Boeing Advanced Theater Transport (ATT) aka SuperFrog

[yasotay]

I have some information on ATT. May take a day or two to find the hard drive with the data. Anything in particular you are interested in?

 

[hesham]

Hi,

Some artist pictures and drawing to Boeing ATT.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Pictures

 

[flateric]

Wow, this FSW iteration is something new for me! Or I was looking too briefly...Here's Boeing promo with some mid iteration.

 

[flateric]

Some more pics - ATT in transition, ATT almost-a-sim (note 777 sticker) and YC-15 SSTOL demonstrator intended for "rigorously demonstrate performance of the
rotor/wing/flap system".

ATT Characteristics (full scale)

TOGW 325,000 lb
Payload (SSTOL) 40,000 lb
Payload (max) 80,000 lb
Engine (x4) 11,400 SHP
Length 106 ft
Wing Span 134 ft
Prop diameter 30 ft
Ferry range >5000 nm
Max speed 380 knots
Field Length 750 ft (SLS)

YC-15 SSTOL Design Data
TOGW (SSTOL) 182,000 lb
OWE 124,000 lb
Payload (Stryker) 45,000 lb
V-22 Engine (x4) 6000+ SHP
Length 124 ft
Wing Span 132 ft
Wing Tilt 0-20 deg
Prop diameter 24.5 ft
Cruise .66 M; 30,000 ft
Field Length 750 ft (SLS)

 

[yasotay]

I used to have several briefings on the ATT, and a video too. Boeing was not happy with me because while I thought it a brilliant idea it was not VTOL. It would never have gotten any place anyway because the USAF is not going to buy any more "major" aircraft with propellers. They are so... last century, and it does not count toward 4 engine turbofan time. That is very important to the Air Force pilot.

 

[Jemiba]

In Oliver/Ryan "Warplanes of the Future", actually an Avpro brochure, the resemblance
of Avpros AFA (Advanced Future Airlift concept) to the Boeing ATT is stressed, but
honestly I can't see it in the pictures of the Boeing design. Were there other concepts
at an earlier stage, using jet lift ?

 

[flateric]

That's Super Frog - ATT story in words of Boeing:

"In 2000, Boeing initiated in-depth configuration design
studies to address future theater airlift mobility needs.
Numerous configurations were explored, and quickly a
four engine, tilt-wing, propeller design with Super
Short Takeoff and Landing (SSTOL) performance was
determined to be the best integrated design solution for
an Advanced Theater Transport (ATT) mission. Little
was it realized the role that 1960-70’s research would
play in the validation of the Boeing ATT concept.
Boeing’s early tilt wing concept, developed in the late
1990s was a tail-less design called the Super-Frog. The
performance was computed using Boeing’s theoretical
powered lift aerodynamics methods, which calculated
lift and drag based on thrust coefficient and geometric
parameters. Trimmed flight analysis was limited with
these methods. As detailed design work was
commenced in 2000, other databases and
methodologies were investigated to improve pitching
moment predictions and validate Boeing’s empirical
high lift methods. It became evident that the last
significant amount of research on tilt-wing propeller
designs was concluded in the early 1970s. The USAF
Light Intratheater Transport (LIT) studies in 1968 were
a valuable source for tilt-wing design methodology.
Numerous tilt-wing designs that flew in this period,
including the Hiller X-18, the Canadair CL-84, and the
Ling-Temco-Vought XC-142 also provided valuable
information. But, the most complete and thorough
source of powered lift data that was relevant to
Boeing’s ATT was NASA’s powered-lift, tilt-wing,
wind tunnel database. This included small scale wind
tunnel testing in NASA facilities and large scale wind
tunnel testing in the NASA-Ames 40 X 80 ft wind
tunnel.
The reliance upon this research conducted over 30 years
ago allowed Boeing to quickly establish a baseline
design, and proceed to a sophisticated 11% powered
wind tunnel model with a high degree of confidence in
the predicted lift, drag, and pitching moments. In
addition, there were many lessons learned from the tiltwing
XC-142 that were incorporated into the design of
Boeing’s 21st century tilt-wing design."

from
AIAA 2002-6023
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A SUPER-SHORT TAKEOFF AND LANDING TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT
David J. Manley
Program Manager - Boeing Advanced Theater Transport
Huntington Beach, California
Walter von Klein, Jr.
Principal Engineer, Boeing Phantom Works
Huntington Beach, California

 

[flateric]

another Boeing ATT pics - old and 'new' concepts

 

[hesham]

Hi,

there is the MDC tilt-wing transport aircraft of 1996 to replace
the Lockheed C-130 Hercules.

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1996/1996%20-%202563.html?search=mcdonnell%20tilt%20wing%20aircraft

 

[flateric]

Very early ATT/SuperFrog configuration from 1997 (at least it was already called ATT, or, Tiltwing SSTOL (Super Short Takeoff and Landing) aircraft by Boeing)

from

AIAA 1997-5506
Load-by-Wire™ Advanced Cargo Handling System
Myles A. (Mike) Rohrlick
The Boeing Co.

 

[spectre]

It is interesting to see Boeing's view on future airlift compared to Lockheed's MACK concept aircraft. M-X, A-X, C-X, and K-X.

 

[frank]

OMG! Firefox on steroids!

In Oliver/Ryan "Warplanes of the Future", actually an Avpro brochure, the resemblance
of Avpros AFA (Advanced Future Airlift concept) to the Boeing ATT is stressed, but
honestly I can't see it in the pictures of the Boeing design. Were there other concepts
at an earlier stage, using jet lift ?

 

[JAZZ]

That early 1997 - model

 

[flateric]

Some more pics of ATT as it was in 2006

 

[yasotay]

If memory serves while the Army was enthusiastic that ATT came much closer to meeting their requirements, the USAF indicated that they had reservations about its lateral stability for cross-winds or some such issue. Private words with some very familiar with the program said: a. USAF did not like the propellers (again ruins big airplane opportunities with airlines) and the "no reason not to land in indian country" and b. Boeing was not enthused internally because it threathened potential C-17 sales. I think a likely "c." was that the USAF was at the time not interested in investing significantly in cargo aircraft when they were still fighting the F-22 war.

 

[LowObservable]

True, it was a neat idea without a budget line, or anyone interested in fighting for one, which is a difficult position to be in. There was
The question now is whether it could be in play for JHL, where people are predicting a SuperSTOL versus VTOL (tilt-rotor, essentially) face-off.

 

[F-14D]

True, it was a neat idea without a budget line, or anyone interested in fighting for one, which is a difficult position to be in. There was
The question now is whether it could be in play for JHL, where people are predicting a SuperSTOL versus VTOL (tilt-rotor, essentially) face-off.

You know, except for the fact that USAF could "own" the program, a SuperSTOL is much harder than a STOVL/VTOL, especially Tilt-Rotor. As a wise man once said, "It's much easier to stop and land than it is to land and stop".

 

[LowObservable]

F-14D...
Possibly... Operationally, V eliminates a whole lot of problems. Technically, it does demand some form of zero-speed control and more powered lift. Even with something as V-oriented as a tilt-rotor, you can pick up a lot more useful load with even a slow ground roll.

 

[F-14D]

F-14D...
Possibly... Operationally, V eliminates a whole lot of problems. Technically, it does demand some form of zero-speed control and more powered lift. Even with something as V-oriented as a tilt-rotor, you can pick up a lot more useful load with even a slow ground roll.

True, and V-22 does do rolling STO above a certain weight. I was referring more to what's involved in getting into and landing in a small area. That's the "stimulating" part.

 

[yasotay]

F-14D...
Possibly... Operationally, V eliminates a whole lot of problems. Technically, it does demand some form of zero-speed control and more powered lift. Even with something as V-oriented as a tilt-rotor, you can pick up a lot more useful load with even a slow ground roll.

True, and V-22 does do rolling STO above a certain weight. I was referring more to what's involved in getting into and landing in a small area. That's the "stimulating" part.

I could cut and paste volumes here on the analysis done recently by the Army... but that would be telling. Real bottom line is that the Army after three years of hard analysis (following on ten years of wargaming and simple analysis) has become even more adamant that VTOL is the right answer, while recognizing the benefits of STO when it is available.

 

[Orionblamblam]

This is from the Big Box of Awesome. Got it (and nine other diagrams) scanned in and cleaned up. Decided to make this one freely available in full-rez.

http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/download/ModelD3132-187ATT.gif

The full version is a grayscale GIF of about 3.2 meg (10372x7168 pixels).


If you like it, feel free to look into getting my other, *non* freebie diagrams...

http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndoc.htm

 

[Michel Van]

many Thanks from me ;D

 

[yasotay]

Indeed Thank you.

 

[flateric]

Thank you, Scott. You are a Wizard Of Oz today.

 

[TinWing]

The full version is a grayscale GIF of about 3.2 meg (10372x7168 pixels).

In black and white, it's only 783kb!

Nice drawing.

Thank you.

 

[Orionblamblam]

In black and white, it's only 783kb!

That's one of the few that'd be pretty much just as good in B&W. The others I had scanned (A3 Vigiliante markings; A3 Vigilante inboard profile & sections, XFV-12 inboard profile, McD D3132-43 quad "tilt rotor" VTOL general arrangement; McD D3146-13 tiltwing transport inboard profile; 4-engine OV-10; F-107 general arrangment; F-107 inboards & sections) were all in various stages of fading, so everythign was scanned in grayscale. The original TIF files were impressively large (195 meg for the biggest); some cleanup and conversion to GIF dropped 'em way down in filesize.

A lot more scanning to be done. This was a first test batch to see how the copyshop would do, and they did alright.

Interesting: just noticed that the McD VTOL transport is D3132... as is the ATT. Same design series, I suppose, just separated by many years.

Below are the others, in miniature. Cleanup is nowhere near complete; these are just quick views of 'em.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The others.

 

[Orionblamblam]

You are a Wizard Of Oz today.

Hmm. The Wizard of Oz was a fraud, you know... I feel vaguely insulted...

 

[Antonio]

Scott, Thanks a lot!!!

 

[flateric]

You are a Wizard Of Oz today.

Hmm. The Wizard of Oz was a fraud, you know... I feel vaguely insulted...

Oh, damn...Wizard of Utah I wanted to say.

 

[AeroFranz]

The Boeing ATT (a.k.a. Super Lobster) drawing has something labeled "ADVINT arrays" and "ADVINT actuator" on it...any clue as to what that is?
BTW, thanks for uploading. The drawing is awesome.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Thank you Scott - you'da Man! Mark

 

[SmithW6079]

Thank you for the pics Scott. However, I'm getting a red "X" when I click on the link for the high rez
version. Anyone else encountered this problem?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Some versions of Internet Explorer cannot handle such a large image. Using a proper browser like Firefox will rectify this problem, or you can right click the link and select "download" and then view it in an image viewer program on your computer.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Thank you for the pics Scott. However, I'm getting a red "X" when I click on the link for the high rez
version. Anyone else encountered this problem?

The high-rez version is BIG. You might want to right-click and do a "save as."

 

[SmithW6079]

Thank you for the technical advice, I'll give it a try once I get back to my desktop.

Cheers

 

[SmithW6079]

I was able to download and open the image as had been suggested. It's such an amazing aircraft, too bad it had never gone into production. Thanks again...

 

[flateric]

Very early Super Frog article from 1998 Flifht International
Boeing's tailless 'Super Frog' hops on to the drawing board
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1998/1998%20-%202636.html?search=tier+3

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Dear Scott, is there an ETA on making Air Drawings 1 through 30 available by download for purchase?