AMSA Program & B-1 Bomber projects

[Michel Van]

zillions thanks pometablava

so its the Boeing 2707-200
but that plane is far more complex and expensive as the Rockwell B-1 proposal
like the needs of C-5 Airtanker for refuel
and even if B-2707 can attack Soviet union with mach 2.7 in high altitude
there MiG-25 Mach 3.2 to intercept the SAC Bomber

 

[Firefly 2]

Phoenix???? ???

 

[Dynoman]

AMPSS - Advanced Manned Precision Strike System
Baseline Configuration and Parametric Study

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD365474&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Courtesy of DTIC

 

[flateric]

THE B-1B BOMBER: A PROGRAM HISTORY
by
Kiran R. Magiawala
Ph.D. (Aero), California Institute of
Technology (1978)
M.S.(Aero), California Institute of
Technology (1974)
M.Tech.(Aero), Indian Institute of
Technology, Kanpur, India (1973)
B.E.(Mech), Gujarat University,
Ahmedabad, India (1971)
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN TECHNOLOGY AND POLICY at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
February 1988

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/34036/19283648.pdf?sequence=1

 

[AeroFranz]

Grigoriy,

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/34036/19283648.pdf?sequence=1

can you open the link? it tells me the file is damaged

 

[flateric]

yep, without problems - just have checked it

 

[Steve Pace]

I had to save it to my desktop, then open it.

 

[Skybolt]

Most secret projects-related docs suddenly appearing on places like DTIC derive from FOIA request submitted with considerable effort and expense by researchers. One example is the AMPSS GD doc linked in a previous post of this topic. DTIC administration at times puts immediately online FOIA-released docs, spoiling the work done by researchers, that naturally hope to use the info they gather to publish books, articles, etc. This has already been said in other cases like this, but it is worth repeating: please, if you find a FOIA-released doc suddenly published on public access sites, keep it for yourselves, at least for a while. Or, if you are a Senior Member and want to share your discovery, post it in the Private Discussions section. This is not a try at secluding information, only a sign of courtesy to fellow researchers.... Hope you all understand.

 

[Steve Pace]

Here's an "Oldie but a Goodie."

 

[Triton]

Rockwell B-1 bomber concept artwork found on eBay. Note how the aft section under the tail looks different than the production version.

URL: http://cgi.ebay.com/ROCKWELL-B-1-NUCLEAR-BOMBER-ORIGINAL-CONCEPT-ART_W0QQitemZ110512333045QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item19bb0c60f5

Seller's description

B-1 BOMBER CONCEPT ART from ROCKWELL N.AMERICAN AVIATION.

Original art work produced at North American Rockwell to promote the first B-1 Nuclear Bomber. This is a aircraft that was conceived for the cold war and now just has to do a low buzz job to scare the H&*% out of any insurgents. If you love fast sleek aircraft that packs a powerful punch, this is a historic work of original one of a kind art that you can be proud to display and preserve for future generations. 22"x18"

Added from “Found on Ebay” thread

 

[Triton]

From the San Diego Air and Space Museum Archive.

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/4555985957

 

[RanulfC]

Also found at NTRS -timeframe (1966) suggest that it was LAMP-AMP-AMPSS program related. My previous thoughts of TFX were re-thought
Too late and unusual for TFX. Beat me if I'm wrong.

Flateric:

Interesting pivot-wing design, any chance you have the report number you got it from?
(I'm ALWAYS interested in seeing what ideas there are out there for pivot-wings

Randy

 

[flateric]

now it's clear that it's not AMSA-related

http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19660030316

Title: Stability and control characteristics at Mach numbers of 1.41 and 2.20 of a multimission STOL airplane configuration with a variable-skew wing
Author(s): Foster, G. V.
Abstract: Stability and control characteristics at Mach numbers of 1.41 and 2.20 of multimission STOL AIRPLANE configuration with variable-skew wing
NASA Center: Langley Research Center
Publication Date: May 1, 1963
Document Source: CASI
Online Source: View PDF File
Document ID: 19660030316
Accession ID: 66N39606
Publication Information: Number of Pages = 69
Report Number: NASA-TM-X-812
Price Code: A04
Keywords: ANGLE OF ATTACK; BODY-WING CONFIGURATIONS; MACH NUMBER; SHORT TAKEOFF AIRCRAFT; STABILITY; SUPERSONIC SPEED; WINGS; BODY-WING COMBINATION; STABILITY AND CONTROL; STOL AIRCRAFT; SUPERSONIC SPEED;

http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720065639

Title: Aerodynamic characteristics at Mach numbers from 1.70 to 2.86 of a STOL model with a variable-skew wing
Author(s): Spearman, M. L.; Finch, V. M.
Abstract: No Abstract Available
NASA Center: Langley Research Center
Publication Date: Jan 1, 1964
Document Source: CASI
Online Source: View PDF File
Document ID: 19720065639
Accession ID: 72N73511
Publication Information: Number of Pages = 21
Report Number: L-3451; NASA-TM-X-903
Price Code: A03
Keywords: LATERAL STABILITY; LONGITUDINAL STABILITY; SHORT TAKEOFF AIRCRAFT; VARIABLE GEOMETRY STRUCTURES; SUPERSONIC FLOW;

 

[uk 75]

For all enthusiasts or just those interested in the AMSA/B1 saga I can recommend the new Tony Buttler book on US Bomber secret projects with its wonderful photos of the various manufacturer's models. The book also explains that much material on the various proposals at the early stages of the evolution of the project has been destroyed.

Unfortunately the book does not add any more info on the twin podded engine version pictured in one of the drawings posted earlier on the site.

 

[uk 75]

Sorry I should have given the ref, I meant the second pic in flateric's contrbution of
12 September 2008. I have seen this drawing in some old 60s magazines and it must
have been a USAF initial idea rather than a manufactuer's. Hence the weird combination
of F-111 and B-52.

 

[fightingirish]

From Flug-Revue May 1972, page 74 & 75

 

[Nico]

Looking around for interesting pictures of the development of B-1 I found this cardboard bi-dimensional mock-up of the B-1A (depicted together with the escape module model)
Nico

 

[Triton]

Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft (AMSA) concept. Source does not specify manufacturer.

Source:
http://crimso.msk.ru/Site/Arts/Art3586.htm

 

[Stargazer]

If I didn't know better, I'd say it has a definite Martin look to it... but Martin had ceased submitting aircraft designs for about over five years at the time of the AMSA competition. Doesn't really look like any of the AMSA proposals we've seen in this thread so far.

 

[Grey Havoc]

If I didn't know better, I'd say it has a definite Martin look to it... but Martin had ceased submitting aircraft designs for about over five years at the time of the AMSA competition. Doesn't really look like any of the AMSA proposals we've seen in this thread so far.

Maybe Martin was acting as a design consultant/sub-contractor for some other company trying to enter the market?

 

[Nico]

I Gents,
in the same series of negs in my archives that already gave me the sketches of LARA/COIN proposals from some ads published on 'Aviation Week' on late sixties early seventies - that I already posted in this forum - I found also that one I enclose: we can see (partially) a sketch of what seems to me a copy of a generic USAF artist's impression (but remembers also a Republic configuration) of the F-15 and, in foreground, what is simply labelled 'B-1': in your opinion it is another generic USAF impression of a 'could-be B-1' or could be inspired from a real proposal?


Nico

 

[flateric]

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,484.msg41805.html#msg41805

 

[circle-5]

Here is a North American AMSA factory model, with two engines in the rear and one under each apex surface. Every time the wings pivot, each bomb rack needs to pivot in the opposite direction to stay aligned with the fight path. The F-111 had eight such pivoting hard points as well, IIRC. (Model photo © by Chad Slattery)

A 3-view drawing of this concept was posted by flateric almost 4 years ago, here.

 

[archipeppe]

I Gents,
in the same series of negs in my archives that already gave me the sketches of LARA/COIN proposals from some ads published on 'Aviation Week' on late sixties early seventies - that I already posted in this forum - I found also that one I enclose: we can see (partially) a sketch of what seems to me a copy of a generic USAF artist's impression (but remembers also a Republic configuration) of the F-15 and, in foreground, what is simply labelled 'B-1': in your opinion it is another generic USAF impression of a 'could-be B-1' or could be inspired from a real proposal?


Nico

Dear Nico,

the bomber represented seems to be in "convair-ish" style, could it be some B-58IM derivative from General Dynamics of mid-60's?

 

[uk 75]

Aha

My favourite drawing of the B1 run up. It is in fact not a manufacturers drawing but a US
Air Force artists impression based very loosely on the F-111 (notice the F-111 style cockpit ejection system) and an indicative podded design (again possibly derived from a Convair design).
If you look closely, apart from the pods it is nothing like the North American model in the cockpit
or wing configuration. A fuller picture of the same plane is posted in an earlier thread. I will try and get the ref and post it here.

UK 75

 

[uk 75]

It was back on thread line 2

 

[circle-5]

AMSA desk model (1967 vintage) from North American Aviation's Los Angeles Divison. Wearing exhaust plugs was obviously fashionable at the time.

(Model photo © by Chad Slattery)

A 3-view drawing of this concept was posted by flateric almost 2 years ago, here.

 

[circle-5]

AMSA desk model (1968 vintage) from North American Aviation's Los Angeles Divison.

(Model photo © by Chad Slattery)

 

[sferrin]

AMSA desk model (1967 vintage) from North American Aviation's Los Angeles Divison. Wearing exhaust plugs was obviously fashionable at the time.

(Model photo © by Chad Slattery)

A 3-view drawing of this concept was posted by flateric almost 2 years ago, here.

Plugs are still "fashionable" for non-afterburning engines when geometry permits. (See airliner engines for example.)

 

[circle-5]

Another view of the North American AMSA (1967 model year). Question for sferrin: does the presence of exhaust plugs indicate this was a subsonic design (no afterburners)?

(Model photo © by Chad Slattery)

A 3-view drawing of this concept was posted by flateric almost 2 years ago, here.

 

[fightingirish]

No, that design is supersonic. The Tu-144 has also exhaust plugs.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Another view of the North American AMSA (1967 model year).

NAA D458-13D

does the presence of exhaust plugs indicate this was a subsonic design (no afterburners)?

Nope. It had four 105%-scale GE1/9F7B-34 engines, permitting a Mach 2.2 penetration range, with a total mission range (the rest being subsonic) of 2500 n.m.

Rather than the more usual "turkey feathers," this engine used a fixed plug and a retractable shroud, which deployed above Mach 1.4.

 

[circle-5]

Thanks to OBB for the data on the NAA D458-13D AMSA. It's always good to know these things.

The attached model photo shows a subsonic study of AMPSS, by North American Aviation, Los Angeles Division. I know this because Subsonic AMPSS is printed in gold letters on the base (which makes it official ).

However, as a non-aerodynamicist, I don't understand how a subsonic airplane could benefit from such a radical wing sweep angle (95 deg., perhaps?)

(Model photo © by Chad Slattery)

 

[Orionblamblam]

I don't understand how a subsonic airplane could benefit from such a radical wing sweep angle

It wouldn't. There was a mistake somewhere... either in making the ID plate, or in putting that particular model on that particular stand. This type of tucked-in wing was studied for a number of aircraft back in the mid 60's, and it was always for high supersonic cruise (Mach 2+)

PS: Don't have anything on this specific design, but it looks like an earlier vehicle. A similar design, the D436-21, was an intermediate basepoint, just prior to the D458-13D, looked much the same except the engine nozzles were all the way at the tail and had the narrow plugs... same over-swept wing, with a Mach 2.2 cruise for 1500 n.m. (2500 n.m. total).

There were a number of subsonic designs studied for AMPSS; except for some goofy Lokheed concepts, they were pretty standard subsonic-bombery-lookin', as far as I can tell.

 

[circle-5]

It wouldn't. There was a mistake somewhere... either in making the ID plate, or in putting that particular model on that particular stand.

So this model could be on the wrong stand? Gosh... this has never happened before. Attached is another view of the supersonic subsonic AMPSS by North American Aviation, with wings in mid-sweep.

(Model photo © by Chad Slattery)

 

[circle-5]

And here's another AMPSS model from North American Aviation (Los Angeles Division), with three engines and a delta wing. It's clearly marked Supersonic AMPSS, which is probably correct.

(Model photo © by Chad Slattery)

 

[Orionblamblam]

It's clearly marked Supersonic AMPSS, which is probably correct.

Yes. NAA proposed that the prototype for this particular configuration be built from a hacked-apart XB-70 (possibly the never-finished #3, but that's speculation)

 

[circle-5]

And another variant of NAA's AMPSS, from the Los Angeles Division model shop. Not to be confused with the earlier supersonic AMPSS on the subsonic stand, this one is larger, with staggered engine quartet at the rear and wider wing pivot spacing, among other differences.

(Model photos © by Chad Slattery)

 

[Orionblamblam]

A low rez version of this was posted before, but here's a higher rez. A higher-rez-yet version is at my blog:
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=11430

Also attached is a blowup of the "subsonic" model. And it actually does seem to say "subsonic." A few possible explanations:
1: Circle-5 actually has this model, which was mislabeled
2: NAA made a number of mis-labeled models
3: This was actually meant to be subsonic
1& 2 look less likely now, but #3 just seems silly.

 

[CaseyKnight]

This type of tucked-in wing was studied for a number of aircraft back in the mid 60's, and it was always for high supersonic cruise (Mach 2+)

I remember seeing TFX proposals with wings like that.