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

McDonnell / Teledyne Ryan Model 268 XST & Ryan's Stealth UAVs

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,299
Reaction score
178
Teledyne-Ryan stealth... applause please.. 8)
 

Attachments

  • Teledyne_Ryan_1.jpg
    Teledyne_Ryan_1.jpg
    71.4 KB · Views: 1,438
  • Teledyne_Ryan_2.jpg
    Teledyne_Ryan_2.jpg
    41.1 KB · Views: 1,362
  • Teledyne_Ryan_3.jpg
    Teledyne_Ryan_3.jpg
    50.9 KB · Views: 1,312
  • Teledyne_Ryan_4.jpg
    Teledyne_Ryan_4.jpg
    32.2 KB · Views: 1,269

Matej

Multiuniversal creator
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
2,614
Reaction score
184
Website
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
And a derivate - manned version. The development of this was abadoned because a very low useful loading compared to weight of the aircraft.
 

Attachments

  • image018.jpg
    image018.jpg
    11.3 KB · Views: 1,241

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
5,681
What do you think?

Scan is by Mark Nankivil, no info other than date of 1975.

Model 268 is described in American Secret Projects as a low signature fighter designed to a DARPA contract in 1975.

McDonnell-Douglas were awarded a DARPA contract at the start of the XST project in 1975 along with Northrop.

Design matches basic XST parameters.

So, is this Model 268? Is it the McDonnell-Douglas XST?
 

Attachments

  • 268 Low Signature Fighter xD4C-116628-6 Jun-75.jpg
    268 Low Signature Fighter xD4C-116628-6 Jun-75.jpg
    113.1 KB · Views: 845

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
5,681
I can see why Lockheed and Northrop got the contracts. Doesn't look much like Bill Sweetman's description of a Quiet Attack derivative however.
 

quellish

I don’t read The Drive. The Drive reads me.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,202
Reaction score
272
overscan said:
What do you think?

Scan is by Mark Nankivil, no info other than date of 1975.

Model 268 is described in American Secret Projects as a low signature fighter designed to a DARPA contract in 1975.

McDonnell-Douglas were awarded a DARPA contract at the start of the XST project in 1975 along with Northrop.

Design matches basic XST parameters.

So, is this Model 268? Is it the McDonnell-Douglas XST?

I KNOW I have seen a patent for this one. I also know I do not have it saved anywhere.
 

quellish

I don’t read The Drive. The Drive reads me.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,202
Reaction score
272
quellish said:
overscan said:
What do you think?

Scan is by Mark Nankivil, no info other than date of 1975.

Model 268 is described in American Secret Projects as a low signature fighter designed to a DARPA contract in 1975.

McDonnell-Douglas were awarded a DARPA contract at the start of the XST project in 1975 along with Northrop.

Design matches basic XST parameters.

So, is this Model 268? Is it the McDonnell-Douglas XST?

I KNOW I have seen a patent for this one. I also know I do not have it saved anywhere.

Close, but not quite it. I know the nose and inlets were identical on the patent I am thinking of....
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
5,681
Should have noted: scan is from McDonnell-Douglas collection, so is presumed to be a MDC design.

Did Teledyne Ryan work with McDonnell-Douglas on the Quiet Aircraft?
 

quellish

I don’t read The Drive. The Drive reads me.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,202
Reaction score
272
overscan said:
Should have noted: scan is from McDonnell-Douglas collection, so is presumed to be a MDC design.

Did Teledyne Ryan work with McDonnell-Douglas on the Quiet Aircraft?

I know I've seen a McDD patent that is exactly like that model pictured. While looking through patents to find it I did find the TR patent above, which is a close match. I have noticed that for manned aircraft TR would often partner up from the mid-70s on.
 

quellish

I don’t read The Drive. The Drive reads me.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,202
Reaction score
272
From "Have Blue and the F-117A"
By David C. Aronstein, Albert C. Piccirillo

McD's original HAVE BLUE was apparently based on their earlier Quiet Attack Aircraft concept. Teledyne Ryan had proposed to USAF to pursue the low RCS RPV shown in patent 1 in this thread. McD and TR teamed up, creating the concept in patent 2, which was the McD/TR team's HAVE BLUE/XST design.
 

bazz

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Messages
39
Reaction score
2
Were any of these crazy things built?!?

Are these just concepts?
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
5,681
Teledyne Ryan patent drawings...
 

Attachments

  • TeledyneMannedStealth1.jpg
    TeledyneMannedStealth1.jpg
    107.9 KB · Views: 786
  • TeledyneMannedStealth2.jpg
    TeledyneMannedStealth2.jpg
    65.5 KB · Views: 761

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
713
Is there circumstanciated evidence that the MDD and Teledyne designs were connected? I find them to be quite different.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
5,681
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7018.msg60595.html#msg60595

::)

As Quellish indicates Teledyne & McDonnell-Douglas definitely worked on XST together according to the most definitive source on this program.

The Model 268 XST is clearly based on the basic principles and layout of the Teledyne stealth work as opposed to the earlier McDonnell-Douglas Quiet Attack design which is entirely based on curves, not straight lines. It has higher wing sweep, probably (like on HAVE BLUE) due to the severe front quarter RCS requirement, and the engine installation looks more like a small scale demonstrator than a full size airplane, but other than that its pretty close.
 

Attachments

  • Teledyne-McDD.jpg
    Teledyne-McDD.jpg
    127.2 KB · Views: 1,353

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
5,681
The original 1973 study (essentially a metal flying saucer inside a radar transparent flying wing) from Aronstein & Piccorillo plus 1975 Navy study, the Teledyne Model 262 Manta Ray (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/tra-262.html)
 

Attachments

  • 1973_Teledyne.jpg
    1973_Teledyne.jpg
    21.5 KB · Views: 1,200
  • mantaray.jpg
    mantaray.jpg
    12.9 KB · Views: 1,156

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
713
Fair enough. The Teledyne Ryan design seemed a little more advanced with its blended intakes/exhausts and the absence of a detached nose... Hence my question. Also, I read somewhere (on this forum and elsewhere I think) that McDonnell Douglas's "Marshmallow" design (the one at the bottom) was merely devised as a decoy to fool observers as to the real shape and configuration of the real XST design...
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
713
Oh, I see. I was mistaking these two illustrations as being two forms of the same project, given their many similarities. It is really the dorsal air intake that makes the difference, isn't it? Wings are slightly different, but I've seen more different designs being covered by one single model number before...
 

quellish

I don’t read The Drive. The Drive reads me.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,202
Reaction score
272
aim9xray said:
Has anyone information that might tie in?

Possibly. The configuration of SANDY HOOK matches:
"The second was a 125,000-foot altitude, intercontinental, subsonic drone with hydrogen engines and very stealthy delta wing design built by Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical in the early 1970s. It was to be completely invisible to radar at that altitude because it had a radar cross-section of a dime. The proposed $400 million program, called Sandy Hook, never made it to flight test. The development costs for both UAVs probably never exceeded $30 million. Robert R. Schwanhausser, Ryan’s Sandy Hook program manager, interview, July 7, 1999."

From "Air Force UAVs The Secret History":
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA526045
 

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,494
Reaction score
1,050
Front cover of Luftfahrt international 25 from 1978.
This artist drawing is based on Teledyne Ryan patent drawings posted before by Overscan.
 

Attachments

  • Ryan_Stealth_Fighter_Luftfahrtinternational_25.jpg
    Ryan_Stealth_Fighter_Luftfahrtinternational_25.jpg
    83.4 KB · Views: 598

quellish

I don’t read The Drive. The Drive reads me.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,202
Reaction score
272
From Aronstein, D. C., and Piccirillo, A. C., Have Blue and the F-117A: Evolution of the "Stealth Fighter," AIAA, Reston, VA, 1997, pg 11:
Accordingly, in 1971, a new Air Force prototyping study team recommended the development of a very low radar cross section test vehicle as part of a Department of Defense (DoD)-wide move toward advanced prototyping initiated by Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard. The very low RCS test vehicle was proposed by Teledyne Ryan, and was one of six programs that the study team recommended from a field of 45 candidates, noting that


...the capability to achieve extremely low radar cross sections has been demonstrated by large scale, nonflying test models.... The capability to remain "invisible" to radar so radically changes the posture of most offensive and defensive systems that prototype testing to confirm this capability is warranted


Teledyne Ryan proposed to build and flight test three unmanned aircraft. The proposed design was almost certainly similar to the delta-wing shape, illustrated in Fig. 5. Gross weight would be approximately 3000 lb. The aircraft would be subsonic but capable of very high altitude flight. Launch would be accomplished from a modified C-130 was recovery by the existing mid-air retrieval system (MARS) as used by their earlier AQM-91A Compass Arrow and other drones.






From Aronstein, D. C., and Piccirillo, A. C., Have Blue and the F-117A: Evolution of the "Stealth Fighter," AIAA, Reston, VA, 1997, pg 203:
Teledyne Ryan Low RCS Vehicle Study (1973-1974 Design Study)
The Remotely Piloted Vehicle Special Projects Office at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohoi conducted studies and tests in conjunction with Teledyne Ryan and other companies of low RCS drones. Having learned from experience with the AQM-91A Compass Arrow that a conventional, wing-body-tail arrangement would not acheive very low signatures, Teledyne Ryan advanced to a more aggressive approach involving simpler planforms with fewer surfaces and edges. The Teledyne Ryan Low RCS Vehicle, illustrated in Fig. A11, was to consist of a small metal centerbody surrounded by a large amount of lossy dielectric material. The configuration was all-wing with a simple delta planform and inward-canted twin vertical tails. The engine and equipment were buried in the fairly thick wing root. Tail surfaces and other features were to be made of "radar-transparent" materials. Overall dimensions would be approximately 18 ft in overall length and 21 ft in wingspan.


The Low RCS Vehicle study (AFAL-TR-74-320) is available through the GWU National Security Archive:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB443/docs/area51_12.PDF
While illustrations of the vehicle have been redacted, it does specifically identify it as Model 237. It also specifically mentions patent application "SN465,540". Patent 4019699 (https://www.google.com/patents/US4019699) appears to be the Low RCS Vehicle or it's immediate predecessor, but has a different patent application number.


Scott has a good illustration of the Low RCS Vehicle:
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=16971
This is the redacted Figure 6 from the study paper above.


From Aronstein, D. C., and Piccirillo, A. C., Have Blue and the F-117A: Evolution of the "Stealth Fighter," AIAA, Reston, VA, 1997, pg 205:
Teledyne Ryan Mini-RPV (1974-1975)
The 7.5-ft wingspan Teledyne Ryan Mini-RPV followed the same shaping approach as the Low RCS Vehicle, but it specifically avoided reliance on RAM. Several versions were proposed with variations in the tradeoff between radar treatment, countermeasures, and overall system cost. As shown in Fig. A12, it was powered by a ducted fan on the top side of the vehicle, and in some variants it was intended to use wire screens over both ends of the duct, as well as over the sensor package on the vehicle's underside. In RCS testing, Mini-RPV models met or exceeded signature goals that were based on achieving survivability through a combination of RCS reduction and countermeasures. Some Mini-RPVs were built and flown, although it is unknown wether any of these represented a low-RCS configuration or wether any in-flight RCS testing was ever performed.


Neither the Mini-RPV nor the Low RCS Vehicle achieved sufficiently low signatures to avoid detection completely while performing a useful military mission. However, they did provide what was perhaps the first credible indication that such a goal could be accomplished. Many radar systems did not perform at all well against these targets. The lesson was not wasted. Several of the people involved in these projects at the Air Force's RPV office later played key roles in formulating and managing the Have Blue program.


The Mini-RPV is the Model 262. SDASM has posted quite a few images of it on Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/search/?w=49487266@N07&q=Model%20262
The Low RCS Vehicle Study paper mentions the Mini-RPV, and specifically that it did not incorporate the RAM edge treatments described in the paper because they were not available.
The Model 262 was built for the Navy's Shipboard Tactical Airborne RPV program. It was flight tested in 1976-1978(?).
In 1975 several tests were conducted at China Lake to explore RPV signatures using a BD-5 (N5390). The BD-5 acted as an RPV surrogate and flew through a dynamic RCS range set up at Randsburg Wash. You can seem some photos of this here:
http://www.chinalakealumni.org/1975/1975.htm
The Mini-RPV was later flown against the same dynamic range at Randsburg Wash to verify it's in-flight radar cross section.
 

Attachments

  • trw-stealth.jpg
    trw-stealth.jpg
    76.7 KB · Views: 785

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
713
quellish said:
The Mini-RPV is the Model 262. SDASM has posted quite a few images of it on Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/search/?w=49487266@N07&q=Model%20262
The Low RCS Vehicle Study paper mentions the Mini-RPV, and specifically that it did not incorporate the RAM edge treatments described in the paper because they were not available.
The Model 262 was built for the Navy's Shipboard Tactical Airborne RPV program. It was flight tested in 1976-1978(?).
In 1975 several tests were conducted at China Lake to explore RPV signatures using a BD-5 (N5390). The BD-5 acted as an RPV surrogate and flew through a dynamic RCS range set up at Randsburg Wash. You can seem some photos of this here:
http://www.chinalakealumni.org/1975/1975.htm
The Mini-RPV was later flown against the same dynamic range at Randsburg Wash to verify it's in-flight radar cross section.

We DO have a topic on the Model 262, also known as the Manta Ray. Unfortunately it is not very conspicuous because for some obscure reason it is filed under "Designation Systems"...
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,18444.0

I guess Jens or another mod can easily move it around to this section.
 

quellish

I don’t read The Drive. The Drive reads me.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,202
Reaction score
272
As this concerns the TR UAV programs that lead to the Model 268 XST (and, in fact, are what prompted the HAVE BLUE program itself), this topic seemed like the best place for it. If it is not I can remove my post.
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
713
quellish said:
As this concerns the TR UAV programs that lead to the Model 268 XST (and, in fact, are what prompted the HAVE BLUE program itself), this topic seemed like the best place for it. If it is not I can remove my post.

I never implied that it was out of place, nor did I give the link to indicate a desirable move. It was merely to lead those who want to know more about the Model 262 to its dedicated page.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
5,681
Ryan Low RCS Demonstration Vehicle design courtesy of SDASM via the forum member formerly known as Stargazer2006.


https://flic.kr/p/dV3378

Compared to drawing, span looks wider, vertical tails are slightly different and elevons placed differently but clearly the same basic concept. My guess would be the painting is a later revision.
 

Attachments

  • TRA D7426-RD119.jpg
    TRA D7426-RD119.jpg
    105.2 KB · Views: 121
Last edited:

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
5,681
Moved Model 147S-2 stuff to existing topic.


http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,19083.0.html
 

datafuser

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
126
Reaction score
32
The RCS test vehicle discussed in this May 1971 Congressional hearing could be Teledyne Ryan's design.
 

Attachments

  • feb-1972.PNG
    feb-1972.PNG
    305.8 KB · Views: 71
  • may1971-3.PNG
    may1971-3.PNG
    55.3 KB · Views: 46
  • may1971-2.PNG
    may1971-2.PNG
    71.8 KB · Views: 63
  • may1971-1.PNG
    may1971-1.PNG
    296.1 KB · Views: 69

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,268
Reaction score
58
I'm not sure if this patented aircraft has been discussed before on SPF. So here goes. -SP
 

Attachments

  • 1-small.jpg
    1-small.jpg
    421.3 KB · Views: 725
  • 2-small.jpg
    2-small.jpg
    245.4 KB · Views: 684
  • 3-small.jpg
    3-small.jpg
    299.2 KB · Views: 647
  • 4-small.jpg
    4-small.jpg
    184.7 KB · Views: 608

Mr London 24/7

ACCESS: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
407
Reaction score
96
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7018.0.html

;)

Topics merged, thank you !
 

Mark Nankivil

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,677
Reaction score
741
Good Day All -

A new donation to the Museum contained this drawing which has similarities to other designs in this thread. The scan doesn't bring it out too well but the red sections are referenced as A4 (A-4 Skyhawk?) and the cockpit section would appear to be a close match and as I recall, the wing fuel tank looks similar to the A-4 as well. So, possibly a proof of concept design?

Any thoughts on the meaning of CASPR-D? "Casper the Friendly Ghost" comes to mind....

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • zMcDonnell Douglas CASPR-D 268-200 Series 3V.jpg
    zMcDonnell Douglas CASPR-D 268-200 Series 3V.jpg
    936 KB · Views: 491

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
5,681
Yep, thats definitely a drawing of a Model 268 XST demonstrator. I understand the inlets better from this drawing than the model.

index.php
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
5,681
Mark Nankivil said:
Any thoughts on the meaning of CASPR-D? "Casper the Friendly Ghost" comes to mind....

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Could be Close Air Support / Photo Reconnaissance - Demonstrator. In which case the parent program would be CASPR.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,180
Reaction score
1,404
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Yep, thats definitely a drawing of a Model 268 XST demonstrator. I understand the inlets better from this drawing than the model.
I'd say there are some [significant] differences between drawings and model, surely they are different iterations...
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
5,681
flateric said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Yep, thats definitely a drawing of a Model 268 XST demonstrator. I understand the inlets better from this drawing than the model.
I'd say there are some [significant] differences between drawings and model, surely they are different iterations...

Different versions, yes, but the same design. I mean that the drawing shows that the inlets are recessed slots to hide them from side view as opposed to what looks like a simple pitot-type intake on the model. The drawing is labelled as 268-200 series.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
5,681
Mark Nankivil said:
Thanks Paul - works for me!

Enjoy the Day! Mark

I imagine someone decided to call it after Casper the ghost and then came up with the acronym. Its interesting to compare with Lockheed 'Harvey' :) I wonder what the Northrop XST name was :)
 

Silencer1

That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
643
Reaction score
157
Mark Nankivil said:
Any thoughts on the meaning of CASPR-D?

Covert Air Strike Prototype Research - Demonstrator?

Carrier Assault Strike Prototype Research - Demonstrator?
 

Similar threads

Top