Fleet Air Defense Fighter - Douglas F6D-1 Missileer and its rivals

[Pyrrhic victory]

This photo was not backstamped, but handwritten on the back is "Figure 3. A3D-2P modified for Eagle missile 12/60". By the photo number style, I believe this to be a Grumman photo. Did Grumman do the mod?

They had a B-57 as well, apparently.

 

[Orionblamblam]

When you absolutely, positively have to blow the entire frakkin' Soviet air force and their puny ICBMs right the hell out of your sky... Northrop Multipurpose BLC Airplane, baby! Accept no substitutes!

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Calling Dale Brown! Calling Dale Brown!

 

[Orionblamblam]

Here's all I've seen on Convair work on the Missileer. This comes from a chart showing side views (or less) of a number of Convair efforts from 1958. Not a whole lot of data, sadly.

 

[Stargazer]

Cool! Any chance we can see the whole chart reproduced?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Cool! Any chance we can see the whole chart reproduced?

There's always a chance....

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

While looking for something else in the Flight archives, I tripped over this artist's concept of what appears to be a Douglas Missileer concept from a Heinemann paper, Military Aircraft. See page 386 of the 9 October 1959 issue but there's nothing more there on this particular aircraft.

 

[TinWing]

While looking for something else in the Flight archives, I tripped over this artist's concept of what appears to be a Douglas Missileer concept from a Heinemann paper, Military Aircraft. See page 386 of the 9 October 1959 issue but there's nothing more there on this particular aircraft.

The picture seems to depict a moderately swept wing, while all the drawings would indicate a straight wing?

 

[frank]

Swept wings & tail, pointed radome & exhaust out the tail as well.

While looking for something else in the Flight archives, I tripped over this artist's concept of what appears to be a Douglas Missileer concept from a Heinemann paper, Military Aircraft. See page 386 of the 9 October 1959 issue but there's nothing more there on this particular aircraft.

The picture seems to depict a moderately swept wing, while all the drawings would indicate a straight wing?

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

Swept wings & tail, pointed radome & exhaust out the tail as well.

While looking for something else in the Flight archives, I tripped over this artist's concept of what appears to be a Douglas Missileer concept from a Heinemann paper, Military Aircraft. See page 386 of the 9 October 1959 issue but there's nothing more there on this particular aircraft.

The picture seems to depict a moderately swept wing, while all the drawings would indicate a straight wing?

Just to clarify, I didn't say that it was the F6D Missileer. I said it appeared to be a Douglas Missileer concept. Note the very large radome, the four large missiles that look vaguely like the Eagle, and the caption...

 

[Stargazer]

Here's all I've seen on Convair work on the Missileer. This comes from a chart showing side views (or less) of a number of Convair efforts from 1958. Not a whole lot of data, sadly.

I just realized that this Convair "Missiler" (sic) proposal, which is described as having Grumman as a competitor, is dated 1958 (early in the year) while the real Missileer competition is dated 30 November 1959. Could it be that there might have been an earlier Missileer requirement that TS-151 superseded?

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

I just realized that this Convair "Missiler" (sic) proposal, which is described as having Grumman as a competitor, is dated 1958 (early in the year) while the real Missileer competition is dated 30 November 1959. Could it be that there might have been an earlier Missileer requirement that TS-151 superseded?

Predesign projects are approved and started when:
1) Somebody gets a whiff of customer interest in an aircraft or application that the company can imagine itself capable of doing
2) Somebody in the company comes up with a concept that is potentially of interest to a customer and can order or cajole the predesign group into making a study of it
3) The Predesign Group doesn't have much to do or isn't interested in doing what they're supposed to do

In other words, the Predesign Group don't need no stinkin' requirement. One objective of a company's predesign project is in fact to influence the customer to write the requirement so it favors that company. Even better, make it so good (and/or being a favored contractor that needs work) that the customer doesn't even bother having a formal competition to fill the requirement, which is written while negotiations and detail specification preparation are in progress. The A4D, F4H, and A3J programs are examples.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

I suggest that interceptor from Mr. Heinemann was Douglas D-767.

 

[hesham]

To the best of my knowledge, Grumman looked at three basic design approaches for this one.

1) Supersonic - Basically a variation on their XF12F proposal
2) High-Subsonic - Using the basic Intruder airframe as a starting point.
3) Low-Subsonic - Using a derivative of the S2F or W2F airframe.

I don't currently have any drawings of these.

Here are the Bendix-Grumman studies. I don't know what Grumman proposed.

As Mr. Tony Butler said,

the initial work for Grumman G-128E had been undertaken from
6.58 as G-200.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

here is a slow interceptor designed by Mr. Heinemann from Douglas company,
can anyone identifiy it? please.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1959/1959%20-%202631.html

And may be,this aircraft was Douglas D-746 long-range missile
fighter of 1958.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Greetings All -

Another find in the Vought Archives is a later variant with swept wings. Note the two view design is different (swept wings) than the cross section drawings (unswept wing).

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[AeroFranz]

Mark, any idea of why the root leading edge of the aircraft depicted in the second picture has that square extension? is it there just to support the missiles? the spar is well back, so i doubt it bears a whole lot of flight loads. ???

 

[Jemiba]

..any idea of why the root leading edge of the aircraft depicted in the second picture has that square extension?

Looks like a way to me to carry the missiles semi conformal, without the additional drag of pylons.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

I'd have to agree with Jemiba, not any other obvious aero or structural reasons.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Pioneer]

And here is the Missileer proposal model from North American Aviation (Columbus, Ohio Division). I always thought that NAA had never designed an ugly airplane, but I stand corrected. Eight hinge fairings all around radome show how nose radar could be completely exposed for servicing.

Hell if you had not mentioned the Missileer fact - I would have taken it for a S-3 Viking competition proposal - what with its size!

Great find though with the desktop models!!! ;D
I would love them on one of my shelves!!!


Regards
Pioneer

No I wish to repudiate what I said ......... after looking at this design again - I think the NAA 'Missileer' looks more akin to a mini Douglas A-3 Skywarrior!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[famvburg]

Where is the modified S2F? The closest I found looks like a modified E-2.

Here are the Bendix-Grumman studies. I don't know what Grumman proposed.

The internal weapons installation on the modified S2F airframe is really interesting, but also a tough design problem...any idea how the missiles were lowered into the airstream? swing arms lowering the whole lot? Looks like the top row of missiles has to travel quite a bit to get to the proper firing position, clearances included.

edit: I now see a U shaped bracket and an L-shaped bracket respectively fore and aft of the weapons bay. Those might be part of the lowering mechanism. Interesting kinematics.

 

[Pioneer]

The closest I found looks like a modified E-2.

Sorry Famvurg, but where is this "looks like a modified E-2"?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[famvburg]

Page 4, post 4, Tailspin Turtle's Bendix-Grumman post, top drawing.

 

[hesham]

Hi,


from La Fana magazine of September 2011,here is the Boeing Model 835-12 in color
and the Grumman for Missileer competition.

 

[circle-5]

The Grumman Missileer drawing, shown in the previous post, is actually the early Bendix-Grumman BSD160, a.k.a. Grumman Design 123-F.
Attached is a photo of the 123-F BuAer proposal model, from the Grumman model shop. (Grumman Archive via Tony Buttler)

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of the Vought V-434 found on Facebook.

Source:

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

 

[datafuser]

Scanned from a 1961 Congressional record.

The Marines' requirement was fed into the design and the Eagle-Missilier concept was in competition with the Mach 3 F-108.

And the Eagle-Missilier was supposed to be a "limited war" weapon.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

Artist's impression of Douglas F6D Missileer found on Facebook?

Source:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10204440811761752&set=gm.10152671285664784&type=1&theater

That is almost certainly the Vought V-434.

 

[Triton]

Thank you Tailspin Turtle and Paul for the identification.

 

[hesham]

Scanned from a 1961 Congressional record.

The Marines' requirement was fed into the design and the Eagle-Missilier concept was in competition with the Mach 3 F-108.

And the Eagle-Missilier was supposed to be a "limited war" weapon.

Good info Datafuser.

 

[hesham]

Hi,


here is an artist drawing to Boeing Model-835,looks different;


http://books.google.com.au/books?id=rBksUk40jlEC&pg=PA89&dq=Boeing+Model+909&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CdkSVPu6JMPdaquDgtgB&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Boeing%20Model%20909&f=false

 

[_Del_]

Interesting. Swept wings and tail along with Kuchemann carrots..

 

[hesham]

Thank you Del.

 

[AeroFranz]

Interesting. Swept wings and tail along with Kuchemann carrots..

Likely to stow the landing gear. Note how the wing is in mid-position on this concept.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

Interesting. Swept wings and tail along with Kuchemann carrots..

Likely to stow the landing gear. Note how the wing is in mid-position on this concept.

I immediately thought Kuchemann carrots as well, and also where to stow the landing gear. I'm not convinced that it has a variable-sweep wing. That panel line on the upper surface of the wing might be the fold joint although it doesn't appear that the outer wing panel will clear the carrot/landing-gear fairing when folded. A variable-sweep wing suggests supersonic performance and the rest of the airframe is far from supersonic sleekness. It may have had a semi-sweep wing, forward for loiter endurance and aft where it is in the drawing for high-speed cruise to and from the loiter point, but that seems heavy for that limited a speed range.

 

[_Del_]

Looks like it's simply improving transonic drag so that your critical Mach number was increased and better cruise resulted. It does look like the folding would be iffy. Moving the gear to the carrot would let you keep the gear in roughly the same position while you're moving the wing-root forward. Also might give you more room for fuel if you had wet wings. Sort of a two-birds, one-stone. I doubt it was variable-sweep, though. Doesn't seem worth it.

 

[visvirtusvoluntas]

More on Northrop Multipurpose Project

 

[Pioneer]

Just stumbled across this snippet of information re Boeing's Model 835 Missileer design submission

“Bob Burnham and I were primarily responsible for the external configuration of that airplane [the Boeing Model 835]. We did a lot of wind tunnel testing and also did quite a bit of detail design work on this proposal to the US Navy. Alas, we came in second to Douglas………”

(Source: Roskam's Airplane War Stories: An Account of the Professional Life and Work, By Jan Roskam)

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Greetings All -

A few photos early on in wind tunnel testing at the Vought Low Speed Wind Tunnel of the V-434.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Pioneer]

How interesting!!

Thanks for sharing Mark Nankivil


Regards
Pioneer