model collection)?
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
985
Reaction score
38
overscan said:
Grumman's design has never been published to my knowledge. AFAIK, they placed last.
I meant the early GE one that I had previously asked
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,656
Reaction score
4,241
Sorry :)

I suggest you obtain a copy of Jay Miller's wonderful Aerofax on FA-22, where you will find lots of pictures of ATF related models. Here's small thumbnails of pages 12 and 13...
 

Attachments

  • Aerofax-Lockheed-Martin-FA-22-Raptor-Stealth-Fighter-12.jpg
    Aerofax-Lockheed-Martin-FA-22-Raptor-Stealth-Fighter-12.jpg
    67.2 KB · Views: 1,085
  • Aerofax-Lockheed-Martin-FA-22-Raptor-Stealth-Fighter-13.jpg
    Aerofax-Lockheed-Martin-FA-22-Raptor-Stealth-Fighter-13.jpg
    60.7 KB · Views: 1,154

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
985
Reaction score
38
it's said that the proposal was too conservative for air force, can anyone elaborate on this? I only read somewhere that it didn't emphasize on stealth as much as Air Force wanted, but that's all that I know.
 

hs1216

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Messages
110
Reaction score
5
i remember that Bill Sweatman wrote, MD thought that stealth was just some new fade, and that eventually the airforce would get over it. So their atf was geared to be a cooler f-15.

If i had to guess i think that MD had a aircraft in mind similar to the su-35/37 superflanker series in terms of capability.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,663
Reaction score
1,709
I read a quote once from an air force type in the decision making process regarding the initial 7 companies' entries (Lockheed, Northrop, General Dynamics, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Rockwell, and Grumman). He said "we had two really good designs, a couple decent designs, and the rest just didn't get it." (Not his exact words but close.) Lockheed and Northrop of course had their years of stealth experience, General Dynamics (Convair) had stuff going back to the days of Fish/Kingfish and the AGM-129 experience (that's all I know about anyway), not sure where Boeing got it's expertise and then supposedly McDD raided Lockheed for employees. Leaving Rockwell with it's B-1B experience in RCS reduction and Grumman with?
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
199
Yildirim said:
i remember that Bill Sweatman wrote, MD thought that stealth was just some new fade, and that eventually the airforce would get over it. So their atf was geared to be a cooler f-15.

If i had to guess i think that MD had a aircraft in mind similar to the su-35/37 superflanker series in terms of capability.

That seems more like a throwaway quote from a McAir exec. They spent a lot of effort developing a stealth capability for their Navy ATA bid and for Super Hornet.
 

hs1216

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Messages
110
Reaction score
5
it wasn't a direct quote, more like extreme paraphrasing, i just remember reading that somewhere
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
985
Reaction score
38
I wonder how the MDD design will effect its speed, 'cause if you look closely, the aircraft's body is full of small facets like the f-117.
 

Gavin

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
59
Reaction score
3
sferrin said:
I read a quote once from an air force type in the decision making process regarding the initial 7 companies' entries (Lockheed, Northrop, General Dynamics, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Rockwell, and Grumman). He said "we had two really good designs, a couple decent designs, and the rest just didn't get it." (Not his exact words but close.)

As reported by Bill Sweetman, the quote comes from Col. Albert Piccirillo, the ATF program system officer: "We had two excellent designs and three good designs, and two where the designers hadn't quite got the idea."

The MDD design did, indeed, make use of some faceting, but this apparently wasn't just for stealth. MDD suggested that the flat body panels, made of composite materials, would be simpler -- and, therefore, less expensive -- to manufacture. If this design feature concerned the Air Force, I've never read a report of it.

Instead, according to Sweetman, Piccirillo criticized the proposal for being overweight. MDD insisted that the ATF requirements couldn't be met within the original weight limit. And, ironically, MDD was right.

Here's a closer look at the facets:
 

Attachments

  • mcd-d_atf.jpg
    mcd-d_atf.jpg
    145.1 KB · Views: 912

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
985
Reaction score
38
It was said that the proposal was one of the heavier designs AND not promising performances. So it's not just heavy.
 

lantinian

Inspired
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
501
Reaction score
6
Website
www.lantinian.blogspot.com
It was said that the proposal was one of the heavier designs AND not promising performances. So it's not just heavy.
MDD was the most experience heavy fighter manufacturer at the time. I read somewhere that their design was around 60,00.

At the time the required combat take of weight (8 AAMs + full fuel) was 50,000lb. In the Dem/Val phase however the requirement was relaxed to 60,000.

Today an F-22 with full weapons and half fuel weights around 65,000lb. So who's design was actually overweight anyway?

If I had to make an assumption about them, it would be that they were the only one stating realistic values for their ATF.
 

Gavin

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
59
Reaction score
3
lantinian said:
It was said that the proposal was one of the heavier designs AND not promising performances. So it's not just heavy.
I read somewhere that their design was around 60,00 . . . If I had to make an assumption about them, it would be that they were the only one stating realistic values for their ATF.

Exactly.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
985
Reaction score
38
lantinian said:
It was said that the proposal was one of the heavier designs AND not promising performances. So it's not just heavy.
MDD was the most experience heavy fighter manufacturer at the time. I read somewhere that their design was around 60,00.

At the time the required combat take of weight (8 AAMs + full fuel) was 50,000lb. In the Dem/Val phase however the requirement was relaxed to 60,000.

Today an F-22 with full weapons and half fuel weights around 65,000lb. So who's design was actually overweight anyway?

If I had to make an assumption about them, it would be that they were the only one stating realistic values for their ATF.
And nobody argued with that. I'm saying that it was said that it ALSO did not have promising performance, as far as they said.
 

tacitblue

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
91
Reaction score
0
donnage99 said:
It was said that the proposal was one of the heavier designs AND not promising performances. So it's not just heavy.

It doesn't look to be any heavier than either the YF-22 or the YF-23. In fact the YF-23 was/is much heavier than thos McD design appears. I remember back in the early 90's that the McD wasn't selected because they didn't have any expertise in low observables and in fact they even hired away a Lockheed engineer to assist them in LO. Its a shame the Pentagon did not select this plane instead of the YF-23 for the flyoff competition (with a modified air intake geometry).
 

Similar threads

Top