Lockheed & Grumman Multiple Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) studies (1986)

[flateric]

Found at NTRS

NASA CR 175096
Multiple-Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) Multiple Application Propfan Study (MAPS)
D.M. Winkeljohn, C.H. Mayrand
LOCKHEED-GEORGIA COMPANY
A Division of Lockheed Corporation
Marietta, Georgia

NASA CR-179452
MULTIPLE PURPOSE SUBSONIC NAVAL AIRCRAFT (MPSNA) MULTIPLE APPLICATION PROPFAN STUDY (MAPS)
by
N.F. Dannenhoffer, J.S. Herzberg, J.R. Kretzing,
J.R Landfleld, C.L. Mahoney, R.A. Mahoney, H.C. Potonides
GRUMMAN AEROSPACE CORPORATION

-------------------------------------------------------------
Lockheed propfan version studies shown in attachment

 

[flateric]

Re: Lockheed&Grumman Multiple Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) studies

Lockheed turbofan versions studies shown

 

[flateric]

Re: Lockheed&Grumman Multiple Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) studies

Lockheed STOVL versions shown

 

[flateric]

Re: Lockheed&Grumman Multiple Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) studies

Grumman MR1 configuration

 

[flateric]

Grumman MR1 propfan and turbofan configurations

 

[flateric]

Grumman MR2 propfan and turbofan confoigurations

 

[flateric]

Grumman VSTOL MPSNA configuration

 

[SteveO]

Fascinating stuff flateric,

It would have been interesting to see something like these operating off carriers, maybe the Super Hornet wouldn't have needed to be a tanker. I wonder if the Army would have been interested in a land based version for their electronic warfare needs?

Any idea whose Common Support Aircraft concept this is?

 

[yasotay]

The VSTOL MPSNA is an interesting design but I have to wonder at how much downwash/outwash those relatively small prop-rotors would have generated. Considering the V-22 creates hurricane force winds that are at the edge of acceptability for operations in and around the aircraft, this one would have been tough. Of course if it was only intended to operate from prepared surfaces that might not have been an issue.

 

[sferrin]

Another study.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

That was used on a Flight International cover:

 

[Abraham Gubler]

PDF for the NASA report is here:

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

ntrs.nasa.gov

 

[hesham]

Hi,

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

ntrs.nasa.gov

 

[Stingray]

Another study.

That picture is also seen on page 55 of a March 1989 copy of International Combat Arms magazine.
(Volume 7, Number 2)

 

[Rickshaw]

The VSTOL MPSNA is an interesting design but I have to wonder at how much downwash/outwash those relatively small prop-rotors would have generated. Considering the V-22 creates hurricane force winds that are at the edge of acceptability for operations in and around the aircraft, this one would have been tough. Of course if it was only intended to operate from prepared surfaces that might not have been an issue.

I've been wondering about that. Do you think a Fairy Rotodyne like aircraft would have been a better idea than the V-22 because of downwash and noise considerations?

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Rotodyne was extremely loud due to the rotor tip jets. Having seen/heard a V-22 doing its thing, it is whisper quiet in comparison.

HTH! Mark

 

[Jemiba]

AFAIK, there were attempts to quiten the tipjets, but these didn't come to fruition,
at least not for the Rotodyne. But IF there would have been a series version, it would
have been considerably quiter, I think.

 

[boxkite]

"The one great criticism of the Rotodyne was the noise the tip jets made, however, the jets were only run at full power for a matter of minutes during departure and landing and indeed, the test pilot Ron Gelattly made two flights over central London, and several landings and departures at Battersea Heliport with no complaints being registered. There was also a noise-reduction program in process which had managed to get the noise level down to the desired level of 96 dB from 600 feet (180 m) away, less than the noise made by a London Underground train, and at the time of cancellation, silencers were in the pipeline which would have reduced the noise even further. In the end though it was funding and not noise that killed the Rotodyne."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Rotodyne

I'm not sure, but the pictures of silencers tested on the Rotodyne were published in Derek Wood's Project Cancelled.

 

[sferrin]

Do you have a higher res version of that tip jet picture?

 

[Rickshaw]

Rotodyne was extremely loud due to the rotor tip jets. Having seen/heard a V-22 doing its thing, it is whisper quiet in comparison.

HTH! Mark

"Extremely loud"? 96 dB at 180 feet isn't that loud, really. I wonder, how loud is the V-22? How big is the downwash compared to the Rotodyne's?

 

[Jemiba]

96 dB at 180 feet was the noise level, that should be achieve with the silencers
and other measures. Before this, I think, it was a little bit louder !

 

[Rickshaw]

96 dB at 180 feet was the noise level, that should be achieve with the silencers
and other measures. Before this, I think, it was a little bit louder !

True. However, we should be discussing where the development of the Rotodyne was going, rather than where it had been, if we're comparing it to the V-22.

 

[GTX]

Another study.

Does anyone have 3-view line drawings of the proposals shown in this post (see Reply 9, 10 and13)?

Regards,

Greg

 

[Grey Havoc]

I think it was a McDonnell Douglas proposal from the mid-90's or earlier.

Fascinating stuff flateric,

It would have been interesting to see something like these operating off carriers, maybe the Super Hornet wouldn't have needed to be a tanker. I wonder if the Army would have been interested in a land based version for their electronic warfare needs?

Any idea whose Common Support Aircraft concept this is?

 

[SmithW6079]

Re: Lockheed&Grumman Multiple Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) studies (1

Regarding the Grumman VSTOL design, did a portion of the wing rotate with the rotors? If not, it would seem like much of the downwash would be blocked by the wings.

 

[Triton]

Dannenhoffer, N. F.; Herzberg, J. S.; Kretzing, J. R.; Landfield, J. P.; Mahoney, C. L.; Mahoney, R. A.; Potonides, H. C. Multiple Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) Multiple Application Propfan Study (MAPS) Grumman Aerospace Corporation July 1, 1986

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890067755_1989067755.pdf

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Nice find - thanks! Mark

 

[boilermaker66]

The VSTOL MPSNA is an interesting design but I have to wonder at how much downwash/outwash those relatively small prop-rotors would have generated. Considering the V-22 creates hurricane force winds that are at the edge of acceptability for operations in and around the aircraft, this one would have been tough. Of course if it was only intended to operate from prepared surfaces that might not have been an issue.

The Lockheed MPSNA STOVL design was required to operate only from prepared surfaces, unlike the V-22. The downwash effects were substantially less than the Harrier, and in particular, were much cooler.

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Lockheed Multiple-Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) pusher propfan concept.

Three-view drawing of Boeing Multiple-Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) tanker concept.

Three-view drawing of Lockheed Multiple-Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) airborne early warning concept.

Three-view drawing of Grumman Multiple-Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) carrier on-board delivery concept.

Source:
Hager, Roy D.; Vrabel, Deborah. Advanced Turbofan Project, NASA Glenn Research Center, Jan. 1, 1988

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

ntrs.nasa.gov

 

[Triton]

Is the MPX on the tail of the Lockheed artist's impression important? Multi-Purpose eXperimental?

 

[Pioneer]

I can not but help think, that with the buildup of the PLAN's submarine force (both nuclear & diesel electric), combined with the USN's premature retirement (neglect) of the S-3 Viking. The USN might have to re-instate just such a program!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Stargazer]

I can not but help think, that with the buildup of the PLAN's submarine force (both nuclear & diesel electric), combined with the USN's premature retirement (neglect) of the S-2 Viking.

That's S-3 Viking of course...

 

[Pioneer]

I can not but help think, that with the buildup of the PLAN's submarine force (both nuclear & diesel electric), combined with the USN's premature retirement (neglect) of the S-2 Viking.

That's S-3 Viking of course...

Yeah thanks Stargazer2006! ..................... a case of the fingers faster than the brain on that one!!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Triton]

Would there be an issue of propeller strikes in the pusher-prop configuration?

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Looks like the main gear would be near the same plane as the prop discs - would doubt that is much of an issue.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Grey Havoc]

Dannenhoffer, N. F.; Herzberg, J. S.; Kretzing, J. R.; Landfield, J. P.; Mahoney, C. L.; Mahoney, R. A.; Potonides, H. C. Multiple Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) Multiple Application Propfan Study (MAPS) Grumman Aerospace Corporation July 1, 1986

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890067755_1989067755.pdf

Link is still down. Not a surprise, unfortunately.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I have a copy of it if you want it.

 

[Grey Havoc]

I have a copy of it if you want it.

That would be great, thanks.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/nasa/19890067755_1989067755.pdf


Anything I posted from, I likely will have a copy downloaded.

 

[northerndancer2000]

Hi Paul


Thank you for the PDF. That is a very clear scan.


I'm used to seeing some of the (older?) V/STOL articles where the print is bad and the drawings almost invisible. (Think bad multi-generation Xerox) Have they changed technology? Any chance that they are going to go back to rescan some of the papers from the 1960s and 1970s?


Thanks.