WS-300A (Fighter-bomber) Competition

D

devi

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
17 July 2006
Messages
118
Reaction score
13
I know, that in this competition participated North American Aviation and Republic Aviation:

North American Model NA-? or ?
Republic Model AP-?

Can be and other firms too participated in this competition?
What can you tell about this competition?
 
Hi All!

WS-300A/FBX proposals:

1) North American Model NA-237
2) Republic Model AP-?
3) Martin Model M-315 (Fighter bomber (unconventional takeoff))
I think that participated.
4) Boeing Model B-7??
I think that participated.
5) GD/Convair Model ?
I think that participated.
6) Douglas model D-1???
I think that participated.
7) Lockheed Model CL-?
I think that participated.
8) McDonnell Model M-11?
I think that participated.
9) Northrop Model N-16? or PD-?
I think that participated.

What can we say about this?
 
Hi All!

"USAF evaluation team is now reviewing its findings on Republic Aviation and North American Aviation Phase I entries and mock-ups for its supersonic fighter-bomber. Recommendations are to be made to the Air Council this week, and, presumably, the last of the Phase I "contests" will be decided this month. Announcement of Phase II contracts for the tactical bomber to Martin and the long-range interceptor to North American, are being held up by USAF pending decision on the fighter-bomber."

source: Aviation Week, 1956, Vol. 64, No. 19, 7 May, page: 25

Skybolt, If you can please show some Lockheeds.
 
nugo said:
Hi All!

WS-300A/FBX proposals:

1) North American Model NA-237
2) Republic Model AP-?
3) Martin Model M-315 (Fighter bomber (unconventional takeoff))
I think that participated.
4) Boeing Model B-7??
I think that participated.
5) GD/Convair Model ?
I think that participated.
6) Douglas model D-1???
I think that participated.
7) Lockheed Model CL-?
I think that participated.
8) McDonnell Model M-11?
I think that participated.
9) Northrop Model N-16? or PD-?
I think that participated.

What can we say about this?
Click to expand...

Hmmm I don't have the book at hand at the moment but weren't NA-237 and WS-300A two seperate designs in North American's case?
 
CL-366 was Lockheed-California submission to WS-300A for fighter-bomber with secondary interception capability due to enter service in 1962. At least two configurations were studied, one canard and one conventional. LCAC submitted CL-366-1 because it offered a better range (777 nmi combat radius versus 482nmi). Performance requested by RFP were inter alia max 1500 feet take-off run at combat weight and max speed in clean configuration of Mach 3.0 at 88.000 feet. Same general configuration was used for Navy/USMC of some months later. Navy version was CL-398. t is unknown if this last was in response to formal RFP or company tender. If former, could be a competitor of the unidentified USMC-marked NAA fighter found in model form by Tony Buttler some time ago.
 

Attachments

  • CL-366-1.jpg
    CL-366-1.jpg
    158.4 KB · Views: 2,945
  • CL-366-2.jpg
    CL-366-2.jpg
    202.4 KB · Views: 2,877
Hi Skybolt!

Thank you very much!
But, Model 366 later draft (1957). Competition of the WS-300A start at the end of 1954 or early in 1955 and ceased in 1956.
I think that if the firm Lockheed was involved in this competition were these projects: or CL-28? or
CL-29? or CL-30? or CL-31?;

( CL-280---version of the Constitutions ( proposal )
CL-281---?
CL-282---pre U-2 (p)
CL-283---?
CL-284---atomic engine bomber (p)
CL-285---?
CL-286---atomic engine bomber (p)
CL-287---?
CL-288---LRI (p)
CL-289---?
CL-290---?
CL-291---KCX (p)
CL-292---nuclear-powered missile carrier/airborne DEW line/aircraft carrier (p)
CL-293---atomic engine bomber (p)
CL-294---version of the Constellations (p)
CL-295---V/STOL fighter (p)
CL-296---?
CL-297---?
CL-298---?
CL-299---?
CL-300---?
CL-301---P2V-7 derivative
CL-302---?
CL-303---passenger aircraft (p)
CL-304---?
CL-305---P2V-8 study (p)
CL-306---?
CL-307---parasite version of the F-104s (p)
CL-308---?
CL-309---?
CL-310---L-188 Electra
CL-311---version of the SeaStars (p)
CL-312---version of the SeaStars (p)
CL-313---atom engine bomber (p)
CL-314---TZ (p)
CL-315---?
CL-316---?
CL-317---version of the F-104s (p)
CL-318---?
CL-319---atomic engine bomber (p)
 
You know it comes to mind that if the CL366-2 had become a reality, a visual range dogfight between a CL366-2 equipped force and a Mig 21 group would have not been fun. For either side.
 
Yasotai, the WS-300A wasn't intended for any visual dogfight. Just run-hit-run. Same for the interceptor role. The entire concept was ETO-targeted.
Nugo, the CL-366 IS from early 1956. The date of the assignment of a TDN doesn't coincide with any individual design date. So TDNs that are apparently much earlier are really contemporaries. Lockheed used at least another TDN to WS-300A studies. This is CL-363-3, very clearly an F-104 derivative. But CL-366 was the final submission.
I forgot to mention that engine intended for the CL-366 was "advanced J-58". Ditto for the Navy derivative.
 

Attachments

  • CL-363-3.jpg
    CL-363-3.jpg
    159.1 KB · Views: 2,616
Skybolt said:
Yasotai, the WS-300A wasn't intended for any visual dogfight.
Click to expand...

Agree, I was just pondering that the profile of the picture with 366-2 written on it was similar to a Mig -21. It appears to be a much bigger aircraft though.
 
MUCH bigger. Almost 150 per cent. The pilot provides scale.
 
More like a Ye-152/166 or Sukhoi T-8 it would appear.
 
Hi Skybolt!

Thank you very much!
It remains to find projects of other, unknown competitors.
Interesting to know whether the firm McDonnell participated in the contest?
If it involved a project proposed?

Model M-?
 
As they say : "Good question..." Keep in mind than till a few years back no-one remembered there even WAS a WS-300A competition....
 
That must be the Long Range Interceptor (LRI) offering rather than FBX one? (both requirements cancelled 1956-7 along with TBX)

Some Flight articles from the era talk of the F-105 and F-107 being built to WS-300A whilst others talk of FBX being WS-300A.

I have the following from American Aviation Volume 19.

LRI: WS-202A (North American & Northrop), eventually became the F-108 Rapier
FBX: WS-300A (North American & Republic)
TBX: WS-302A (Douglas & Martin), Martin B-68 cancelled in 1957
 
JFC Fuller said:
That must be the Long Range Interceptor (LRI) offering rather than FBX one? (both requirements cancelled 1956-7 along with TBX)

Some Flight articles from the era talk of the F-105 and F-107 being built to WS-300A whilst others talk of FBX being WS-300A.
Click to expand...

The above photo is not the NAA LRI proposal (WS-202A). It really is the NAA proposal for WS-300A. See additional photos, attached. The stand is marked: North American Aviation, Inc. / Fighter Bomber System 300A / Secret.

I have the proposal models for NAA WS-202A (LRI) and WS-302A, which are very different airplanes. WS-202A photos have been posted elsewhere in this forum and I will get around to WS-302A at some point.

While it is very possible the F-107 was offered by NAA for WS-300A as an alternative, its light weight, short range and single engine would have required considerable redesign for any hope of meeting USAF WS-300A requirements.
 

Attachments

  • NAA WS-300A 02.jpg
    NAA WS-300A 02.jpg
    118.1 KB · Views: 2,247
  • NAA WS-300A 03.jpg
    NAA WS-300A 03.jpg
    117.9 KB · Views: 1,844
Top view of the NAA WS-300A factory proposal model, marked "Secret" from its classified origins. Note multiple bleed air louvers on variable intakes. Top of fuselage is occupied by what appears to be a row of equipment bays or large access panels.

Faux afterburner flames are part of the rotating base -- a signature detail of the North American Aviation model shops in Columbus and Los Angeles.

It's hard to believe we're looking at something designed barely 10 years after WWII.
 

Attachments

  • NAA WS-300A Top.jpg
    NAA WS-300A Top.jpg
    60.4 KB · Views: 1,636
Are there any surviving specifications for the NAA WS-300A?
 
This could be the inspiration for MiG for the 25.
Did they had a man inside NAA?

Mark
 
shine said:
This could be the inspiration for MiG for the 25.
Did they had a man inside NAA?

Mark
Click to expand...

Mark, I think this discussion took off and landed over here.
 
Looks like it could have as much Rapier influence is Vigilante.
 
I'd really like to see a Vigilante/WS-300A/Rapier timeline. The Vigilante's design was probably locked down around 1956. Looks like the Rapier was '58-59. WS-300A?
 
It is sad for me to see this discussion. Your absolutely simplistic view on design and construction of planes, similarly as your view and inability to see difference between sketch done in 10-20 minutes and complex rendered picture done in 20-50 hours again let me ask what happen when we time by time still have to solve similar problems ? I'm not sure if it was Boeing F-32 but company produced hundreds (near to one thousand) possible and impossible designs and only one of them was selected as number one. And was criterion some similarity with some next plane or project? You really mean that from simple view you are able rebuild new plane? In last time I'm looking without result for a new infos on new or old secret projects. Is this theme already dead or closed and we will only presents our opinions on some events?
 
sferrin said:
I'd really like to see a Vigilante/WS-300A/Rapier timeline. The Vigilante's design was probably locked down around 1956. Looks like the Rapier was '58-59. WS-300A?
Click to expand...

Thats an interesting question, Vigilante appears to have come first having received a development contract on the 29th August 1956. After that, for me at least, things get muddy, WS-300A appeared at about the same time as WS-202A (LRI/GOR-114) in 1955 but the WS-300A was cancelled sometime in late 1956 (along with WS-302A- the Martin XB-68) whilst NAA was given a development contract for the F-108 in June 1957 (original procurement target was 480) only for the type to be cancelled on the 23rd September 1959 though the F-108 evolved considerably over time.

I would love to see the requirements for WS-300A, they must have been demanding to produce an aircraft as large as the NA entry looks? Given the time-frame and the engine choice on the Vigilante I am thinking J-79, or even J-75 given the size?
 
Last edited:
PlanesPictures said:
It is sad for me to see this discussion. Your absolutely simplistic view on design and construction of planes, similarly as your view and inability to see difference between sketch done in 10-20 minutes and complex rendered picture done in 20-50 hours again let me ask what happen when we time by time still have to solve similar problems ? I'm not sure if it was Boeing F-32 but company produced hundreds (near to one thousand) possible and impossible designs and only one of them was selected as number one. And was criterion some similarity with some next plane or project? You really mean that from simple view you are able rebuild new plane? In last time I'm looking without result for a new infos on new or old secret projects. Is this theme already dead or closed and we will only presents our opinions on some events?
Click to expand...

What?
 
JFC Fuller said:
sferrin said:
I'd really like to see a Vigilante/WS-300A/Rapier timeline. The Vigilante's design was probably locked down around 1956. Looks like the Rapier was '58-59. WS-300A?
Click to expand...

Thats an interesting question, Vigilante appears to have come first having received a development contract on the 29th August 1956. After that, for me at least, things get muddy, WS-300A appeared at about the same time as WS-202A (LRI/GOR-114) in 1955 but the WS-300A was cancelled sometime in late 1956 (along with WS-302A- the Martin XB-68) whilst NAA was given a development contract for the F-108 in June 1957 (original procurement target was 480) only for the type to be cancelled on the 23rd September 1959 though the F-108 evolved considerably over time.
Click to expand...

NAGPAW was an unsolicited proposal submitted January 1954.

Major design revisions were made early April 1955.

Design was largely fixed by February 1956, mockup review in March 1956

Engineering drawing release June 1957.
 
Thanks Paul, Vigilante definitely seems to be earlier, NAGPAW was first offered in January 1954 whereas I can find no reference to WS-300A prior to 1955 and it does not seem to have made it to the mock-up stage.
 
Last edited:
JFC Fuller said:
Thanks Paul, that suggests that it was the Vigilante that set the trend.
Click to expand...

It sounds like the Vigilante and WS-300A were virtually at the same time. WS-300A cancelled in '56 and Vigilante's mockup review in '56.
 
However, let's not forget the "A" suffix letter on WS-300A, which strongly suggests a revision of the specifications thereof, and so there might have been earlier proposals to WS-300 including, maybe, earlier incarnations of the WS-300A submissions. Just a thought.
 
By popular (PM) request, two more photos of the NAA WS-300A proposal model, including a profile view.
 

Attachments

  • NAA WS-300A 11sml.jpg
    NAA WS-300A 11sml.jpg
    84.9 KB · Views: 1,638
  • NAA WS-300A 02sml.jpg
    NAA WS-300A 02sml.jpg
    80.6 KB · Views: 1,577
From the top, its profile resembles that of a Mig-25 Foxbat/MiG-31 Foxhound.
 

Attachments

  • NAGPAW_A3J_MOCKUP_1956_2s.jpg
    NAGPAW_A3J_MOCKUP_1956_2s.jpg
    161.9 KB · Views: 1,450
  • NAGPAW_A3J_MOCKUP_1956_3.jpg
    NAGPAW_A3J_MOCKUP_1956_3.jpg
    122.2 KB · Views: 1,354
  • NAGPAW_A3J_MOCKUP_1956_1.jpg
    NAGPAW_A3J_MOCKUP_1956_1.jpg
    408.7 KB · Views: 1,310
  • A3J MOCK UP.jpg
    A3J MOCK UP.jpg
    244.6 KB · Views: 691
There's a lot of F-15 in it as well. Slap a bubble canopy on there and the resemblances become quite striking.


(This as much as anything seems to be what separates modern from older fighters - the amount of canopy glass in contemporary fighters, even the Teen series, is huge compared to their fifties predecessors - both built and unbuilt/cancelled - with similar aerodynamic performance but boxy and heavily framed cockpit tops.)


You can say what you like about "weapon systems", but at the end of the day, if you're trying to meet performance criteria, aerodynamics and available power trump everything.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom