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

North American MX-1554 project ( F-102 rival)

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,440
Reaction score
3,455
From Tony Buttler.

The first design is a delta wing supersonic fighter. I have no information at all but, looking at the features, I have stated in the book that it might be NAA's rival to the F-102 competition. It has no gun, what appears to be a weapons bay and a single engine (all similar to the F-102) and some of the external features put in into the 1950/51 timescale. The fact that it was modelled means that it was probably an important proposal, so that is my judgement. I know this is dangerous because someone else will go and say that it is definately NAA's proposal without confirmation, but I have to do this to prevent too many pictures of 'an unidentified model' in the book.
 

Attachments

  • NAA Fighter1.jpg
    NAA Fighter1.jpg
    49.4 KB · Views: 1,206
  • NAA Fighter2.jpg
    NAA Fighter2.jpg
    72.8 KB · Views: 1,075

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,440
Reaction score
3,455
According to Lindsay Peacock MX-1554 submissions were:

Republic (3 submissions)
North American (2 submissions)
Chance-Vought
Convair
Lockheed
Republic

(Air International Jan 1986)
 

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,475
Reaction score
203
Superb info, thanks a lot Mr Buttler.

I can add nothing to help in the identification. Your suggestions about the identity for the first design are well-reasoned but better wait for a deffinitive identification.


BTW, will be included in the book any NAA Sabre 45 drawing?

Cheers
Antonio
 

Matej

Multiuniversal creator
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
2,616
Reaction score
117
Website
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
Everything what I can add are these pre-F-108 studies from Airpower 9/2004 pg. 17

Regarding to Rapier lightweight fighter, it is interesting that the answer is lying directly in the table. Its writen on the base, what it is, but the print is too blur and cant be read. If Mr. Buttler has some other photo from different angle where can be seen, what is writen on the base....

"It is worth pointing out that North American projects tend to show features that would often have appeared on rival projects several years later."

This exactly came on my mind when I firstly saw the first unknown fighter. It has a lot of common details with Fokker/Republic D.24 Alliance.
 

Attachments

  • LRI-X.JPG
    LRI-X.JPG
    57 KB · Views: 1,413

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
128
Uh, and since we are talking about NAA, I'll quote myself (from the NAA Project List Topic in Designation Systems board)

what WAS the NA-237 ? FBX - Development of USAF Fighter Bomber system.... Any idea of an FBX specification, timeframe 1957-58 ?
 

Akaikaze

The hardest word to define is 'Normal'
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
66
Reaction score
1
Just on quick question about the LRI-X proposals. Notice WHERE the canard is. How in the world as the backseater supposed to get in? And with that space there, how did NAA plan on making that part structurally sound? You can't bolt it on the canopy, and you couldn't run a spar through it, otherwise you couldn't get in the plane. No wonder they dumped the canard when the mock-up was completed. The end result turned out sweet...America's own Avro Arrow. By the way, both were cancelled the same year....hmmm... :-\
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
128
AFAIK the canard provided very low lift and the LRI wasn't meant for high-G manouvering... ... And look at the Typhoon canard... There are electronics there...
 

Akaikaze

The hardest word to define is 'Normal'
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
66
Reaction score
1
High-G or not, it still has to be structurally sound. This is a Mach-3 machine we're talking about. Not something to take lightly (Bell X-2 and the M-21 crash?), especially when there's someone sitting right next to such a load bearing item, whatever the flight regime may be. It's an item you want mounted very rigidly to the airframe with no intrusions. Like I said, you can't just bolt it to the canopy, because the canopy moves on it's own and and the latches and hinges would take need to handle high loads during takeoff and landings, where it's needed, and staying stable at Mach 3. The wear on such items would be too dangerous and they would be expensive to develop and maintain. Imagine that canopy suddenly ripping off at Mach 3 because of the canard. And you can't just cut a hole on top of the aircraft, either, since you would have to go through the area with the spars and weaken the integrity of that flying surface. Also, if the surface was powered, having a crewman next to the actuators or hinges would be dangerous, as well.
The Typhoon is not a great example for comparison. First off, you would need to put the canards on either side of the canopy, right next to the pilot, further back. Second, they are mounted to the airframe, not the canopy, meaning they are secured rigidly. Third, they are independent of each other; hence, no need for a spar between them. The airframe helps with that. And lastly, I'm talking about a person, not electronics. A person who needs to get in an out of the plane.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,403
Reaction score
1,445
If you look at it a little closer I doubt they'd have any trouble at all making it strong enough. For most of the length where the high loads would be you can have straight-through spars. Then you beef up the structure near the apex, between the two cockpits, and maybe you have to beef up the interior of the leading edge. I doubt it would be that big of a deal.
 

Akaikaze

The hardest word to define is 'Normal'
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
66
Reaction score
1
I looked, and the thing I noticed is the final design got rid of them. I didn't say it wasn't do-able, I was saying it was impractical. Beefing up that area would be too challenging in the long run. But what I have a problem with is I still don't see how the rear canopy even opens, unless it's perfectly rectangular. The only option would be to mount it to the canopy and open with it. And that's a bad thing. I think this was the same thought that went through NAA head's. I mean, if you look there's 3 panels; top, left and right. The only way that canopy would open is if all 3 sides were at right angles to each other when viewing from the front. Otherwise, bolt the canard to it, or cut wide holes to let the canopy pass through. If it was just a panel on top, yeah, you could make it somewhat structually sound around it. But that's not what the drawings show. :eek:
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
119
Well, from personal experience, I'm inclined to say y'all are making a false assumption, you're assuming that Preliminary/Advanced Design types pay a lot of attention to reality in their designs. More creeps in, of necessity, as designs mature, but my experience has been that there can be interesting "disconnects" in what comes out of Advanced Design. I've contended for years that they should rotate experienced designers through AD to bring a dash of reality to things.
 

Akaikaze

The hardest word to define is 'Normal'
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
66
Reaction score
1
Maybe...But sometimes the information we get is presented in the wrong way by someone down the line. Most articles relating to this aircraft correctly list the final design as the final design. But in one book on Air Force fighters I once owned had it the other way around. Either way, the question I posed was how they planned to make that system work. If the dates are correct, that design was worked on for at least two years. It's not an assumption, it's an inquiry. And until inquiries are answered, all we can do is speculate.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,403
Reaction score
1,445
elmayerle said:
Well, from personal experience, I'm inclined to say y'all are making a false assumption, you're assuming that Preliminary/Advanced Design types pay a lot of attention to reality in their designs. More creeps in, of necessity, as designs mature, but my experience has been that there can be interesting "disconnects" in what comes out of Advanced Design. I've contended for years that they should rotate experienced designers through AD to bring a dash of reality to things.


Yeah, that's how you get a Dreamliner concept with nice, curvy wings and tail surfaces that ends up with straight edges by the time they're done ;)
 

Akaikaze

The hardest word to define is 'Normal'
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
66
Reaction score
1
True about the Dreamliner. With their new design, it turning out to be just a 767 made out of composite and winglets added. Blah... :p
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,724
Reaction score
3,495
overscan said:
According to Lindsay Peacock MX-1554 submissions were:

Republic (3 submissions)
North American (2 submissions)
Chance-Vought
Convair
Lockheed
Republic

(Air International Jan 1986)

The Vought proposal for MX-1554 was V.371.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,838
Reaction score
197
Sorry gents
But what was the specs asking for MX-1554?
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,724
Reaction score
3,495
overscan said:
According to Lindsay Peacock MX-1554 submissions were:

Republic (3 submissions)
North American (2 submissions)
Chance-Vought
Convair
Lockheed
Republic

(Air International Jan 1986)

My dear Overscan,

you repeated Republic twice,I think the sixth company was Boeing,
and dear Nugo sent before that the Boeing-458 was submitted to
this tender.
 

circle-5

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
130
North American Aviation MX-1554 ("1954 Interceptor") proposal model by the NAA model shop (ca.1950). Note: this is probable, but not verified.
 

Attachments

  • NAA MX-1554 01.jpg
    NAA MX-1554 01.jpg
    52.4 KB · Views: 921

circle-5

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
130
Someone asked me: "Without any identification, how do I know this proposal is even from North American Aviation?"

-1- The stand's design is proprietary to NAA. They used it from the late 1930s to the 1950s and even beyond (see attached example).
-2- Tony Buttler said so.
 

Attachments

  • NAA BC-1 01.jpg
    NAA BC-1 01.jpg
    211.1 KB · Views: 892

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,440
Reaction score
3,455
Unless events have moved on since, I believe the situation is

1) Its a North American design
2) It looks 1950s
3) It has technical features compatible with MX-1554
4) No image of NAA MX-1554 has surfaced
 

XB-70

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
No one read Tony Butlers great "Early US Jet Fighters" Book?

The book has a lot of information about NAAs two MX-1554 designs, the second design is very similar to the one shown here but has two engines and side mounted intakes. The book includes a lot of color images of both display models, a original 3-view and performance data.
 

circle-5

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
130
XB-70 said:
No one read Tony Butlers great "Early US Jet Fighters" Book?


You mean I'm supposed to read it and learn something? Ugh ... That's crazy talk.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,440
Reaction score
3,455
I have read it of course but didn't notice that.

So, that means we can say it isn't MX-1554 unless its a non-submitted variation. I'll check tonight how similar it is :)
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,231
Reaction score
945
XB-70 said:
No one read Tony Butlers great "Early US Jet Fighters" Book.

You're dead right ! The model shown on page 158 ? Isn't it just this one here ?
Mentioned as "North American single engined MX1554 proposal" ?
Remaining question is, that two models are shown there and the second one,
with lateral intakes rather seems to be twin engined.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,440
Reaction score
3,455
Yes, this is documented in Early US Jet Fighters. It is the single engine submission to MX-1554. There was also a twin engine submission.
 

XB-70

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Sorry for all the confusion. Both North American MX-1554 concepts are mentioned in "Early US Jet Fighters". The single engined one is Circles model. It had three weapon bays, span of 41ft 7in, length 70ft 4in a gross take-off weight of 35,400Ib and a top speed of 1,006mph. The twin engine concept was very similar in dimensions, with a gross take-off weight of 46,666Ib and a Maximum speed of 1,041mph. The 3-view dates from January 1951.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,724
Reaction score
3,495
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
According to Lindsay Peacock MX-1554 submissions were:

Republic (3 submissions)
North American (2 submissions)
Chance-Vought
Convair
Lockheed
Douglas

(Air International Jan 1986)

We can say;

Republic : AP-54,AP-55 & AP-57
NAA : D160-1,D160-2,D-160-3 & D160-4
Vought : V-371
Convair : MX1554 (F-102) Model-8-80
Lockheed : L-205
Douglas : Model-1245
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,362
Reaction score
900
Akaikaze said:
Just on quick question about the LRI-X proposals. Notice WHERE the canard is. How in the world as the backseater supposed to get in? And with that space there, how did NAA plan on making that part structurally sound? You can't bolt it on the canopy, and you couldn't run a spar through it, otherwise you couldn't get in the plane. No wonder they dumped the canard when the mock-up was completed. [...]

Interesting question. As reading the following discussion I didn't find anyone with a conclusive answer, here is my take:

- Canard hinge behind the rear canopy (probably a 50-60% max thickness airfoil (delta) so it would have been the position of the max thickness)
- Canard and top of both canopy is a single structural piece
- Rear hatch cut line is for copilot ejection (seat only)
- Forward cabin is ejected completely in case of emergency at high speed with both pilots in their seats and canards ensure cabin stability à la F-111
- raising the canopy on the ground hinges the canard upward

I think it's that simple. Remember that Canards were mostly set in a fixed position in those designs (fixed or hinged for pitch trim).

my 2 cents
 

circle-5

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
130
NAA early factory desk models of the MX-1554 in single and twin engine configurations.
 

Attachments

  • NAA MX-1554 Single & Twin.jpg
    NAA MX-1554 Single & Twin.jpg
    72.9 KB · Views: 257
  • NAA MX-1554 Twin.jpg
    NAA MX-1554 Twin.jpg
    28.9 KB · Views: 248

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,724
Reaction score
3,495
Nice Models my dear Circle,

and you must not that;

D160-1 was a twin boom version
D160-2 was an interceptor (single engined)
D160-3 was a medium altitude fighter (twin engined)
D160-4 was a high aspect ratio wing
 

Similar threads

Top