Vought "Advanced Interceptor" studies (SAMI, ADLI, HSV)

overscan (PaulMM)

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
27 December 2005
Messages
16,920
Reaction score
21,770
These two photos were supplied by Garry Morelock (@elider) from his personal photo collection. He believes the first picture shows Vought's submission to SAMI (Strategic Advanced Manned Interceptor) and the second, possibly an early VFX project.
 

Attachments

  • Vought-1a.jpg
    Vought-1a.jpg
    41 KB · Views: 2,281
  • Vought-2a.jpg
    Vought-2a.jpg
    38.1 KB · Views: 2,096
Last edited:
Hi,

This Interceptor pic comes from Les Avions Vought. Bernard Millot. Docavia 20. Editions Larivière 1982/83, ISBN unknown. pg 435.
The only identification is Air Superiority Fighter Mach 3 capable. I think it could be associated to this words in the text (pg 434): "project V-504 from 1967 for a very advanced technology supersonic fighter".

I have never heard about SAMI...it is the same as AMI were the Rockwell A-5 interceptor variants were submited?. I'll post an US interceptor program summary by the end of this week
 
Thanks. Just to be clear, the pictures above are private family pictures, not the one from the book you mention. It is definitely part of the AMI F-108 then YF-12 program for a Mach 3+ interceptor.
 
This Interceptor pic comes from Les Avions Vought
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Overscan. I forget to attach the pic to my post :-[. I refered to the pic in the Docavia book which is here:


[removed pic - better copy of pic later in topic - Admin]
 

Attachments

  • Vought Mach3 Interceptor 11-37-17.jpg
    Vought Mach3 Interceptor 11-37-17.jpg
    125.9 KB · Views: 1,886
That is certainly the same design, and I'm convinced that its the V-504. The second design is also by Vought, and must be roughly contemporary with the first design, circa 1967. It looks quite like a fixed wing F-14.
 
The second model is very diferent from Vought's entry in VFX, the V-507. It could have been a different approach to VFX under the same project number, the V-507. In the Docavia Volume, there is only one entry in the design number list for VFX. Other designations I have in the list are:

V-523 Advanced Fighter for the USN

V-526 Vought's entry in VFAX program


By the way, V-518 is "USAF Interceptor QRI" this is can be a late IMI design
 
Hey, y'all, just found this place! Very cool. Anyone know how the intake was on the interceptor? Maybe a belly intake?


pometablava said:
This Interceptor pic comes from Les Avions Vought
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Overscan. I forget to attach the pic to my post :-[. I refered to the pic in the Docavia book which is here:
Click to expand...
 
The picture above shows a belly intake with a large centrebody, somewhat like a an SR-71 engine nacelle cut in half.
 
Thanks! I was about to ask how you could see that detail in that silhouette of a pic, but I printed it & its much clearer! Anyone have any ideas as to the dimensions? My thought is bigger than F-106 & the like, but not quite as big as YF-12.


overscan said:
The picture above shows a belly intake with a large centrebody, somewhat like a an SR-71 engine nacelle cut in half.
Click to expand...
 
Frank,

If you need a high quality scan for printing just give your email.

Anyone have any ideas as to the dimensions
Click to expand...

In the book, there is only a pic but no information

My thought is bigger than F-106 & the like, but not quite as big as YF-12.
Click to expand...

I agree with you


Regards,

Antonio
 
Edited version to show more detail

[removed pic - better copy of pic later in topic - Admin]
 
In the 1965-1968 period I have

1965 V-483 (FX)
1965 V-484 (VFAX)
1967 V-502 (AX) ?
1967 V-504 Interceptor
1968 V-507 (VFX)

There was a fixed wing Vought VFX design, it might have been descended from the earlier models like V-483.
 
Athird project I found in prototypes.com

le V418 dit "Phase 2" ou le V419, propulsé par un réacteur Pratt & Whitney JT11D (J58) fournissant une poussée de 14 755 kg. Ce moteur devait lui permettre d'attaquer Mach 3 ! Il fit le bonheur du Lockheed SR-71.

The vought V-418 (= Phase 2) or V-419 powered by a P&W JT-11D (=J58) of 14755 kgp. This engine must allowed the plane to reach mach 3! It was later used in the SR-71...

This the only info I have on this plane... any drawings ?
 
Archibald said:
The vought V-418 (= Phase 2) or V-419 powered by a P&W JT-11D (=J58) of 14755 kgp. This engine must allowed the plane to reach mach 3! It was later used in the SR-71...

This the only info I have on this plane... any drawings ?
Click to expand...

Hmmm ... maybe this one is that black fighter from the first post here in this tread ??? ... esp. the engine looks very much like the SR-71's one !

Any idea ???
 
overscan said:
V-418/419 were the projects of the F-8U-3 Crusader III with J58 engines.
Click to expand...

Any pictures of those? The F-106X was suppose to use a J58 too for Mach 5 supposedly.
 
If you dig back through published information, the J-58 is an interesting engine. The original "simple" single-spool turbojet wasn't that much different from the DeHavilland Gyron. It's the adaptations made to fit it for the A-12/YF-12/SR-71 family that made a major change in it. The by-pass ducts from compressor to afterburner are quite impressive in size (once upon a time, over three decades ago, I worked at P&W's Florida facility where that engine, along with the RL10 and F100/F401, was developed; they were still doing overhauls there and they had a full-scale mockup for some uses. I wonder what version of that engine the V-418/419 and F-106X proposals used, with all the bypass or without?
 
Even more surprising, after P&W baught 10.9% of SNECMA capital in dember 1959, the french motorist had a license right over all the engines.
The M35 was to be the J58 produced in france for concorde! In june 1963, at le bourget airshow, a J58 was exposed on the SNECMA stand. As we all know, the Olympus was chosen instead..
I saw this in an article in Aerostories...
 
Last edited:
The J-58 went through numerous modifications which, by 1960, included changes to the bypass ducts, increasing the compressor stages from 8 to 9, so augmenting the rather low compression rate, and adopting an afterburner - intended for continuous operation throughout a mission. The J-58-P4 thus conceived for the A-12, had few common parts with the initial J-58-P2 studied for the US Navy. Only the overall dimensions, the aerodynamics of the compressor blades and the turbine unit were retained for the time-being. Some time later even these would also be modified.
Click to expand...

http://aerostories.free.fr/technique/J58/J58_01/page10.html

The engine shown at Paris 1963 was a version of the J58-P2 original naval design, not the modified A-12 version. It was therefore quite different. It was however supposed to be a Mach 3 design from the beginning.
 
elmayerle said:
If you dig back through published information, the J-58 is an interesting engine. The original "simple" single-spool turbojet wasn't that much different from the DeHavilland Gyron. It's the adaptations made to fit it for the A-12/YF-12/SR-71 family that made a major change in it. The by-pass ducts from compressor to afterburner are quite impressive in size (once upon a time, over three decades ago, I worked at P&W's Florida facility where that engine, along with the RL10 and F100/F401, was developed; they were still doing overhauls there and they had a full-scale mockup for some uses. I wonder what version of that engine the V-418/419 and F-106X proposals used, with all the bypass or without?
Click to expand...

Don't know. I'm still wondering how they'd squeeze Mach 5 out of an F-106 :eek:
 
I honestly don't think they could squeeze Mach 5 out of the F-106X. I can see Mach 3 with the severe re-design they did but I can't seriously see Mach 5.
 
overscan said:
The J-58 went through numerous modifications which, by 1960, included changes to the bypass ducts, increasing the compressor stages from 8 to 9, so augmenting the rather low compression rate, and adopting an afterburner - intended for continuous operation throughout a mission. The J-58-P4 thus conceived for the A-12, had few common parts with the initial J-58-P2 studied for the US Navy. Only the overall dimensions, the aerodynamics of the compressor blades and the turbine unit were retained for the time-being. Some time later even these would also be modified.
Click to expand...

http://aerostories.free.fr/technique/J58/J58_01/page10.html

The engine shown at Paris 1963 was a version of the J58-P2 original naval design, not the modified A-12 version. It was therefore quite different. It was however supposed to be a Mach 3 design from the beginning.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting article. I'm given to understand, by someone who was in NAA-Columbus Advanced Design at the time, that the proposed re-engining of the A3J-1 with the J-58 floundered on the same problem that all the other re-engining proposals did; a distinct reluctance on NAA management's part to redesign the forged spindle-frame that mounted the all-moving horizontal and vertical tails.
 
I totally agree. Mach-3 for the F-106X, ok, but certainly not mach5!! From the beginning this seemed doubtful or overambitious.
Another question : Is it right that the F-106X interested the RCAF at one time?
Don't know where I saw that, but apparently the Vigilante and Super Crusader, both with Mach3 and J-58 engines were drawn in paralel..(in the same way as the XB-70 and F-108 ).
 
Archibald said:
I totally agree. Mach-3 for the F-106X, ok, but certainly not mach5!! From the beginning this seemed doubtful or overambitious.
Another question : Is it right that the F-106X interested the RCAF at one time?
Don't know where I saw that, but apparently the Vigilante and Super Crusader, both with Mach3 and J-58 engines were drawn in paralel..(in the same way as the XB-70 and F-108 ).
Click to expand...

I've seen the J58 proposed for

Blackbird
B-70
Vigilante
B-58
Crusader III
F-106


The thing I'm curious about though (kinda OT) is apparently the J75 in the Crusader III was a 29,000lb thrust variety. Wonder why we never saw it in the F-105 or F-106.
 
I suspect that may have been a developed version proposed for the production Crusader III. Alternatively, there may have been some dimensional differences (later uses of the same core for a "portable" gas turbine-turbo generator set-up had two extra compressor stages) and this might have precluded easy retrofit. This is all just imformed speculation on my part, though.
 
elmayerle said:
I suspect that may have been a developed version proposed for the production Crusader III. Alternatively, there may have been some dimensional differences (later uses of the same core for a "portable" gas turbine-turbo generator set-up had two extra compressor stages) and this might have precluded easy retrofit. This is all just imformed speculation on my part, though.
Click to expand...

There was a big piece on the Crusader III in an issue of Airtime Publishing's "Classic Wings". In it they said the engine they flew with produced just over 29k but the production one would have flown with one that had 28k. Not sure why they'd reduce the power in a production version though.
 
Well, off the top of my head I can think of at least two reasons, performance/reliability tradeoffs and performance/total (manufacturing & maintenance) cost tradeoffs. I could see both as reasons for scaling back a bit on performance if it gets you better reliability (always a good thing for a naval aircraft) or allows a significant reduction in overall costs. *smile* Then again, I'm coming at this from years in the business.
 
I guess the biggest question I always had about the powerplant is where did they dig up a 29,000lb thrust J-75? ???
 
sferrin said:
I guess the biggest question I always had about the powerplant is where did they dig up a 29,000lb thrust J-75? ???
Click to expand...

Quite likely it was an experimental variant. Exactly what they did I don't know at this remove. One possibility, which would reduce commonality with other J75s, would be adding two addtional compressor stages like the GG4 "portable" power station that used the basic J75 gas generator.
 
Another pic from Vought Aircraft Heritage Foundation. This one is Navy.
 

Attachments

  • Vought Advanced Interceptor 1969.jpg
    Vought Advanced Interceptor 1969.jpg
    199.1 KB · Views: 3,321
In the backgroud of the above pic is an aircraft on landing approach to the carrier. It looks like Vought's SAMI to me. Note the canards and the way the nose is lowered. Ignore the shadow?
 

Attachments

  • Vought SAMI_2.jpg
    Vought SAMI_2.jpg
    232.3 KB · Views: 3,099
wow! the chines and wing shape/downturned tips lead me to believe this was designed for stability at some relatively high speeds. i wonder what problems that design would pose for carrier landings, though.

in the second pic its interesting to note the discrepancy between the shape of the plane and its shadow.
 
Given this design, wouldn't it need to land at a high AoA? Isn't that difficult for carrier operations?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom