In mid-1970, the Air Force contracted with Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Fairchild, and another company or two to study various types of tactical aircraft transports. This study was called the Tactical Aircraft Investigation (TAl).
Thanks. Here's a three-view, with specifications, posted on Flickr by the San Diego Air & Space Museum (SDASM) Archives this past April. I figured it was AMST-related. Great to see this additional info.Here's a externally-blown flap design from Convair in this SAE.org report from 1973.
730913: STOL Tactical Aircraft Investigation - Technical Paper
<div class="htmlview paragraph">Preliminary vehicle-sizing activities and subsequent design update based on related studies, wind tunnel tests, and flight simulations conducted during a STOL Tactical Aircraft Investigation are summarized. The designs developed during Part 1 of the study were...saemobilus.sae.org
In an effort to sell the AMST, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas proposed the use of the YC-14 and the YC-15 for various missions including mid-air launching of ICBMs. A McDonnell Douglas YC-15, fitted with CFM56 engines, is shown in this artist's concept air launching an MX missile.
Source: Norton, Bill STOL Progenitors: The Technology Path to a Large STOL Aircraft and the C-17 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. 2002
That's a model of the Lockheed AMST proposal version LG-203X. Lockheed's 1972 proposal for the AMST competition was an offering of three differently optimized, but very similar designs: the LG-201X, LG-202X, and the LG-203X. All had blown leading & trailing edge flaps and four vectored-thrust turbofans with Pegasus-style nozzles. The LG-201X design was said to meet all the AMST performance and cargo box requirements, but Lockheed acknowledged its cost would exceed proposed funding. The less expensive LG-202X compromised some performance and had a shorter cargo box, but still exceeded cost. The LG-203X met the AMST RFP performance goals, but had a smaller cargo box cross section to meet the AMST cost requirements. Perhaps these honest cost-performance tradeoffs and complicated three-design proposal cost Lockheed the AMST competition.Paul posted a picture of a model of the Lockheed AMST in this thread
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3825.msg35499.html#msg35499
You can see the engines' exhaust looks flattened. Does anyone know what the powered lift mechanism employed was? Externally blown flaps? vectored exhaust ???
Hi folks,
I found these three mislabeled pictures at the Cradle of Aviation Museum two to three months ago, but I had to get the book "American Secret Projects 3: US Airlifters since 1962" in my hands first, before I could confirm, that these three pictures show the Fairchild Republic AMST proposal. Only the three-view general arrangement is shown in Chapter 5, page 121, of that book.
Links / Sources:
C-5B three-view drawing
Fairchild Republic Subcontracts - C-5B, F-4, 747, SSTcdm16694.contentdm.oclc.org
Excellent find. I love the full Pegasus engine installations (all four "posts"), unlike the Lockheed installation using the pair of Pegasus-style nozzles (two "posts" per engine). The rest of the jet is borderline "fugly". The cockpit transparencies (windshield/windscreen) geometry just looks wrong. The paradrop windows suggest there is little instrument panel (likely not true). The fuselage afterbody looks like a hopeless structural and drag mess with the upsweep angle and no "banana" for a torque-box! Finally, what is up with that double-bubble crease on the nose under the cockpit?Hi folks,
I found these three mislabeled pictures at the Cradle of Aviation Museum two to three months ago, but I had to get the book "American Secret Projects 3: US Airlifters since 1962" in my hands first, before I could confirm, that these three pictures show the Fairchild Republic AMST proposal. Only the three-view general arrangement is shown in Chapter 5, page 121, of that book.
Links / Sources:
C-5B three-view drawing
Fairchild Republic Subcontracts - C-5B, F-4, 747, SSTcdm16694.contentdm.oclc.org
Yes, that crease is meant to show that the crew compartment (specifically the flight deck) is within the upper bubble and the volume below is in a second bubble. Think of pinching in the sides of a round letter "O" (the floor of the flight deck is the tension member holding that pinch in). The C-5 has a small diameter upper bubble for the crew, and a larger diameter lower bubble for the cargo box. Forward of the wing, the drag reduction of a fairing to smooth over the crease paid for its extra weight. Aft of the wing, not so much (so no fairing and a distinctive crease). See the two photos:The nose does indeed look weird. I thought the horizontal line might denote nose doors, but the retracted nose landing gear unit would block much of the volume if that were the case. I dunno, i'm not sure either way.
The lack of 'banana tail' might be due to the depth of the fuselage - it's pretty thick. You might be able to fit a decent structural layout in the available space without resorting to the banana. But this is speculation on my part, maybe they did screw up!
Green with envy…Glad to hear you liked the pic. The article from Flug Revue about Le Bourget 77 is fascinating. You were really fortunate to be there.
There was a 1:1 fully transparent Mirage F-1 mockup on exhibition and a Mirage 2000 mockup.
Thanks for those.Larger copies of the Fairchild AMST proposals.
Im pretty sure the description is an error from the archivist. It has nothing to do with the C-5.Thanks for those.Larger copies of the Fairchild AMST proposals.
Was it a version of the Lokhheed C-5 Galaxy? under contract from Lockheed?
The C-17 evolved from the YC-15, which might be indicative.Not sure if this has been answered already, I've read the specs and know they both met Air Force requirements, but is there any evidence they preferred one over the other (YC-14 and YC-15)?
Both were McDonnell Douglas products. It would be strange for McDD to develop the C-17 from the YC-14. (Did Boeing have a C-17 competitor?) That said, I could swear I've seen somewhere where the YC-14 was liked more, or showed itself superior, to the YC-15.The C-17 evolved from the YC-15, which might be indicative.Not sure if this has been answered already, I've read the specs and know they both met Air Force requirements, but is there any evidence they preferred one over the other (YC-14 and YC-15)?
I too believe I've read similar details of the YC-14 being superior in many categories to that of the YC-15 sferrin.Both were McDonnell Douglas products. It would be strange for McDD to develop the C-17 from the YC-14. (Did Boeing have a C-17 competitor?) That said, I could swear I've seen somewhere where the YC-14 was liked more, or showed itself superior, to the YC-15.The C-17 evolved from the YC-15, which might be indicative.Not sure if this has been answered already, I've read the specs and know they both met Air Force requirements, but is there any evidence they preferred one over the other (YC-14 and YC-15)?
The C-17 was derived from the YC-15, and Boeing's submission for the C-X competition, the Model 1050, was derived from the YC-14.Both were McDonnell Douglas products. It would be strange for McDD to develop the C-17 from the YC-14. (Did Boeing have a C-17 competitor?) That said, I could swear I've seen somewhere where the YC-14 was liked more, or showed itself superior, to the YC-15.The C-17 evolved from the YC-15, which might be indicative.Not sure if this has been answered already, I've read the specs and know they both met Air Force requirements, but is there any evidence they preferred one over the other (YC-14 and YC-15)?
The C-17 requirement was for a longer-legged, higher capacity airplane and I suspect that the YC-15 configuration scaled up better than that of the YC-14. Boeing's C-17 entry was awkward looking and placed a 3rd engine above the tail cargo ramp.The C-17 was derived from the YC-15, and Boeing's submission for the C-X competition, the Model 1050, was derived from the YC-14.Both were McDonnell Douglas products. It would be strange for McDD to develop the C-17 from the YC-14. (Did Boeing have a C-17 competitor?) That said, I could swear I've seen somewhere where the YC-14 was liked more, or showed itself superior, to the YC-15.The C-17 evolved from the YC-15, which might be indicative.Not sure if this has been answered already, I've read the specs and know they both met Air Force requirements, but is there any evidence they preferred one over the other (YC-14 and YC-15)?