Boeing Swing-Wing Single-Seat Fighter in 1967 report - VFAX?

Re: Boeing Swing-Wing Single-Seat Fighter Project of 1968 to ID

Nothing to this moment ,who can make a drawing to it ?.
 
Re: Boeing Swing-Wing Single-Seat Fighter Project of 1968 to ID

Looks like a rough drawing of one of the early Boeing 818 TFX designs.
 
Re: Boeing Swing-Wing Single-Seat Fighter Project of 1968 to ID

No, its a single engine version of the Boeing TFX design.

It might be a Boeing study to VFAX (earlier one in 1965) which brought out a number of "half-TFX" designs or perhaps the earlier VAX. I'd say early VFAX.

Note the original report is from 1967, not 1968.
 
Re: Boeing Swing-Wing Single-Seat Fighter Project of 1968 to ID

TomS said:
Looks like a rough drawing of one of the early Boeing 818 TFX designs.
Click to expand...

Not at all,the report was in 1968.
 
Re: Boeing Swing-Wing Single-Seat Fighter Project of 1968 to ID

Best I can make of the poor original scan. Very clearly similar to their TFX. Note the apparent variable geometry tailplanes.
 

Attachments

  • BoeingSwingWing.png
    BoeingSwingWing.png
    136.7 KB · Views: 1,769
Re: Boeing Swing-Wing Single-Seat Fighter Project of 1968 to ID

Many thanks my dear Paul.
 
Re: Boeing Swing-Wing Single-Seat Fighter Project of 1968 to ID

hesham said:
TomS said:
Looks like a rough drawing of one of the early Boeing 818 TFX designs.
Click to expand...

Not at all,the report was in 1968.
Click to expand...

Just because that paper was written in 1968 does not mean the drawing isn't older than that.

That said, this design looks to be single-engined and TFX was a twin.
 
Re: Boeing Swing-Wing Single-Seat Fighter Project of 1968 to ID

TomS said:
hesham said:
TomS said:
Looks like a rough drawing of one of the early Boeing 818 TFX designs.
Click to expand...

Not at all,the report was in 1968.
Click to expand...

Just because that paper was written in 1968 does not mean the drawing isn't older than that.

That said, this design looks to be single-engined and TFX was a twin.
Click to expand...

The report is about engines and propulsion, and first presented at a conference in 1967. The likelihood is that this is a Boeing design of a few years earlier, used for illustration only - it has no direct relation to the report. It would be something reasonably recent but not secret. Therefore 1965 VFAX represents the most likely contender to my mind.
 
Re: Boeing Swing-Wing Single-Seat Fighter Project of 1968 to ID

I agree with my dear Paul,VFAX not TFX.
 
Re: Boeing Swing-Wing Single-Seat Fighter Project of 1968 to ID

Boeing were the US partner withe EWR on the USFRG AVS strike fighter which was another swing wing strike fighter. It was also twin engined but influenced other Boeing designs like this fighter.
 
Re: Boeing Swing-Wing Single-Seat Fighter Project of 1968 to ID

The Reanimator comes again...
the report says:
"Two typical missions for the tactical fighter can be used to
illustrate the effect of drag increase on mission range (Fig. 3).
The aircraft must be able to fly at the supersonic speeds required
for the intercept mission. However, a major requirement
is the tactical support mission flown at subsonic speeds
under nonafterburning conditions."

This is VFAX, definitively.
 
Re: Boeing Swing-Wing Single-Seat Fighter Project of 1968 to ID

Wow,amazing Info my dear Skyblot,

but what was Boeing Model number ?.
 
We can rule out Boeing VFAX as we have a drawing of it in Friedman - Fighter over the Fleet. However I do have a possible candidate -

it might be from a Boeing report "High-Performance General Purpose Aircraft Study. State of the Art" from July 1964 which was funded as Navy studies prior to VFAX. Possibly worth obtaining via DTIC?


Technology advances anticipated for a 1972 deployment airplane are discussed. Development work that supports these concepts is also included. Some of the more significant state-ofthe-art advances are in high lift systems, variable-sweep wings, propulsion, structures and materials, avionics, and support systems. Author


Comparative airplane concepts designed to accomplish pure attack or multimission attack fighter missions are presented for STOL, VSTOL, or VTOL takeoff and landing modes. A cursory analysis of the operating characteristics and costs of the more interesting configurations is included. It is beyond the scope of the study to recommend any particular weapon system concept. Configurations were established without extensive parametric analyses. Designs were examined in sufficient detail to ensure that the designs are reasonably representative of their classification, are practical, and are comparable. Author
 
Last edited:
Thank you my dear Paul,

and is that any way to get those two reports ?.
 
Date and design would appear to indicate some relationship to VAX and F55.5. designs. There is a separate topic room here on VAX.
 
overscan said:
hesham said:
Thank you my dear Paul,

and is that any way to get those two reports ?.
Click to expand...

Someone can pay DTIC to get them scanned.
Click to expand...

I've sent a DTIC FOIA request, but I'm not sure if it will go through properly. Last couple I sent bounced and the DTIC FOIA submission page causes all of my browsers to freak out over security issues. Slight irony there
 
overscan said:
Orionblamblam said:
I've sent a DTIC FOIA request, but I'm not sure if it will go through properly. Last couple I sent bounced and the DTIC FOIA submission page causes all of my browsers to freak out over security issues. Slight irony there
Click to expand...

Yep, for some reason this happens all the time with these kind of sites.
Click to expand...
Happens a lot with US DoD websites. They don't seem to think they need to bother with up-to-date security certificates, which is ironic.
 
overscan said:
Yep, for some reason this happens all the time with these kind of sites.
Click to expand...

FYI, I got in touch with an actual human at DTIC. She pulled up the FOIA email submission page, the one that doesn't work... and on *her* computer it works just fine. Looks like DTIC set things up so that people inside can send FOIA requests, but not outsiders. So... back to writing actual letters, shoving them in envelopes and sticking stamps onto them. How terribly advanced.
 
For the ones that have already been scanned, I now go on the Internet Archive for browsing DTIC pdfs. They archived a sh.. load of them, maybe all that was online at one time or another, plus the search engine is very good, and browsing it is much easier as you can view thumbnails of the pdfs pages.
 
I simply wrote an e-mail through their contact us link with the subject heading: FOIA Request a few weeks ago and had no problem getting the ball rolling with regard to the FOIA request. No stamp required.
 
Orionblamblam said:
overscan said:
Yep, for some reason this happens all the time with these kind of sites.
Click to expand...

FYI, I got in touch with an actual human at DTIC. She pulled up the FOIA email submission page, the one that doesn't work... and on *her* computer it works just fine. Looks like DTIC set things up so that people inside can send FOIA requests, but not outsiders. So... back to writing actual letters, shoving them in envelopes and sticking stamps onto them. How terribly advanced.
Click to expand...


I'll bet it works on Internet Explorer 6...
 
Sundog said:
I simply wrote an e-mail through their contact us link with the subject heading: FOIA Request a few weeks ago and had no problem getting the ball rolling with regard to the FOIA request. No stamp required.
Click to expand...

Which link? This one?
 

Attachments

  • dtic.jpg
    dtic.jpg
    101.9 KB · Views: 163
This one from the link at the bottom of their home page that reads Contact Us.

Edit:
OK, I see, that must have just went down after I sent my request. Has anyone tried calling the contact number to see if anyone answers who can offer a contact e-mail address?
 
Sundog said:
Has anyone tried calling the contact number to see if anyone answers who can offer a contact e-mail address?
Click to expand...

Yes, I did... and they said that the email form is the only system they use now. I used to send FOIA request by actual mail, but those bounce now and I was told they no longer use that.
 
The form works for me in Internet Explorer, with a security warning.

The problem is the certificate chains to a DOD root certificate which is not trusted by Windows / Chrome / Firefox. DOD computers have this certificate installed, so they are fine.
 
sienar said:
Just add an exception and it will work.
Click to expand...
Ahem: How?

Did Not Connect: Potential Security Issue

Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to forms.dtic.mil because this website requires a secure connection.

What can you do about it?

The issue is most likely with the website, and there is nothing you can do to resolve it.

If you are on a corporate network or using anti-virus software, you can reach out to the support teams for assistance. You can also notify the website’s administrator about the problem.
Click to expand...

there is nothing you can do to resolve it.

wick.jpg
 
Alternatively, you should simply install the DOD root certificates on your computer. Assuming you trust them, of course.

64 bit Windows : https://dl.dod.cyber.mil/wp-content/uploads/pki-pke/msi/InstallRoot_5.2x64.msi
32 bit Windows: https://dl.dod.cyber.mil/wp-content/uploads/pki-pke/msi/InstallRoot_5.2x32.msi
Certificates only for manual install (Mac, Linux) https://dl.dod.cyber.mil/wp-content/uploads/pki-pke/zip/certificates_pkcs7_v5-6_dod.zipb

Then all your DOD site cert issues go away. Also, the NSA can backdoor your system.

:cool:
 
overscan said:
Then all your DOD site cert issues go away. Also, the NSA can backdoor your system.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet the NSA can back door anyone's system with or without those certificates. ;)

Also, now that you mention it, I think I did use Explorer to send the request. The only thing it's useful for, since I normally use either Firefox or Chrome.
 

Attachments

  • Subsonic aerodynamic performance of nozzle installations in supersonic airplanes..pdf
    867.2 KB · Views: 12


Write your reply...

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom