Boeing Fighter Studies, 1970s to ATF

flateric · 16 June 2006

Thread to discuss Boeing pre-ATF and ATF studies
If you have something to share, please post it here.

Anthonyp · 16 June 2006

Here's a scan of the Boeing ATF submission from an old World Air Power Journal, the date I can't remember (don't have the book here in front of me).

flateric · 16 June 2006

Boeing's submission in a NASA study for SST technology applied for 500-mile radius supersonic cruise fighter for European air battle area.

flateric · 16 June 2006

The same NASA study Boeing's submission for Middle East scenario (1 500 mile combat radius)

flateric · 16 June 2006

Boeing 1979 high speed heavy iterceptor, 45 000 kg class, and this-design-based SSBJ patent images

flateric · 16 June 2006

Boeing 1990 supersonic cruise fighter study

flateric · 16 June 2006

Boeing 1985 pre-ATF design and patent images of Boeing's universal internal weapons bay for their ATF sumbission

overscan (PaulMM) · 16 June 2006

Boeing swing-wing concepts:

overscan (PaulMM) · 16 June 2006

Boeing ATF RFP responses, 1983 : AA mission optimised, and AS mission respectively.

overscan (PaulMM) · 16 June 2006

Another Boeing early concept

overscan (PaulMM) · 16 June 2006

"Boeing's universal internal weapons bay" looks somewhat like the "Berkut" weapons bay, at least externally.

Sentinel Chicken · 16 June 2006

From what year was the Boeing Microfighter?

Orionblamblam · 17 June 2006

overscan said:
Boeing Microfighter concepts

The stubbier one is the Model 985-121, 29 feet long. The 747 aircraft carrier could carry ten of these.

The larger is the 985-213, which was 44 feet long. Six could be carried by the 747.

Orionblamblam · 17 June 2006

Dating from 1975, BTW.

Sentinel Chicken · 17 June 2006

It's interesting that the parasite fighter concept was still being considered this late! The last illustration seems to suggest that there's a landing gear bay in each wing, but no hint of a nose gear- tail-dragger perhaps? Minus the weight of the nosewheel, it might be an option.

Tuomasn · 18 June 2006

overscan said:
Boeing ATF RFP responses, 1983 : AA mission optimised, and AS mission respectively.

These small RFP top-views seem to come from the same source. Are they grouped together in it, and if so, could you post the "whole picture"?
Also, do you have side-views like the Boeing and McDD ones of the other ATF proposals?

flateric · 18 June 2006

1). Here it goes.
2). Nope((

flateric · 12 July 2007

From

AIAA-83-1164
Survey of Inlet Development for Supersonic Tactical Aircraft (Invited Paper)
L.E. Surber and Lt. C.P. Robinson, AFWAL, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH

Rafael · 13 July 2007

Is there a better quality image of this?, to better appreciate the change in cross-sections?

Thanks

Rafa

flateric · 22 July 2007

1878 Double Parasol Wing concept 3-views

from

AIAA 78-1458
Application of Hypersonic Favorable Aerodynamic Interference Concepts to Supersonic Aircraft
R. M. Kulfan,
Boeing Commercial Aircrafts
Co., Seattle, Wash.

flateric · 12 October 2007

Originally posted by Sundog in McDonnell Douglas pre-ATF / ATF studies thread re-identified as Boeing's various airframe inlet concepts from

AIAA 80-1106
Performance Variations in High Aspect Ratio Subsonic Diffusers Due to Geometric Constraints in Supersonic Tactical Aircraft Inlet Installations
Jan Syberg and Joseph Koncsek,
Boeing Military Airplane Co.,
Seattle, Washington
Lewis Surber
Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio

sferrin · 19 January 2008

flateric said:
The same NASA study Boeing's submission for Middle East scenario (1 500 mile combat radius)

A variation on that design:

Sundog · 19 January 2008

Thanks for posting that sferrin, I've been looking for that pic for years. I think I had it in an old issue of Plane & Pilot.

overscan (PaulMM) · 18 April 2008

Same picture, bottom aircraft only - from Fana.

hesham · 28 September 2008

Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19840013448_1984013448.pdf

flateric · 5 December 2008

Boeing's 500-mile radius supersonic cruise fighter for European air battle area
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,398.msg2550.html#msg2550

Wind tunnel model at NASA Langley

Source
Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Supersonic Fighter Aircraft Model at Mach 0.40 to 2.47
Francis J. Capone and E. Ann Bare
Langley Research Center
Hampton, Virginia
Dorothy Arbiter
The George Washington University
Joint Institute for Advancementof Flight Sciences
Langley Research Center
Hampton, Virginia

Lampshade111 · 8 December 2008

Hmm, judging by looks alone it seems like most of Boeing designs were closer to interceptors than pure air superiority fighters.

flateric · 13 December 2008

Tactical short take-off and landing (STOL) research iinitiative was initiated at Boeing in mid-1981 and concluded in 1982 in cooperation with USAF Wright Aeronautical Labs.The tactical air-to-air role was selected for analysis. The study vehicles were much more than
STOL configurations. Advanced technologies incorporated in the designs allowed them to have relatively long radius capability with
substantial supersonic cruise legs, superior levels of maneuverability at high fuel fractions and short field capability . Yet, airplane sizes remained attractive.

INNOVATIVE CONCEPTS FOR TACTICAL STOL
G. J. Eckard
Boeing Military Airplane Company, Seattle, WA
G. E. Poth
Wright Aeronautical Labs, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH

AIAA-1983-2129

Various studies within Model 985

lark · 15 December 2008

Thanks Flateric,

How do you comes to the Model 985 designation ?

flateric · 15 December 2008

If you will check images posted more carefully, you will answer your question yourself.

lark · 15 December 2008

You're right once again.
Sorry..

overscan (PaulMM) · 22 December 2008

As is typical for Boeing, 985 family was a lot broader than this.

Here are some more members from:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA259291

overscan (PaulMM) · 22 December 2008

From a report on onboard oxygen generation systems, naturally

flateric · 23 December 2008

Strikingly similar to 985-420...

flateric · 23 December 2008

Well, what can I say about these series..."My God - it's full of stars!"
I wonder why so broad family of various-purpose concepts was gathered under one model number?

starviking · 23 December 2008

flateric said:
Well, what can I say about these series..."My God - it's full of stars!"
I wonder why so broad family of various-purpose concepts was gathered under one model number?

Perhaps the account that covered 'Model 985' was particularly large? ;D

archipeppe · 23 December 2008

The Model 985-430 seems to have something in common with my avatar.....

flateric · 23 December 2008

BTW, always wondered, what is on your avatar?=)

archipeppe · 23 December 2008

flateric said:
BTW, always wondered, what is on your avatar?=)

Honestly I really don't know.
This photo has always captured my interest but I've never been able to recognize the aircraft depicted in.

It's a long story: this photo was published in the number of June 1982 of the "Aerospazio Mese" (a monthly Italian aerospace publication that ceased its activity in 1986) in an article, firmed by the well known Nico Sgarlato, about the Stealth aircrafts.
At that time very little was known about Stealth, it was a mere "name" after that it could be hide everything.
The photo was obtained by Roberto Laghi at that time correspondent, from USA, for the magazine.

He obtained the photo by an unidentified source that was "involved in stealth design". The articole supposed that the aircraft depicted could be involved in the Stealth development.
The photo depicted a very sleek, black aircraft, with a long tail, huge winglets and (probably) a delta or double delta wing. The engine(s ??) was hosted in a underbelly canister. The general arragment could be intended for some type of high-supersonic or, at least, hypersonic research aircraft.
Obviously now we know that such aircraft, with its high-speed looking design, couldn't be connected in any way with the development of either F-117 or B2.

The autor of the article wrote that, looking at the photo, he felt a "deja-vu" sensation but wasn't able to recognize the aircraft.
At that time I was 14 years-old boy but I had the same feeling.

All over the years I tried to match the photo with known aircrafts but with little fortune (in principle the aircraft could be very similiar to a, heavily modified, Convair B-58 Hustler, but any Hustler was ever modified in that way). During the years I was conviced that the photo (if not a fake) could be connected with the dubbed "Aurora" programme (if ever existed a programme with this name.....).

Looking at the material you posted I saw some resemblace between the Model 985-430 and the "Mystery Aircraft" of the photo (ok the Boeing is too short, lacks of winglet but it is closer in design).

I used the photo of the "Mystery Aircraft" for this Forum with the hope that someone could tells me something about it......

Anyway I enclose to this post the scan of the original article (for those who understand Italian) and the best enlargement of the scan of the aircraft.

flateric · 23 December 2008

It really did look like your wind tunnel model...and now I think of another Eric Simonsen photo-collages...

Thank you very much for the articole.

Boeing Fighter Studies, 1970s to ATF

ACCESS: USAP

ACCESS: Restricted

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

Administrator

Attachments

Administrator

Attachments

Administrator

Attachments

Administrator

American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47

ACCESS: Secret

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: Confidential

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

Administrator

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: Confidential

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

Administrator

Attachments

Administrator

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: USAP

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.