USN VFX Competition (Alternatives to the F-14)

TinWing

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
888
Reaction score
5
Tony Buttler's VFX/FX article in the Novermber/December 2005 issue of Air Enthusisast features a similar, but less detailed, drawing of the 225 proposal.

Sky105, what is the source of your drawing?
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,739
Reaction score
150
another configurations of mdd vfx

[admin comment added 15/09/09: this now seems unlikely]
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,739
Reaction score
150
Shame on me. Removed.

I know that Matej and Deino have something in their pockets on that subject:)))
 

sky105

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
to TinWing

Russian forum www.airbase.ru Two years ago.
 

QUANTUM1

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Another source is Francillon's book on McDonnel Douglas. There is some basic info on the design. According to Francillon, the design was judged outstanding, very close to the winning one.

Check also US patent 3, 680, 816 (dated Aug. 1, 1972). The assignee is McAir, and it does look similar. An odd feature is the downward-folding canard, which is clearly shown in the patent, and was a feature of McAir VFX (and a reason for the defeat in VFX competition?).

Does the nose look like a Phantom's, or is it my idea? Are there any sound engineering reasons for the similarity (e.g. radar with similar features, aerodynamics, etc.)?
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,266
Reaction score
414
Same drawings, different scans, including basic data.

Source:

Mike Spick, Modern Fighting Aircraft: F-14 Tomcat
 

Attachments

Matej

Multiuniversal creator
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
23
Website
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
More... Someting is also on my web, but it is (as everything :-[) awaiting update.

http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/fightersAP05.htm
 

devi

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
118
Reaction score
1
VFX Competition:
1) General Dynamics/Convair Model 44
2) Grumman Model 303.....
3) McDonnell-Douglas Model 225.....
4) North American Rockwell Model NR-323
5) Vought Model 507
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,221
Reaction score
38
Just some precisions about Dassault VG prototypes.
The TF-306E powered Mirage G flew from November 1967 to its crash on January 1971 at Istres test center. It logged 316 flights. Some american pilots were in detachment around the 1968-69 era.

After that, two twin-jet VG aircraft followed, the G8. The two-seater G8-01 flew in may 1971, the two-seat G8-02 in July 1972. Flight lasted until November 1974, with a top speed at mach 2.34 (just like the Tomcat! ;) on 13th July 1973 (reached with the weak Atar
9K-50 engines , only 7200 kgp each!)

These dates seems quite compatible with the dates of the VFX program...
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,266
Reaction score
414
US Patent 3,680,816 McDonnell-Douglas (thanks, Quantum1)

Its for pop-up canards on a VG design, not unlike Grumman's glove vanes.
 

Attachments

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,266
Reaction score
414
Fascinating page on NASA Langley's contribution to the VFX program, including their "LFAX-4" generic configuration which also influenced the VG FX designs.

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Partners/F_14.html
 

Attachments

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,363
Reaction score
28
It does but i don't have permission to post them as i got them from Tony
I'm dreaming on this Secret Projects: fighters. Just a bit of patience :p
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,289
Reaction score
17
Ok, patience. Tony and Scott (with his Bomber book) are the most patienced-after people in the secret projects field ;D
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,266
Reaction score
414
Forum member EEP1A tried to post this image of the McDonnell-Douglas Model 225.
 

Attachments

EEP1A

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone!
I happened to know this excellent site and joined few days
ago.
I have been looking for cancelled US aircraft projects for
more than 30 years as my hobby.
I looked through most of the messages in your site and
found many interesting pictures like Republic AP-75, Sikorsky AAH mock-up and
enjoyed very much.

By the way, I am a Japanese and I was encouraged to know
that non US people like Tony Buttler and Andreas Parsch
are also playing active roles in disclosing cancelled US
projects and US designation system.

I think I can contribute a little bit regarding cancelled
projects.
To begin with, I am posting a McDonnell Douglas drawing of
its VFX proposal Model 225. (For some unknown reason, I could not upload the drawing so I asked overscan to upload for me. See previous post. Thank you overscan.)

Please enjoy!
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,221
Reaction score
38
Welcome here! I know it sounds stupid, but this project looks like the PKA / FA (or T-50, or Sukhoi I-21...)
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,652
Reaction score
28
I am glad to see that we have not given up on this topic/subject yet

Keep up the good work, and keep looking through those old books.
There has to be more to this VFX Competition (F-14 alternatives)

Regards
Pioneer
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,638
Reaction score
127
photogator said:
Hi guys! First post. Here are some drawings of the Vought V507 with GE engines from the Vought archives. I checked all that I could find on this site for image size guidelines and did not find them. I hope the images are not too large.

bill
Did you grab these off the Vought Heritage site or did you go to the archive yourself? If the latter I don't suppose you picked up any Pluto/SLAM info did you?
 

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
5
QUANTUM1 said:
Another source is Francillon's book on McDonnel Douglas. There is some basic info on the design. According to Francillon, the design was judged outstanding, very close to the winning one.
How so?


Matej said:
Ouha. Do you really want this? If I start to post this stuff, nobody will stop me! ;D
Anybody have any data regarding the GD TFX design in terms of performance and weight?


KJ Lesnick
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,638
Reaction score
127
photogator said:
Thanks for the kind words. I got the during a visit to the Vought Archives.
They were from an executive brief on the program along with weapons loadout
configs and the same three views with Pratt engines.

I will try to be mindful of the posting sizes, thanks!

bill
Did you happen to notice if they had anything on Pluto/SLAM while you were there?
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,266
Reaction score
414
Beautiful pics, thanks for sharing!
 

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
5
That 303F design... the one that has wings like the F-4 looked pretty slick!

KJ
 

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
5
What was the reasons that Rockwell's (who had the only fixed-wing design) competitor was rejected?

Kendra Lesnick
BTW: If anybody knows, why did McDonnell Douglas' model 225 -- which was an outstanding design allegedly -- lose?
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
4
KJ_Lesnick said:
What was the reasons that Rockwell's (who had the only fixed-wing design) competitor was rejected?

Kendra Lesnick
BTW: If anybody knows, why did McDonnell Douglas' model 225 -- which was an outstanding design allegedly -- lose?

Only McDonnell's and Grumman's designs were able to meet the Navy requirements, and McDonnell's only barely. Grumman's design was head and shoulders above everyone else's. But like all the designs, it was based on the Gov't being able to deliver the F401, which didn't happen. The F-14A was never meant to be a production model, it was supposed to be a development version of which only 13-69 would be built to d a lot of the testing since the airframe was running well ahead of the engine development. The [original] F-14B was to be the first production standard model with the definitive engine and other changes for series production (including an APU). In effect what happened would be the equivalent of the vast majority of F-22s being EMD models.
 

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
5
F-14D said:
Only McDonnell's and Grumman's designs were able to meet the Navy requirements, and McDonnell's only barely. Grumman's design was head and shoulders above everyone else's.
What qualities made McDonnell and Grumman's design able to meet the USN requirements, and what characteristics put Grumman's design "Head and Shoulders" above everybody else?


BTW: Can you clarify the question I asked earlier: When you said the F-100 got better only when the F-110 was competing with it, do you mean when the F-401 and F-100 were being developed? Or do you mean when the F-15C was being built in the late seventies and the new F-100 designs featured the revised electronic fuel control which made for nearly surge-free operation even in trouble-areas of the engine's performance envelope? If the former, how much of a thrust difference was there between the F-401 and F-100? And if the latter, why didn't the USN just use the F-100 with the necessary modifications?
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
4
KJ_Lesnick said:
F-14D said:
Only McDonnell's and Grumman's designs were able to meet the Navy requirements, and McDonnell's only barely. Grumman's design was head and shoulders above everyone else's.
What qualities made McDonnell and Grumman's design able to meet the USN requirements, and what characteristics put Grumman's design "Head and Shoulders" above everybody else?


BTW: Can you clarify the question I asked earlier: When you said the F-100 got better only when the F-110 was competing with it, do you mean when the F-401 and F-100 were being developed? Or do you mean when the F-15C was being built in the late seventies and the new F-100 designs featured the revised electronic fuel control which made for nearly surge-free operation even in trouble-areas of the engine's performance envelope? If the former, how much of a thrust difference was there between the F-401 and F-100? And if the latter, why didn't the USN just use the F-100 with the necessary modifications?
In answer to your first question, the Navy had certain requirements stated in their Request for Proposals. Grumman and McDonnell met all of them. Everyone else didn't. Grumman's design was judged to be a lot better and exceeded the requirements in a number of areas by a significant margin (providing the Gov't delivered the engine it promised.) To get the exact details would involve researching the documentation of the Source Selection board.


You actually asked your second question in a different forum. I'll repeat part of what what I answered there.
Basically, the bottom line was that when the services had nowhere else to go, Pratt had no real incentive to fix the F100. When GE started offering an engine that was more powerful, with better performance and more reliable, customers started buying that engine instead. At that point, Pratt sat up and took notice and started making the F100 what it always should have been.

The F401 was to be at least 10% more powerful than what the F100 was supposed to deliver. In reality, if it would have worked, it would have ended up being 20% more powerful, due to the derating of the F100 to meet its reliability criteria. Of course, if they had to derate the F100 they almost certainly would have had to derate the F401.
 

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
5
F14D,

I apparently asked that question in a different post not forum ;)

Was the F-100 able to fly at a higher mach number than the F-401 (due to it's lower bypass-ratio)? Because, from what I remember, the F100 (and the plane that it propelled) was supposed to be able to achieve the same mach-numbers the MiG-25 could fly at...


KJ Lesnick
 
Top