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

USN VFX Competition (Alternatives to the F-14)

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,740
Reaction score
40
KJ_Lesnick said:
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
And I answered this one in a different post not forum :eek:
 

Evil Flower

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
223
Reaction score
2
Does anybody know if the GD entry was supposed to have any external pylons? Tony's book only gives the reference "at least 4xAIM-7" which does sound a little small. Just wondering since I'm underway building this thing for a certain flightsim.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,740
Reaction score
40
Evil Flower said:
Does anybody know if the GD entry was supposed to have any external pylons? Tony's book only gives the reference "at least 4xAIM-7" which does sound a little small. Just wondering since I'm underway building this thing for a certain flightsim.
The "at least 4...", probably comes from the requirement in the VFX solicitations to be able to carry at least 4 AIM-7, so we can assume any design could do at least that or it would be eliminated off the bat.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,512
Reaction score
574
Mark Nankivil said:
Thanks Gregory - sure is fun to hunt this stuff and I am very, very lucky to have the access I've had to the Vought Archives. And looking forward to another trip this spring!
When you go any chance you could poke around for Pluto/SLAM stuff? Vought did the work on the missile portion of Pluto (called "SLAM" Supersonic Low-Altitude Missile).
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,559
Reaction score
229
I went looking for that info for Scott Lowther but came up short - I did not find anything missile related save for Scout and misc. aircraft launched missiles. There may be another drawer somewhere else and I'll pick up the search next time I am down there, hopefully this coming Spring.

Looking on the bright side, I at least know where it's not :)

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,720
Reaction score
1,450
Cool. Other artwork was posted in the start of the topic:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,229.msg3889.html#msg3889
 

Maki

Anytime Baby!!!
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
21
Reaction score
1
I wonder what was the estimated top speed of NAR's concept. Those wings don't look like they are optimized for supersonic performance.
 

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,026
Reaction score
13
I think a lot of members would be happy to see this one: I actually found the RFP for the VFX... I don't know how accurate this is so I could use to know if there were changes

- Two-man crew (tandem-seating)
- Two-engines (Pratt &Whitney TF-30 P-412 to be used as interim)
- Incorporate AWG-9 and AIM-54 Phoenix weapon system
- Carry up to 6 x AIM-54 Phoenix, or 6 x AIM-7 Sparrow, and/or 4 x AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles plus one internal M61-A1 Vulcan-cannon.
- Be designed to endure high fighter loads exceeding those of the F-4J loaded with AIM-7 Sparrow or AIM-54 Phoenix missiles
- Carrier suitability: Landing strengths for 6 x AIM-54 Phoenix missiles and 4,000 lbs of fuel. Landing speeds and weights of VFX are suitable for operations from the Hancock-Class CVA's.

There are probably other requirements too but these I remember finding online. If only I wrote down the URL.
 

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,026
Reaction score
13
Does anyone have more data about the Grumman Fixed-Wing VFX Study?

I've seen a bunch of pictures of it but very little data, particularly pertaining to wing area (and/or any data pertaining to it's performance). I could really use the data if anyone has it.


KJ Lesnick
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
50
KJ, was that the VFX-A or -B ? There were TWO specifications.
 

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,026
Reaction score
13
What's the difference between the VFX-A and VFX-B?

KJ
 

Pyrrhic victory

This is going to hurt
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
73
Reaction score
13
Maki said:
I wonder what was the estimated top speed of NAR's concept. Those wings don't look like they are optimized for supersonic performance.
NAVAIR doubted the performance claims of NAR's entry, they didn't think the VFX could be done without VG. The wing was also good deal straighter and less "gothic" than the FX (F-15) entry was. It's also interesting no pictures with an AIM-54 hanging off it have appeared either.

Skybolt said:
KJ, was that the VFX-A or -B ? There were TWO specifications.
Never heard of the terms of VFX-A or -B. I've heard of VFX-1, VFX-2 and VFX-3 though; the original plan the F-14A, B, C production transition plan. (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1969/1969%20-%200395.html)

Here's a picture of the F-14 model after it grew a second tail with the lead designer Mike Pelehach.
 

Attachments

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,026
Reaction score
13
Pyrrhic Victory,

NAVAIR doubted the performance claims of NAR's entry, they didn't think the VFX could be done without VG.
I didn't know NAVAIR was totally opposed to a VG-design.

Never heard of the terms of VFX-A or -B. I've heard of VFX-1, VFX-2 and VFX-3 though; the original plan the F-14A, B, C production transition plan. (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1969/1969%20-%200395.html)
How long would it take for them to go from A to C? I was always under the impression they'd go from the original TF-30 directly to the F-401?

Additionally, I was never under the impression that spot-factor relative to the F-4 was considered such a gigantic deal (It was mentioned in the article)


KJ
 

Racer

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
The red one could be a Harpoon Mock up?

An Italian Doc? About what?

Why are the under engine nacelles not used like this? Is it because of little space to the deck on hard landings?
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
50
An Italian documenary on the F-14, made by using US videos. Probably by DELTA. I myself own the B-52 one, that you can find in original version on YouTube.
 

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,026
Reaction score
13
So there was nothing that could have been done that would have persuaded the USN that a fixed-wing would have worked?
 

Howedar

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
starviking said:
Racer said:
The red one could be a Harpoon Mock up?
I think it's too small in diameter to be a Harpoon.
I disagree. Compare it to the inlet just to the right, which should be about the same size as the one on the F-14 we know and love. Harpoon's only a hair over a foot in diameter, and a man could crawl down an F-14 inlet if he wished.
 

bagera3005

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
76
Reaction score
2
Website
s4.photobucket.com
overscan said:
This is thought to be a Vought fixed wing VFX study.

First pic is a unnumbered Secoy sketch with some notable similarities in configuration but different intake design.

Next two pics via Matej.

Last pic from personal pictures of forum member shows the same model being held by the model-maker himself.
looks close to f-18 an f-35
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,559
Reaction score
229
Hi All -

Some photos of the McDonnell Douglas Model 225 model in the St. Louis Aviation Museum collection that match up with the post that started this thread.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,720
Reaction score
1,450
Wow. Beautiful pics, Mark. Thanks for sharing!
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,494
Reaction score
394
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Some greatly reduced (15% of original size) snips of some Convair Model 44 diagrams I came across. The full-rez, complete versions of these may or may not wind up for sale, but for now the full rez versions are "embargoed."
 

Attachments

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,720
Reaction score
1,450
The cutaway drawing is particularly beautiful. Thanks, Scott.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,494
Reaction score
394
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
overscan said:
The cutaway drawing is particularly beautiful.
Yeah, it's a hell of a piece of artwork. The first time I saw it, it was in the form of a far-to-big-for-my-flatbed-scanner "blueprint," seen here in photo form. The next day I came across a conveniently sized version that scanned well at 600 dpi.
 

Attachments

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,800
Reaction score
75
Regarding the McDD model 225, that's the only low-wing VG aircraft I think I've ever seen.

Where would the main undercarriage go? Looks like the wing pivot box gets in the way. ???

cheers,
Robin.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,720
Reaction score
1,450
Tu-22M has low wing and VG wings.

Granted, the pivots are further outboard, but then the McDD 225 also seems to me to have larger fixed glove sections and wider spaced pivots than other VFX designs. Grumman also had a low wing VFX design, 303D.
 

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,026
Reaction score
13
That fixed wing design, was that the F-15N or another Naval FX derivative?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,351
Reaction score
217
The Su-17 also has a more or less low-mounted wing with VG. In the case of the McDD 225, the pivots would seem to be in the front part of the large gloves, with the landing gear probably located in the main fuselage near the aft end of the glove. The underside of the model shows a blank spot around that point where there is only a centerline missile.

The painting don't seem to show the VG structure very well -- there's no hint of a panel line between the fixed glove section and the pivoting outer wing section.
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,800
Reaction score
75
Tu-22M has low wing and VG wings.
DOHH!!!!!!!!..........................Got my fighter head on! ;D

The Su-17 also has a more or less low-mounted wing with VG
that counts as mid-wing for me! ;)

Anyway, found this on page 418 of Putnam's 'McDonnell Douglas' volume 2, it shows the position of the undecarriage on the fuselage, could still do with an underside view, though.

cheers,
Robin.
 

Attachments

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,720
Reaction score
1,450
robunos said:
Anyway, found this on page 418 of Putnam's 'McDonnell Douglas' volume 2, it shows the position of the undercarriage on the fuselage, could still do with an underside view, though.

cheers,
Robin.
You do realise that picture was the first post in this topic?

;)
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,800
Reaction score
75
OOPS !!!!!!!!!!!!

That'll teach me not to bother tracking through the thread before posting! :-[ :'(

If you want an excuse, I'll say that I was tired after trying and failing to get into the Cosford airshow, eventually finding a vantge point on one of the surrounding roads, only to have my camera pack up and cause most of my pictures to come out blurred. :mad:

Anyway, back on topic, Mark Nankivill, I see that your Model 225 3-view has 'Phantom' type intakes, rather than the wedge type shown in the other illustrations.
Would this be an earlier version? Or were the intakes changed to allow the mounting of the canards shown in the other images?

Cheers,
Robin.
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
50
Fanà article incoming ? ;)
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,740
Reaction score
40
KJ_Lesnick said:
Abraham Gubler,

If you are going to Sponge KJL at least try and ask less inane questions...
I wasn't trying to sponge, and I didn't think it was an inane question. I know spot factor is important to some extent on all Navy Fighters, I'm just wondering how big a deal it was for this particular program over others for example.
Unless you're the F/A-18, spotting factor is always a major factor. It determines how many you can carry, how many you can maintain, how you can park and store and how you can move around the deck.
 
Top