US NAVY ATA (Advanced Tactical Aircraft) program: A-12 Avenger II & its rivals

Tailspin Turtle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
705
Reaction score
192
Website
www.tommythomason.com
https://www.amazon.com/Billion-Misunderstanding-Collapse-12-Stealth/dp/1557507775

The reviews provide insight into what the book covers. I've read it at least twice and wouldn't have been as positive in my assessment. The author is a lawyer want-to-be (he has a BA in Fine Arts and Biology) and, with the benefit of hindsight, heaps scorn on all involved, taking a very legalistic, one-sided view of the proceedings. In his opinion, what actions weren't felonious (his words) were incompetent. I think the title is a little misleading given his assessment. It was more like "The $5 Billion Waste of Money".
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
5,629
Reaction score
5,419
Interesting read as it seems.

But I think you are misled by the Author actual profession. A lawyer in the US is a very misleading term for us Europeans. I have read books associated to the same author by Amazon and to my knowledge (and memory), the author should be an ex-F14 pilot.
 

Anderman

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
213
Reaction score
84
TomcatViP said:
Interesting read as it seems.

But I think you are misled by the Author actual profession. A lawyer in the US is a very misleading term for us Europeans. I have read books associated to the same author by Amazon and to my knowledge (and memory), the author should be an ex-F14 pilot.

Sounds like JAG ;D SNCR
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
14,409
Reaction score
10,600
My experience with the author is that he does very good primary research, locates great material, but then assembles it to fit his predefined views which are squarely "Fighter Mafia" i.e. complexity is always bad, simplicity is always good, the Pentagon is corrupt and wasteful, etc. His first books (Aero Publishers F-14, F-15) were pretty by-the-numbers, positive, apparently with close cooperation with the manufacturers, but then he underwent a damascene conversion under the influence of the 'Fighter Mafia' cabal.
 

Tailspin Turtle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
705
Reaction score
192
Website
www.tommythomason.com
TomcatViP said:
Interesting read as it seems.

But I think you are misled by the Author actual profession. A lawyer in the US is a very misleading term for us Europeans. I have read books associated to the same author by Amazon and to my knowledge (and memory), the author should be an ex-F14 pilot.

As far as I know, the closest he has gotten to an F-14 is one of several items on his resume, editor of the Navy Fighter Weapons School's Topgun Journal. He has no military experience listed. He is not a lawyer by either US or European definition, other than being an argumentative advocate for one side of a story.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
14,409
Reaction score
10,600
Tailspin Turtle said:
TomcatViP said:
Interesting read as it seems.

But I think you are misled by the Author actual profession. A lawyer in the US is a very misleading term for us Europeans. I have read books associated to the same author by Amazon and to my knowledge (and memory), the author should be an ex-F14 pilot.

As far as I know, the closest he has gotten to an F-14 is one of several items on his resume, editor of the Navy Fighter Weapons School's Topgun Journal. He has no military experience listed. He is not a lawyer by either US or European definition, other than being an argumentative advocate for one side of a story.

He was a friend of Chuck Myers, among others, and is currently writing 'A History of Close Air Support'.

 

barbara_em

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 13, 2017
Messages
7
Reaction score
6
sublight is back said:
Not much water? It was 33 trillion gallons. It was so heavy it deflected the crust of the earth in Harris county by 2 centimeters. Why don't you drive through Meyerland where the contents of everyones home including the floors and walls are on the street. It looks like a war zone. BTW being too lazy to pick up a book is not going to win you many friends here.

I was being sarcastic about not much water. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I've been in Houston for every hurricane that's come through since 1961. I know what floods are like and not just from hurricanes, such as back to back flood years on the Guadalupe River in Seguin in the early 70s. And I thought, beyond my errant sarcasm, I posed an honest question.
I'm not here to win friends, by the way. I'm here to learn. Nor am I particularly lazy. You, of course, are welcome to your opinion. I'll fall back on the response we GRITS (Girls Raised In The South) learn on our mother's knees, "Well, bless your heart!"
 

Dynoman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,168
Reaction score
676
A-12 debacle synopsis:

1. Navy sought to buy 620 A-12's and the Marines were to buy 238
2. A-12 was to replace A-6 Intruders. USAF considered replacing the F-111 with the A-12.
3. The A-12 was to be a carrier capable aircraft operating as a conventional and nuclear delivery platform.
4. Starting in 1990 GD and McDAC revealed that there were serious problems with the A-12's design.
5. Problems developed in the manufacturing of sophisticated composites.
6. The aircraft's weight increased 30% during development, which became problematic for the carrier borne aircraft.
7. Development costs of the A-12's radar system became an issue.
8. The costs of the A-12 would become a huge and significant percentage of the Navy's aviation budget.
9. After program reviews the Navy was told to justify the A-12 program or it would be cancelled.
10. The Navy's response to the Sec of Defense was inadequate for the expense of fielding the A-12.
11. A-12 program cancelled in January 1991.
12. DoD wanted the contractors to repay $2 Billion.
13. The contractors took the DoD to court for breach of contract.
14. The contractors wanted to present evidence of delays but they were unable to discuss technical issues due to the aircraft being a state secret.
15. The contractors lost. They appealed to the Supreme Court, which handed the case over to a federal court that decided that the contractors pay $200 million each to the DoD.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,341
Reaction score
938
Dynoman said:
A-12 debacle synopsis:

1. Navy sought to buy 620 A-12's and the Marines were to buy 238
2. A-12 was to replace A-6 Intruders. USAF considered replacing the F-111 with the A-12.
3. The A-12 was to be a carrier capable aircraft operating as a conventional and nuclear delivery platform.
4. Starting in 1990 GD and McDAC revealed that there were serious problems with the A-12's design.
5. Problems developed in the manufacturing of sophisticated composites.
6. The aircraft's weight increased 30% during development, which became problematic for the carrier borne aircraft.
7. Development costs of the A-12's radar system became an issue.
8. The costs of the A-12 would become a huge and significant percentage of the Navy's aviation budget.
9. After program reviews the Navy was told to justify the A-12 program or it would be cancelled.
10. The Navy's response to the Sec of Defense was inadequate for the expense of fielding the A-12.
11. A-12 program cancelled in January 1991.
12. DoD wanted the contractors to repay $2 Billion.
13. The contractors took the DoD to court for breach of contract.
14. The contractors wanted to present evidence of delays but they were unable to discuss technical issues due to the aircraft being a state secret.
15. The contractors lost. They appealed to the Supreme Court, which handed the case over to a federal court that decided that the contractors pay $200 million each to the DoD.

Interesting Dynoman, but one thing you don't mention, is how much it cost the American taxpayer for the DoD to take the contractors to the Supreme Court!

Overscan makes the assertion that 'the author's predefined view is that Pentagon is corrupt and wasteful'. (No slander intended Overscan!)

I made up my opinion a long time ago! :-[

Regards
Pioneer
 

Tailspin Turtle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
705
Reaction score
192
Website
www.tommythomason.com
I periodically posted the status of the A-12 settlement process. If I remember correctly, this was the last one:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

LEG

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
43
Reaction score
52
GeorgeA said:
Well, John Lehman originally envisioned the ATA as a scaled-down B-2 using B-2 stealth technology, and contemporary accounts say Pete Aldridge did agree to terminate a competing fighter development and accept the ATA as the USAF replacement for its then-current generation of strike fighters.

I guess we can disagree on how sincere Aldridge or the Air Force was, but there was a (perhaps coincidental) termination of a large unnamed program in that period that resulted in thousands of layoffs (this was reported in AW&ST at the time). Certainly Stevenson and other authors have taken a shot at reconstructing the history here and are probably the authoritative sources on this episode.


In Stevenson's book, there is a Model 303 (or perhaps 323) which looks suspiciously like an F-111 had a one night stand with an F-14. TFBDMU also details the performance criterion differences between a fighter/fighter attack/bomber configured airframe with the attack being a flying win with A/B as I recall. Nothing makes sense with regard to expected radii, expected ordnance loads and expected fuel fractions.

Since the F-14 could haul 14 Mk.82 on the pallets but an F-111 could not haul 16 Mk.82 internally, something is clearly 'off'.

APQ-183 was a Ka band attack set. Yet the A-12 was expected to both carry and provide guidance illumination for the AIM-152 AAAM, something that the F-14 itself could not do without an auxiliary radar pod.

The A-12 was a short chord wing with a 24,000lbf installed thrust on an airframe with a known 2,000lb weight overage, at program start. The USN then went on a task master campaign with GD/MDD to 'get the weight out!' while promising a lot of VLO they didn't have the muscle to twist the AFSC fair haired children's arm far enough back to provide.

So bad were things like SEROC and Radius that the program was all but shut down until they literally changed the moldline (something that never should have happened during FSED) to a 'thick section' wing to buy back lift and gain more fuel. You see this in the Anigrand vs. Planet Models replicas.

Despite what must have been a massive increase in both weight and lift at drag, SEROC supposedly ROSE, back to acceptable levels. At the same time drawings of the jet began showing kickdown mass flow doors, like those of the X-32, which can only mean a pretty big change in powerplant inlet requirements, if not an entirely new engine.

If you read the end notes of TFBDMU, you'll note that one of the arguments used against the government (the contractors won the first judgment and two of the followon appeals) was that the entire industry came together to save the A-12, right at the last, and the USN auditor who condemned the aircraft, on weight grounds, did not know about a special modification to the jet which supposedly added a 'bra', like a sports car mud guard that totally changed the planform of the airframe to more of a double-delta shape, while finally solving a serious problem with the RCS of the inlets acting as cavity reflectors while removing the RCS vanes altogether, as these simply created multipath reflections across a couple of critical illumination angles.

Could this be part of what changed the available power levels?

If you look at any of the drawings of A/X, the flying wing version of that aircraft, essentially a simplified A-12, designed to harvest what was saveable from a politically non-capitalizable program, into a simpler airframe, has a double delta with protruding nose...

I am essentially 60:40 that the ATA was a monumental hoax as part of the Reagan Era 'spend them under the table' bluff. An airframe configuration that nobody would have naturally chosen for a carrier attack jet (flying wings have huge lift margins until you get the AOA right up there and then they deep stall, unrecoverably, and sometimes even flip, due to the short couple moment between LEF/TEF across the CL).

If it was real, it looked, in it's final configuration, nothing like a Flying Wing and much more like a Modified Delta, similar to the X-47B. And it is this condition which makes the program all the more suspect because it again, does not match the configurational specs for any of the design points, strongly implies major design changes, post CDR, and has no flying testbed, to confirm aeros effects, separate from the structures and VLO systems work, which should have been separate engineering efforts in their own right.

No company in their right minds would accept so much risk, across all three primary design criterion, with 'promises' of support in areas which they themselves had no or limited experience. Again, IF HONEST, this means that either GD had a lot more VLO experience (I would suspect a crash program after Have Blue/Tacit Blue) than is hinted or that the true source of VLO design revolutions was coming from someplace black/CSAR else. Clearly not DARPA.

If it was false, then things like a Lawyer telling the USN to break federal DFAR laws by creating an automatic deficiency as fraud in the inducement and then doubling down when the contract defaulted as Northrop stepped out and forcing GD to 'bid against themselves' suddenly takes on a new fall-guy meaning. As does Elberfeld's 'I never went to Defense Acquisition School but I'm game!' leadership of such a critical program for nearly a decade, AS A CAPTAIN.

Like any Admiral in charge of NavAir is going to let a snot nosed kid punk his retirement five years out. Hmmmm, Garret? I think it was him, was no such fool.

Both the USAF and USN have massive databases of past designs which they linked to FES structural models to calculate 'truthiness' in contractor promises, the USAF also having one of the largest independent modelling resources via all manner of labs from Ames to Armstrong.

The Blue Suiters said they ran tests which showed the A-12 would not take off from anything shorter than a 15,000ft runway, as far back as 1986-87, yet they didn't jump ship until just after the Marines did, right before cancellation of the program. Again, NO. This is beyond giving your competitor enough rope to hang themselves (See: _Illusions Of Choice_ and the F-111B) but instead looks more like a VR simulation of a program that was never supposed to lead to a working airframe.

They were not going to get 500 F-15Es, no matter what. And the F-117 was a boutique program in it's own right, with every jet hand built and a monster to keep operational (as well as useless in the USAFE mission as all SALH platforms are) while the B-2 was SIOP oriented with all the Strategic Platform Risk that implies, if it shows up over Europe. So if they were just not interested in the A-12 because it was a USN airframe, why didn't they at least exploit it as a testbed for their own new project start on a Gen-3/4 VLO with GAM level through-clouds IAM delivery as the F-35 clearly was designed around 'baked right in + MMTD' standoff stealth?
 

LEG

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
43
Reaction score
52
F-14D said:
From the lawyers' point of view this contract is the "gift that keeps on giving".

The US Supreme Court today ruled on this case. It overturned the previous lower court ruling, which overturned previous rulings in even lower courts, which had said that Boeing and GD had to repay the Government money spent on this failed project. In an unanimous ruling, the Supremes said that if the Government was going to continue with its strategy of using the State Secrets privilege, normally used for terrorism or national security issues to deny the companies the information they say is crucial to their case, then the Government can not prove it is entitled to the damages it claims are owed it.

The Supreme Court then sent the case back to the lower courts for further litigation. Like Tailspin said, from the lawyers' point of view this contract truly is the "gift that keeps on giving".


I have it on good authority that GDFW and MDD were both told that they would never work in industry again and should divest themselves of their aerospace divisions to other contractors. In 1991.

It was _never_ a good day for the tax payers or the defense of this nation when the top two fighter houses of our country were replaced by...Boeing (last built the P-26) and Lockheed Martin (F-104).

That is just petty minded ignorance of the national priorities.
 

LEG

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
43
Reaction score
52
Colonial-Marine said:
Yes but wouldn't the A-12 been adopted as a replacement as the F-111 by the USAF? A low altitude, high speed penetrator?

Think about the F-15E which, at low level, is a real gut buster, guaranteed to solve constipation problems faster than 2 liter overdose of Milk Of Magnesia.

Now transition this from a 610sqft wing area to a 1,317sqft equivalent.

The A-12 would not have been a low altitude penetrator if it was going to get the 930nm radial it was eventually promised to achieve with the fat-wing mod. Twenty one thousand pounds of fuel is simply not enough for a twin engine jet to touch 1,000nm at lolo. The F-16s which did the Osirak mission were carrying ~14,000lbs, did the outboard 'in ground effect, at flight idle' (.6 and <200ft), cleaned the jet as the wing tanks emptied and went to burner only in the last 10nm of ingress before walking home at .76 and 19K because there were headwinds at 27.

And when they rolled out on the ramp at Etzion, from a 550nm radius, none of the Netz' had more than 1,000lbs remaining on the totalizer.

Stealth buys you three things:

1. Radius at altitude, where the air is thin and cold.
2. Sensor Squint at altitude, where the air is thin and clear.
3. Glide Range, for standoff glide munitions where are typically cheaper if they don't come with a long-life solid motor or micro turbine.

The A-12, as it was finally configured had a nose job that was described as a 'bra' which greatly modified the forward quarter RCS values of the inlets which were a known cavity reflector weakness in the design. It was the presence of this mod, as well as the USN auditors lack of clearance in knowing about it's effects upon weight and signature, which carried the GD/MDD lawsuit for about 30 years. The reason for the bra was to lengthen the inlet ducts and change their look angle to surface radars because the RCS control vanes were not working properly to mask the turbopath, at altitude.

The Avenger also had a mixing plenum as is hinted by the large venetian blind louvers


And internal vents called 'MULE'.

As well as a contrail suppression tank.

The F404/F5D2 exhausts are tilted down, hit an RCC strike plate and coanda flow upwards directly into the efflux of the large bypass duct which is arched up over the primary turbopath and under the spine louvres before shock mixing with the exhaust. The hot exhaust acts as an endstage compressor, reaccelerating the bypass flow and giving a significant kick in thrust while at the same time cooling itself to near ambient so that, despite being ventrally located, the plume temps are not too outrageous to IR detection.

The A-12 may, as an initial impression, look like it's low level optimized but it isn't.

Nobody would be so stupid as to send a 143 million dollar jet (the original promise was 35) through the trashfire envelope where every Ivan, Muktar and Kim could toss rocks at it. Not even the Navy with their Petula Clark fetish.
 

LEG

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
43
Reaction score
52
TomS said:
The canopy the side by side version would have been a massive transparency. Probably too big to actually be a single piece casting.

Why do you think that no stealth aircraft thus far, outside of the B-2 which is a cabin aircraft, has a two seat version?

Cost? Bwuahahahahahah.

In 1979 or so, when they were looking into the A-10B as a precursor justification for the N/AW, they discovered that a tub would justify itself inside of two years on (otherwise section takeoff) check flights alone. It's always a fantastic risk the first time a nugget takes off in a 100 million dollar jet, 'alone and underequipped'. Yet they do it. Why? It's not netcentrics or Pilot's Associate.

They do something to RF seal the interior. Something that likely has limits for aperture size or maybe charge density.

It is why the F-22 never adapted the JHMCS (though it's looking like getting Viper) and the JSF has an optical instead of RF head positioning sensors.
 

Dragon029

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
881
Reaction score
400
The F-35's HMDS (like JHMCS) uses electromagnetic tracking as its primary tracking method, though it has an optical system to help maintain boresight alignment. As for the transparency, I wouldn't expect there to be any major RF issue with making it larger - maybe you'd have charge density increases near the edges when dealing with lower wavelengths, but that should be manageable.
 

LowObservable

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,243
Reaction score
359
Kurt, is that you? (Of course it is.)

Quick detail point: the GD AAAM needed an illuminator. Not sure the MDC version did.
 

Ingraman

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Messages
50
Reaction score
103
From old Hard Disk. Bye.
 

Attachments

  • a-12 amodels 0000000000-----------------1.jpg
    a-12 amodels 0000000000-----------------1.jpg
    19.3 KB · Views: 340
  • a-12 amodels 0000000000------------------1.jpg
    a-12 amodels 0000000000------------------1.jpg
    20.4 KB · Views: 403

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
1,543
A-12 was mentioned in "Seven Deadly Sins of Airplane Design" a lecture by Barnaby Wainfain, at Caltech, 2019, April 1. (https://wainfan.co/)
Barnaby blames A-12 weight gain on poor configuration. With all those holes in the belly for wheels, engine changes, bomb-bays, etc. there was no straight, span-wise path for lateral loads. IOW All leading edge loads had to be routed back to the trailing edge, across the trailing edge, then forward to the far leading edge. The only span-wise load-path was across the trailing edge. This forced span-wise loads to follow longer paths. Longer load paths are always heavier.
The leading edge was too thin to hold spars deep enough to carry significant span-wise loads. The proposed nose-bra, might have provided more depth for substantial spar(s) across the nose.
Barnaby Wainfain is a fellow at Northrop and designer of the odd Facetmoble, ultralight. One reason Facetmobile flew so well was its very light empty weight. Light weight implies efficient structural design.
 
Last edited:

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
14,409
Reaction score
10,600
A-12 was mentioned in "Seven Deadly Sins of Airplane Design" a lecture by Barnaby Wainfain, at Caltech, 2019, April 1. (https://wainfan.co/)
Barnaby blames A-12 weight gain on poor configuration. With all those holes in the belly for wheels, engine changes, bomb-bays, etc. there was no straight, span-wise path for lateral loads. IOW All leading edge loads had to be routed back to the trailing edge, then forward to the far leading edge. The only span-wise load-path was across the trailing edge. This forced span-wise loads to follow longer paths. Longer load paths are always heavier.
The leading edge was too thin to hold spars deep enough to carry significant span-wise loads. The proposed nose-bra, might have provided more depth for substantial spar(s) across the nose.
Barnaby Wainfain is a fellow at Northrop and designer of the odd Facetmoble, ultralight. One reason Facetmobile flew so well was its very light empty weight. Light weight implies efficient structural design.

Mr Wainfain did aerodynamic design and configuration on TACIT BLUE and Northrop's ATA, so he has a pretty good insight into the A-12 configuration.
 

Richard N

Lost in the Sky
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
1,014
Reaction score
1,474
The 7 Deadly Sins of Airplane Design by Barnaby Wainfan July 23, 2020 forum presentation from the virtual 2020 EAA Convention. The whole presentation is very interesting and the A-12 portion is just a very small part. The A-12 is discussed at 48:00.


Videos of all of the 2020 EAA Forums are here. This online presentation is better than being there because you can see all of them at your leisure and not be stuck with the Solomon's choice of picking one of the 10 forums going on at the same time and missing 9 others.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

apparition13

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
330
Reaction score
541
A-12 was mentioned in "Seven Deadly Sins of Airplane Design" a lecture by Barnaby Wainfain, at Caltech, 2019, April 1. (https://wainfan.co/)
Barnaby blames A-12 weight gain on poor configuration. With all those holes in the belly for wheels, engine changes, bomb-bays, etc. there was no straight, span-wise path for lateral loads. IOW All leading edge loads had to be routed back to the trailing edge, across the trailing edge, then forward to the far leading edge. The only span-wise load-path was across the trailing edge. This forced span-wise loads to follow longer paths. Longer load paths are always heavier.
The leading edge was too thin to hold spars deep enough to carry significant span-wise loads. The proposed nose-bra, might have provided more depth for substantial spar(s) across the nose.
Barnaby Wainfain is a fellow at Northrop and designer of the odd Facetmoble, ultralight. One reason Facetmobile flew so well was its very light empty weight. Light weight implies efficient structural design.
Another plus in the N/G A-12 column then, what with it's hexagonal fuselage. And another negative in the "we know it won't work, but we'll cross our fingers and hope for a miracle anyway" column that was the USN's approach to the GD/MD.
 

allysonca

ACCESS: Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
253
Reaction score
662
Forgive me if I posted this, but I added it to the collection a few months ago.... and she is big. I just finished the canopy and have some finish work to do, then I will repost. It was one of 2 made at the General Dynamics model shop in Dallas in this scale, BUT rather than being a static this was supposed to be a flyer. Made of a fiberglass skin and a wood inner structure it was constructed to be as light as possible, yet retain it's strength. All the flying surfaces are moveable via servos and there are mounts for the turbofans in the center. The only flying is will be doing is on my ceiling when it is done.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7222.jpeg
    IMG_7222.jpeg
    102.7 KB · Views: 158
  • IMG_7223.jpeg
    IMG_7223.jpeg
    100.5 KB · Views: 148
  • IMG_7224.jpeg
    IMG_7224.jpeg
    101.5 KB · Views: 205
Last edited:

shedofdread

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
538
Reaction score
273
Forgive me if I posted this, but I added it to the collection a few months ago.... and she is big. I just finished the canopy and have some finish work to do, then I will repost. It was one of 2 made at the General Dynamics model shop in Dallas in this scale, BUT rather than being a static this was supposed to be a flyer. Made of a fiberglass skin and a wood inner structure it was constructed to be as light as possible, yet retain it's strength. All the flying surfaces are moveable via servos and there are mounts for the turbofans in the center. The only flying is will be doing is on my ceiling when it is done.
It would be interesting to get that flying (again? / has it flown?). Maybe not that actual one as it has historical value but it could be reverse engineered relatively simply.
 

VTOLicious

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
987
Reaction score
843
Forgive me if I posted this, but I added it to the collection a few months ago.... and she is big. I just finished the canopy and have some finish work to do, then I will repost. It was one of 2 made at the General Dynamics model shop in Dallas in this scale, BUT rather than being a static this was supposed to be a flyer. Made of a fiberglass skin and a wood inner structure it was constructed to be as light as possible, yet retain it's strength. All the flying surfaces are moveable via servos and there are mounts for the turbofans in the center. The only flying is will be doing is on my ceiling when it is done.
Amazing model!
I would be very interested in the method used for yaw control. Does it feature split ailerons or some spoilers?
Could you post some detailed pictures of the control surfaces and engine inlets/exhausts?

BR Michael
 

Mark Nankivil

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
1,240
Forgive me if I posted this, but I added it to the collection a few months ago.... and she is big. I just finished the canopy and have some finish work to do, then I will repost. It was one of 2 made at the General Dynamics model shop in Dallas in this scale, BUT rather than being a static this was supposed to be a flyer. Made of a fiberglass skin and a wood inner structure it was constructed to be as light as possible, yet retain it's strength. All the flying surfaces are moveable via servos and there are mounts for the turbofans in the center. The only flying is will be doing is on my ceiling when it is done.
Looks like Dave Hudson's work - nice!

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

tab28682

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
33
Reaction score
62
I have some knowledge of that model. I had temporary possession of it for a year or so in the mid 1990s.

It was not built by the GD model shop in Fort Worth (no shop in Dallas). We did build either three or four 1/10 scale display A-12 models in our shop in the very late 1980s. We also built the transparent A-12 model pictured elsewhere in this thread. Sadly, the transparent A-12 model was ordered to be destroyed after the litigation had been complete for a long time. We were unable to divert it to a new home. Sad.

The model pictured here was purpose built for RC, using glow fuel power, with a 5” diameter ducted fan. No commercial small turbine was available then. We had loaned out one of the 1/10 scale display A-12 models to an organization and a team of three RC guys who shall remain nameless for now borrowed it, made a splash mold in epoxy composite and built that model. The original display model survived with a little paint damage.

This RC model was very heavy. Yaw control was via a gyro and split outer control surfaces.

At least two attempts were made to fly it. Both ended in failure. As I recall, the model swapped ends in the yaw axis at the moment of takeoff. The corrective yaw force of the split surfaces was not enough to influence this very heavy model. Dave Hudson was the pilot for the team, but not sure if he was involved in the construction.

I took it in for a while to attempt to build much lighter outer wing panels. I had the model and the molds. The outer wing panels on the model were incredibly heavy, and every ounce of these panels was behind the CG of the model. Never found the time to get it done and it went back to one of the original builders.

I have flown a smaller scratch built 1/20 scale A-12 model built by another member of our model shop. Correct shape, but simplified to elevon control only. No yaw control. No fake vertical tails. No landing gear. Small glow motor with a pusher prop mounted on the trailing edge. Flew very nicely. It did not like to be slowed down too much when gliding to a landing, as the directional stability faded away as the model slowed down and it would develop a mind of its own....:)

Thought the interested parties here would like to know more about this story.
 

allysonca

ACCESS: Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
253
Reaction score
662
I have some knowledge of that model. I had temporary possession of it for a year or so in the mid 1990s.

It was not built by the GD model shop in Fort Worth (no shop in Dallas). We did build either three or four 1/10 scale display A-12 models in our shop in the very late 1980s. We also built the transparent A-12 model pictured elsewhere in this thread. Sadly, the transparent A-12 model was ordered to be destroyed after the litigation had been complete for a long time. We were unable to divert it to a new home. Sad.

The model pictured here was purpose built for RC, using glow fuel power, with a 5” diameter ducted fan. No commercial small turbine was available then. We had loaned out one of the 1/10 scale display A-12 models to an organization and a team of three RC guys who shall remain nameless for now borrowed it, made a splash mold in epoxy composite and built that model. The original display model survived with a little paint damage.

This RC model was very heavy. Yaw control was via a gyro and split outer control surfaces.

At least two attempts were made to fly it. Both ended in failure. As I recall, the model swapped ends in the yaw axis at the moment of takeoff. The corrective yaw force of the split surfaces was not enough to influence this very heavy model. Dave Hudson was the pilot for the team, but not sure if he was involved in the construction.

I took it in for a while to attempt to build much lighter outer wing panels. I had the model and the molds. The outer wing panels on the model were incredibly heavy, and every ounce of these panels was behind the CG of the model. Never found the time to get it done and it went back to one of the original builders.

I have flown a smaller scratch built 1/20 scale A-12 model built by another member of our model shop. Correct shape, but simplified to elevon control only. No yaw control. No fake vertical tails. No landing gear. Small glow motor with a pusher prop mounted on the trailing edge. Flew very nicely. It did not like to be slowed down too much when gliding to a landing, as the directional stability faded away as the model slowed down and it would develop a mind of its own....:)

Thought the interested parties here would like to know more about this story.
Thanks for the corections.... being new to Texas, Dallas and Ft. Worth are one in the same (I know... blasphemy) to me! The Wings do detach as you can see in the photos and actually there is no evidence that this had never flown, or at least if it had the repairs were pretty good. None the less I am so very happy to have something so rare. Wish you still had the molds, and there is this EA-12 four seat version I would love to find... there is one at the Ft Worth museum. I've attached a picture..........
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0008.jpg
    IMG_0008.jpg
    663.9 KB · Views: 195

allysonca

ACCESS: Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
253
Reaction score
662
I have some knowledge of that model. I had temporary possession of it for a year or so in the mid 1990s.

It was not built by the GD model shop in Fort Worth (no shop in Dallas). We did build either three or four 1/10 scale display A-12 models in our shop in the very late 1980s. We also built the transparent A-12 model pictured elsewhere in this thread. Sadly, the transparent A-12 model was ordered to be destroyed after the litigation had been complete for a long time. We were unable to divert it to a new home. Sad.

The model pictured here was purpose built for RC, using glow fuel power, with a 5” diameter ducted fan. No commercial small turbine was available then. We had loaned out one of the 1/10 scale display A-12 models to an organization and a team of three RC guys who shall remain nameless for now borrowed it, made a splash mold in epoxy composite and built that model. The original display model survived with a little paint damage.

This RC model was very heavy. Yaw control was via a gyro and split outer control surfaces.

At least two attempts were made to fly it. Both ended in failure. As I recall, the model swapped ends in the yaw axis at the moment of takeoff. The corrective yaw force of the split surfaces was not enough to influence this very heavy model. Dave Hudson was the pilot for the team, but not sure if he was involved in the construction.

I took it in for a while to attempt to build much lighter outer wing panels. I had the model and the molds. The outer wing panels on the model were incredibly heavy, and every ounce of these panels was behind the CG of the model. Never found the time to get it done and it went back to one of the original builders.

I have flown a smaller scratch built 1/20 scale A-12 model built by another member of our model shop. Correct shape, but simplified to elevon control only. No yaw control. No fake vertical tails. No landing gear. Small glow motor with a pusher prop mounted on the trailing edge. Flew very nicely. It did not like to be slowed down too much when gliding to a landing, as the directional stability faded away as the model slowed down and it would develop a mind of its own....:)

Thought the interested parties here would like to know more about this story.
Thanks for the corections.... being new to Texas, Dallas and Ft. Worth are one in the same (I know... blasphemy) to me! The Wings do detach as you can see in the photos and actually there is no evidence that this had never flown, or at least if it had the repairs were pretty good. None the less I am so very happy to have something so rare. Wish you still had the molds, and there is this EA-12 four seat version I would love to find... there is one at the Ft Worth museum. I've attached a picture..........
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0008.jpg
    IMG_0008.jpg
    663.9 KB · Views: 239

Richard N

Lost in the Sky
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
1,014
Reaction score
1,474
Allyson,

I saw that model at a Texas RC jet model flying meet and spoke to its builder in the late '90s when I lived in Houston. I don't remember any attempt to fly it. It would be good if you could post some pictures of the inside and underside of the model.
It would be interesting to hear how it wound up with you.

Richard
 

tab28682

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
33
Reaction score
62
I have some knowledge of that model. I had temporary possession of it for a year or so in the mid 1990s.

It was nott built by the GD model shop in Fort Worth (no shop in Dallas). We did build either three or four 1/10 scale display A-12..........


Thanks for the corections.... being new to Texas, Dallas and Ft. Worth are one in the same (I know... blasphemy) to me! The Wings do detach as you can see in the photos and actually there is no evidence that this had never flown, or at least if it had the repairs were pretty good. None the less I am so very happy to have something so rare. Wish you still had the molds, and there is this EA-12 four seat version I would love to find... there is one at the Ft Worth museum. I've attached a picture..........
Blasphemy forgiven...:)

The model was never hurt much by the crashes, as it never got more than a few inches off the ground when it spun around. It would break things like landing gear, etc. The airframe itself would just get minor scrapes. A little body filler, paint and primer and it would look like new.

With 30 years of time passing, the old A-12 models and tooling are long gone for the very most part. One of the 1/10 A-12 clear canopy display models is still on display in the office area where I used to work, along with two 1/20 scale A-12 models, one with a clear canopy and one with a solid (painted) canopy.
 

allysonca

ACCESS: Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
253
Reaction score
662
OHHH... 1/20th is perfect..... wish they were available! Anyone have one for sale? I'll send more interior shots very soon. Having come to TX from the Los Angeles area where there were a plethora of makers, models did abound. So far here the pickings are slimmer than I would hope.
 

tab28682

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
33
Reaction score
62
OHHH... 1/20th is perfect..... wish they were available! Anyone have one for sale? I'll send more interior shots very soon. Having come to TX from the Los Angeles area where there were a plethora of makers, models did abound. So far here the pickings are slimmer than I would hope.
Well, there are some model makers around here. Not a complete desert...:) DCU, Inc is a composite model shop north of Dallas, in Wylie, TX. They do a lot of the composite model cores for the LM model shop

There are a number of individuals around DFW that will build aircraft models for people.
1/20 scale is great for a large and impressive, but not TOO large, A-12 display model.

If you don’t mind, I’ll drop you a PM about some local model collections you need to see, and some possible local modelers
 

allysonca

ACCESS: Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
253
Reaction score
662
That would be fantastic. I do build/carve my own and a lot of restorations or repairs as of late..... but there are so many to do and so little time and it would be great to connect to others here. Ive attached my most recent on the work bench. A big 'un!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8075.jpg
    IMG_8075.jpg
    2.5 MB · Views: 175
Last edited by a moderator:

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
3,009
Reaction score
687
That would be fantastic. I do build/carve my own and a lot of restorations or repairs as of late..... but there are so many to do and so little time and it would be great to connect to others here. My email is "redacted" and cell is "redacted". Ive attached my most recent on the work bench. A big 'un!

You might want to PM him your contact info, as opposed to allowing anyone on the internet to contact you. just saying.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
14,409
Reaction score
10,600
Removed the contact details from Allyson's post. Please send these directly to the user by clicking on their name in their post then clicking "start conversation".
 
Top