Canadair/General Dynamics CL-84 Projects

overscan (PaulMM)

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
27 December 2005
Messages
17,027
Reaction score
22,272
In regard to the Sea Control Ships;

Canadair is proposing an enlarged CL-84 for use as a sensor carrier and command post for the US Navy's proposed "sea control ships".

Source:
  • Air Enthusiast, May 1972
 
By the way,

The Canadair CL-84A was from the contenders to AAFSS.
 
hesham said:
By the way,

The Canadair CL-84A was from the contenders to AAFSS.
Click to expand...

That's right. Does anyone know the nature of the proposed armament?

Wikipedia mentions a podded GE SUU-11A/A 7.62 mm mini-gun was tested.

en.wikipedia.org

Canadair CL-84 Dynavert - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

On another forum, Arthur Majoor remembers an image of the CL-84 with nose-mounted gun and fuselage-mounted rocket pods. Has anyone seen this image?


This anecdotal nose-mounted gun and SUU-11 pod seem at odds.
 
"Does anyone know the nature of the proposed armament?"

Just found again :
In a Canadair brochure from February 1969 about the CL-84, there's a
mission profile shown fr the CL-84 in the CAS role. With a crew of two,
a mission radius of 200nm and a loiter time of 45 minutes, armament is
given as a minigun with 3000 rounds and 4 500 lbs bombs.
 
Jemiba said:
"Does anyone know the nature of the proposed armament?"

Just found again :
In a Canadair brochure from February 1969 about the CL-84, there's a
mission profile shown fr the CL-84 in the CAS role. With a crew of two,
a mission radius of 200nm and a loiter time of 45 minutes, armament is
given as a minigun with 3000 rounds and 4 500 lbs bombs.
Click to expand...

Thanks Jemiba!

Quite different from the other CL-84 armament descriptions. The four bombs must have been carried on fuselage pylons so, presumably, that minigun was nose-mounted.

Cheers
 
Correct, at least that's what's shown in the above mentioned brochure
 

Attachments

  • CL-84_configurations.JPG
    CL-84_configurations.JPG
    32.1 KB · Views: 1,924
Jemiba said:
Correct, at least that's what's shown in the above mentioned brochure
Click to expand...

Many thanks for the CL-84 layout views, Jemiba.

The CAS captions says "Up to 1000 lb ordnance at each of three stations". So, it would appear that the CAS CL-84 would be quite capable of carrying two 500lb bombs per outside fuselage pylons and that SUU-11A/A minigun on the centreline pylon.
 
Don't y'all suppose it's a good idea to start a CL-84 thread by that title, since the discussion's no longer about a Sea King gunship?
 
frank said:
Don't y'all suppose it's a good idea to start a CL-84 thread by that title, since the discussion's no longer about a Sea King gunship?
Click to expand...

We stand rebuked. :-[
 
I very nearly posted this in the old thread, where we talked about this theme, but it
was titled " US Army Seaking gunships" ...
(see http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2231.15.html"
So here's a new thread, as I've found another drawing of a proposal for an armed
variant of the CL-84 in Aviation Week 1963 :
 

Attachments

  • Cl-84.JPG
    Cl-84.JPG
    19.8 KB · Views: 1,653
I've noticed in several pictures of the Cl-84 that the tail plane also tilts to roughly correspond with the wing. Why?
 
I think this is for an easier control of the machine in some dangerous phases of flight - for example when wing tilt...
 
The horizontal stabilizer moves that much due to the pitch control necessary when the whole wing makes the transition from horizontal to near vertical with pitch also being determined by forward speed.

There's an interesting thread regarding a model of the CL-84 under construction:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=752227

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
As an addition to Jemiba's post of the general arrangement here is an artist's impression from an Canadair advertisement brochure (September 1969).
 

Attachments

  • Canadair CL-84-1D_pic01.jpg
    Canadair CL-84-1D_pic01.jpg
    164.9 KB · Views: 1,502
Hello everybody, I´m new here and was wondering if anybody has some information on this General Dynamics tiltrotor/tiltwing project? Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • tilt-wing_general-dynamics_01.jpg
    tilt-wing_general-dynamics_01.jpg
    133.1 KB · Views: 911
The "General Dynamics" image is of the Canadair CL-84-8 (or CL-84 SCS) proposal for the USN Sea Control Ship concept.
 
A few more variants, shamelessly lifted from the paper "Canadian Low Disk-Loading V/Stol Concepts Of The 20th Century" (Priestley, Hirschberg & Müller) presented at AHS65 last week:

CH-84-1D attack variant (the definitive configuration of the first image posted by Jemiba).

CH-84A AAFSS proposal (based on the earlier CH-84-1D)

CH-84E V/STOL Battlefield Observation & Rec Aircraft (FAC), offered in competition with Grumman's 4-engined Model 134E tilt-wing Mohawk variant)

CL-84-8 ASW variant offered to USN in 1971 for the stillborn Sea Control Ship program
 

Attachments

  • CL-84-8 ASW.jpg
    CL-84-8 ASW.jpg
    23.8 KB · Views: 1,006
  • CL-84E.jpg
    CL-84E.jpg
    19.9 KB · Views: 1,010
  • CL-84A AAFSS.jpg
    CL-84A AAFSS.jpg
    69.1 KB · Views: 1,131
  • CL-84-1D.jpg
    CL-84-1D.jpg
    37.3 KB · Views: 1,211
Great find with these pics gents!

What is the source?

That CL-84-8 ASW variant looks very promising and purposeful!
It looks as if it could be used by those Navy’s that are operating small / ASW carriers

Keep them coming please

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
US Navy CL-84 SCS version. AEW version in background.
 

Attachments

  • CL-84AEW_01.jpg
    CL-84AEW_01.jpg
    133.1 KB · Views: 721
Yes defiantly an opportunity lost!!!!
Look at all the money, time and effort that has gone into the V-22 Osprey?
This thing could have been flying combat missions two decades ago.
What was the main thing that killed this promising and workable design?
Please do not tell me it was because it was Canadian in origin and not American

Regards
Pioneer
 
CL-84 SCS (Sea Control Ship version)

This was the planned production version being developed when the program was cancelled in the aftermath of the cancellation of the USN SCS program.

The CL-84/SCS was intended as an ASW/radar surveillance aircraft for operations from a short flight deck, like the various Spruance DDV proposals, the Sea Control Ship (see the Spanish CVS Principe de Asturias), the USN’s LPH/LHAs, or the RN’s Invincible class “ASW Through-Deck Cruisers” (as they were then called).

· Wing Span: 42 ft 0in (12.80 m)
· Width wings folded: 27ft 0in (8.23m)
· Length: 50ft 8in (15.44 m)
· Length of fuselage: 47ft 8in (14.53m)
· Height overall (wing at 0° tilt): 18ft 8in (5.69 m)
· Diameter - main propellers: 16ft 6in (5.03 m)
· Diameter - tail propeller: 7ft 9in (2.36 m)
· Weight empty (equipped, less crew): 16,500 lb (7,483 kg)
· Max T/O Wt (VTOL) @ sea level: ISA* 29,000 lb (13,154 kg); 32°C 26,500 lb (12,019 kg)
· Max T/O Wt (STOL), 250ft (76m) deck run, zero wind, ISA; or 20 kt (23 mph 37 km/h) wind, 32°C : 36,000 lb (16,329 kg)
· Payload: VTOL 3,300 lb (1,494 kg); STOL 7,000 lb (3,175 kg)
· Max Speed: 375 kt (432 mph, 695 km/h)
· Best-range speed: 265 kt (305 mph, 491 km/h)
· Best-endurance speed: 220 kt (253 mph, 408 km/h)
· Max rate of climb @ S/L: 6,500 ft/min (1,980 m/min)
· Service ceiling: 30,000 ft
· Range @ 10,000 ft (3,050 m) w/7,000 lb (3,175 kg) payload, STO as above: 1,400 nm (1,612 miles, 2,595 km)
· Ferry Range: 2,650 nm (3,050 miles, 4,910 km)
· Endurance @ 10,000 ft (3,050 m) w/7,000 lb (3,175 kg) payload, STO as above: 6 hours

The CL-84 SCS was to be powered by 2 GE T64 engines, producing over 3,000 shp each (an uprated version of the same engine as the Vought/Hiller/Ryan XC-142A 4-engine tilt-wing transport). This engine also powers the CH-53A, etc.
Click to expand...

 

Attachments

  • CL-84SCS1974linedrawing.jpg
    CL-84SCS1974linedrawing.jpg
    115.8 KB · Views: 657
overscan said:
US Navy CL-84 SCS version. AEW version in background.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the great illustration overscan, but I wonder if this pic shows that the CL-84 was, in some ways, the answer the question that nobody needed to ask. The aircraft taking off is doing so, super-STOL, with just a variable-incidence wing and deflected slipstream. That allows operatations from a very short strip or carrier. Is VTOL really that necessary for most missions? I would actually argue the same thing for the V-22 Osprey, but that's a different question... ;D
 
Pioneer said:
Please do not tell me it was because it was Canadian in origin and not American
Click to expand...

The U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force operated the Noorduyn Norseman during and after WWII and a number of de Havilland Canada designs (Beaver, Otter, Twin Otter, Buffalo, Caribou) during the Cold War era. The U.S. Air Force currently operates a couple of converted Bombardier (ex-DHC) Dash 8 airliners as E-9A Widget range telemetry aircraft in the Gulf of Mexico.

Historically, I believe the U.S. has allowed major Canadian-sourced components in military projects (Pratt & Whitney Canada engines, for example, though I think PWC has always had direct ties with Pratt & Whitney in the USA).

I can't think of any U.S. military combat aircraft not built in the USA in recent decades off the top of my head.
 
Pioneer,

At the time the CL-84 was designed, the aerospace industries of the two countries were (at least in theory) linked through the Canada-United States Defence Production Sharing Program (1959). But that didn't help Canadair when the USAF flirted with the CL-44.

Canadair was a major subsidiary of General Dynamics (another GD firm, Convair, shared some of the CL-84 wind tunnel work). Had the CL-84 gone into production for the US military, it is entirely possible that at least final assembly would have occured in the US.

Mole gave the example of P&WC which provides the perfect model in the PT6T-3 TwinPac. But P&WC was still the subsidiary of PW/UTC. The T400 was acceptable to the DoD because a P&WC subsidiary was formed in W Virgina.

But Mole also gives the counter-example where DHC products have been bought for US agencies (in considerable numbers in early years) without any US production at all.
 
Factory model of CL-84 ASW variant. This came from the model shop at General Dynamics, not Canadair.
 

Attachments

  • GD CL-84 01sml.jpg
    GD CL-84 01sml.jpg
    84.9 KB · Views: 586
Apophenia said:
Pioneer,

At the time the CL-84 was designed, the aerospace industries of the two countries were (at least in theory) linked through the Canada-United States Defence Production Sharing Program (1959). But that didn't help Canadair when the USAF flirted with the CL-44.

Canadair was a major subsidiary of General Dynamics (another GD firm, Convair, shared some of the CL-84 wind tunnel work). Had the CL-84 gone into production for the US military, it is entirely possible that at least final assembly would have occured in the US.

Mole gave the example of P&WC which provides the perfect model in the PT6T-3 TwinPac. But P&WC was still the subsidiary of PW/UTC. The T400 was acceptable to the DoD because a P&WC subsidiary was formed in W Virgina.

But Mole also gives the counter-example where DHC products have been bought for US agencies (in considerable numbers in early years) without any US production at all.
Click to expand...

CL-84, as do other Tilt-Wings had limitations in engine borne performance, transition, low sped flight with the wing up and had the penalties associated with the tail props. One shouldn't compare it to the V-22, which was noticeably larger, as to the XV-15 which was a much more successful concept. Scaling up the CL-84 would have run into as many problems as they ran into with the V-22, arguably considerably more. Plus, it would have faced the same political/bureaucratic issues, which were the main reasons for the protracted development time of the Osprey.
 
I hear what you say F-14D

But I don't know if its just because I am a simple Assault Pioneer and not an aerospace engineer - but the CL-84 looks simpler than the MV-22 Osprey!
The CL-84's configuration of smaller props rather than that of the huge MV-22's also makes me think that it would have been less susceptible to FOD and ground strike! (I've been in a couple of Blackhawk's that have struck the old gum tree - and let me tell you its not a comfortable feeling!!!)
Even scaled up to Osprey size and troop carrying capacity of the Osprey, an up-scaled CL-84 would have had a small deck space requirement.

Well that's my 20-cents worth ;D

Regards
Pioneer
 
Triton said:
Artwork identified as Canadair/General Dynamics CL-84 SCS (Sea Control Ship) tilt-wing aircraft.

There's two problems with identifying that artwork as the CL-84 SCS -- the illustrated aircraft seems to have contraprops whereas the CL-84 SCS had 4-bladers, and the fuselage section is oval-ish rather than flat-sided. Other than that, she's a dead-ringer.
Click to expand...
 
Pioneer said:
I hear what you say F-14D

But I don't know if its just because I am a simple Assault Pioneer and not an aerospace engineer - but the CL-84 looks simpler than the MV-22 Osprey!
The CL-84's configuration of smaller props rather than that of the huge MV-22's also makes me think that it would have been less susceptible to FOD and ground strike! (I've been in a couple of Blackhawk's that have struck the old gum tree - and let me tell you its not a comfortable feeling!!!)
Even scaled up to Osprey size and troop carrying capacity of the Osprey, an up-scaled CL-84 would have had a small deck space requirement.

Well that's my 20-cents worth ;D

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...

I can assure you that the CL-84 is not simpler than the MV-22 relative to the lift-propulsion system, flight controls, and conversion system. If anything, the lift-propulsion system is more complicated due to the need for a separate pitch-control mechanism only for hover and low speed flight. I suggest that the tilt wing concept has been thoroughly evaluated—by analysis, wind tunnel test, and simulation and with full-scale aircraft—and been found not worthy of the investment required to develop one for military, much less civil, operations.
 

Attachments

  • CL-84 Propulsion System.jpg
    CL-84 Propulsion System.jpg
    173.6 KB · Views: 1,455
Indeed the need to push more air through the smaller props and thus created MORE downwash/outwash would have meant more rocks and things flying around below the aircraft. So I would think there is even more likelyhood of damage from FOD. Brownout would have been phenominal as the wing acting as a wind break would have kept all of the swirling dust forward in the aircrews line of sight.

Hub moment must have been ... impressive.
 
circle-5 said:
Factory model of CL-84 ASW variant. This came from the model shop at General Dynamics, not Canadair.
Click to expand...

Wow, I can't help coming coming back to this great model of the proposed CL-84-8 variant!!
Do you have any more photos from different angles Circle-5??


Regards
Pioneer
 
Is that an AH-56 forward fuselage on this?



fightingirish said:
Candair/ General Dynamics CL-84-1 Army gunship
Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/4824405224/sizes/l/in/dateposted/
Click to expand...
 
It rather reminds me on the nose of a OV-10 Bronco, coupled to the CL-84E fuselage.
 
Well, yes, or a Cobra for that matter. The shape of the canopy, targeting system shape and location and the nose mounted turret are what make me think Cheyenne.

Jemiba said:
It rather reminds me on the nose of a OV-10 Bronco, coupled to the CL-84E fuselage.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom