Grumman project list

Hi,


can I ask about that report,it talk about air-cushion landing gear developed by Grumman
and initial work was done by US Army Land Warfare Laboratory,but I asked about the
meaning of DCR-327,is that meaning Grumman G-327,yes or no ?.


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/779386.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    569.6 KB · Views: 280
  • 2.png
    2.png
    303.1 KB · Views: 129
  • 3.png
    3.png
    425.6 KB · Views: 97
As my dear Tailspin displayed before,we can say

G-436 was AS-2D.
 
hesham said:
...but I asked about themeaning of DCR-327,is that meaning Grumman G-327,yes or no ?
Click to expand...

No. G-327 is (was) a missile study.
 
The Advanced Design Composite Aircraft (ADCA) study from 1975-1976 includes a reference to a ASL-D 952-105B supersonic penetration interdiction fighter. Several references to a Grumman ADCA configuration 105B are included in same attached doc link. Im not familiar with Grumman designation system and perhaps more scholarly forum folk might be able to confirm or deny. I'm ASSUMING, and I make this clear - "ASSUMING" a Grumman designation of 925-105B but this doesn't seem right to me. I apologize if this Grumman design has already been mentioned and is not missing from the forum produced list.

see page 72 of this PDF. Other references are made to this ADCA design in the doc below.

 
I suppose I should have asked if any member know what the ASD-L naming system is because it frequently was used by Grumman. My understanding is that it covered purely conceptual designs that went no further.
Thanks
 
My impression (by no means certain) is that these refer to wind tunnels, test "campaigns" and datasets.

As far as is known, Grumman project numbers had not reached 800, even by 1988.
 
Here is Grumman Design 123. Note the designation on the belly and the word "Obsolete". It is one of the wonderful in-house wood models, and as you can see has a 1950's style lucite cockpit. It's now happily sitting on my shelf. IMG_5344.jpg IMG_5345.jpg
 
Pardon the quick picts but I know you will love these 1/48 scale wood in-house models now happily residing in my collection. First up is a dual tail turboprop S2 that I like a lot. Project 165 - A (T-58).
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5363.jpg
    IMG_5363.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 60
  • IMG_5362.jpg
    IMG_5362.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 57
  • IMG_5361.jpg
    IMG_5361.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 61
  • IMG_5360.jpg
    IMG_5360.jpg
    1.8 MB · Views: 89
Last edited:
Next up is one that I had had previously and thankfully have once again. It is my fave (just a bit over even the Lockheed Cheyenne) and I was loath to let it go many years ago when I sold a bulk of my collection. At long last, I now have another one that came in the original wood shipping box. I know of 2 others (the one that I had sold). Very sure they are really not too common. Grumman/Kaman Design 376
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5357.jpg
    IMG_5357.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 99
  • IMG_5356.jpg
    IMG_5356.jpg
    1.8 MB · Views: 95
  • IMG_5358.jpg
    IMG_5358.jpg
    2 MB · Views: 81
  • IMG_5359.jpg
    IMG_5359.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 74
Last edited:
Last but not least, here is a flat engined (Lycoming?) S2 wood in-house in 1/4 scale to go with the turbine version. A bit more mundane but cool none the less. Grumman Design 215.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5365.jpg
    IMG_5365.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 73
  • IMG_5364.jpg
    IMG_5364.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 68
  • IMG_5366.jpg
    IMG_5366.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 93
Maiwand1880 said:
Thank you. Very interesting and congrats for an excellent collection. I would have thought that Design-215 was the twin-T58-powered development of the S-2, and Design-165 the T53-powered one (with E-1 tail surfaces and longer fuselage). Any chance that the pedestal could have been swapped?
Click to expand...
Could be..... they were in a box with no information.... so you are sure they are swapped?
 
1-png.560038

Twin tail is 215, single tail is 165.
 
Wow... there it is..... Thanks, stands are changed.
 
OK Pundits, here is a goodie for you all..... It's an E2 X and dang if there is not a lot of information out there. Gone is the dome as the array is conformal and on the belly, and GE TF-34 engines are used. Note the exhaust, looks decidedly different. I have not had much luck in finding any information or illustrations. I'm probably going to keep it as is instead of painting (for the moment) unless someone has an interesting paint layout.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5371.jpg
    IMG_5371.jpg
    2.4 MB · Views: 80
  • IMG_5375.jpg
    IMG_5375.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 70
  • IMG_5374.jpg
    IMG_5374.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 59
  • IMG_5377.jpg
    IMG_5377.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 58
  • IMG_5376.jpg
    IMG_5376.jpg
    1.8 MB · Views: 56
  • IMG_5373.jpg
    IMG_5373.jpg
    2.4 MB · Views: 79
allysonca said:
Wow... there it is..... Thanks, stands are changed.
Click to expand...
In which case, is there a chance you can take some photos representing the right model with the correct stand please allysonca?

Regards
Pioneer
 
I've recently stumbled across the following statement:

'A night-fighter version [of the Grumman two-seat F9F-8T Cougar]with AAM armament was considered but not adopted.'

(Source: http://www.airvectors.net/avf9f.html)

Does anyone have any further information/drawing of this night-fighter proposal of the F9F-8T?

Regards
Pioneer
 
Bit of a nitpick but aren't some of those early G-303 numbers supposed to be VFAX projects not VFX
 
Grey Havoc said:
sites.google.com

rohraerotrain

Rohr Industries, Inc.'s Aerotrain prototype built in Chula Vista, California (ca. 1973). John Driscoll was a mechanical engineer for the project. NOTE: The raised track in the background was used to demonstrate Rohr's ROMAG vehicles to businesses. It was showcased at Transpo '72. This is the story
sites.google.com sites.google.com

The rohraerotrain site also includes info on the other two primary HSGT contractors as of 1971:
Also in 1968, the UMTA began asking for bids from various aerospace companies around the world to build high-speed vehicles for the U.S. All sorts of companies had an aerospace division in the late 1960's. Especially in the U.S., which was working on sending astronauts to the moon of all places. So of course Rohr knew it had the right vehicle for the UMTA contract and thus put in its bid for it.

In 1969, Westinghouse Electric Corp. was doing studies investigating the power needs for 300 mph tracked air-cushion vehicles, 250 mph linear induction motor-driven rail vehicles, 250 mph wheel-driven vehicles, and 200 mph wheel-driven rail vehicles. Areas of study were on power systems, power distribution, power collection, and power conditioning.

Eventually in 1971, the UTMA selected three aerospace companies as candidates for a new high-speed ground transportation (HSGT) system to solve the future's traffic problem:

  • Garrett Corp.
  • Grumman Aerospace Corp.
  • Rohr Industries, Inc.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Stargazer2006 said:
G-636: Grumman proposed HiMAT configuration

Grumman competed for the NASA highly maneuverable aircraft technology (HiMAT) program around 1973 or 1974. This program was intended to demonstrate the integration of advanced technologies to achieve high sustained transonic maneuver capability. At that time UAVs were called RPVs, and the idea was to build an RPV to demonstrate the technologies. The Air Force was also a sponsor. It was assumed that the technologies would be advanced aerodynamics, aeroelastic tailoring to achieve a passive wing design that would deform to optimum shape at the various g loads, advanced flight controls (relaxed static stability) and thrust vectoring. Grumman originally had a configuration similar to the one being proposed by Rockwell, but Grumman’s evaluation was that with a similar configuration they would lose to Rockwell. In addition, having just put the F-14 into production, there was a strong sense that a variable sweep wing should be proposed. Essentially this was dictated by management: “no proposal goes out the door unless the wing has a pin in it.” So Grumman’s HiMAT proposal used a variable sweep wing with an advanced supercritical airfoil and an aeroelastically tailored wing to obtain its sustained transonic maneuver requirement. The key was to use advanced airfoils and nominally attached flow at the design point. Grumman was not using the vortex flow concepts being exploited by the General Dynamics and Northrop folks with the YF-16 and YF-17. Grumman lost to Rockwell. Note that the YF-16 and YF-17 RFPs came out in January of 1972, so the timing of HiMAT seems a little strange, although nobody knew how those programs were going to develop.
Click to expand...

Source: Mason’s Perspective on the X-29
Click to expand...
I worked on this program at Grumman and it was proposed to add spanwise blowing nozzles to the wing to reduce flow separation and increase maneuverability. There was talk of adding those nozzles to the horizontal and vertical control surfaces as well.
 
Regarding the G-36 Kitten I (initially known as the Hepcat) which then became the G-36A Kitten I (it may be that that was when the 'Kitten' name was formally adopted):
elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com

Grumman Kitten: The unlucky Mini-Hellcat.

The somehow mundane G-63 Kitten was Grumman’s only light-plane product. Work begun in 1943, when it was already known it was only a question of time to win the war. So the company thought the…
elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com

A little more info can be found in this January 1965 Air Pictorial 'Your Questions Answered...' page that hesham found a while back, though the expert responding to a reader's question on the Kitten seems to have incorrectly thought (based on the limited information available at the time it has to be said) that the G-72 Kitten II was just the Kitten I prototype rebuilt (the confusion possibly originating with the modification of the G-63 into the G-63A).

EDIT: Major blunder fixed.
 
Last edited:
Grey Havoc said:
Regarding the G-36 Kitten I (initially known as the Hepcat) which then became the G-36A Kitten I (it may be that that was when the 'Kitten' name was formally adopted):
elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com

Grumman Kitten: The unlucky Mini-Hellcat.

The somehow mundane G-63 Kitten was Grumman’s only light-plane product. Work begun in 1943, when it was already known it was only a question of time to win the war. So the company thought the…
elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com

A little more info can be found in this January 1965 Air Pictorial 'Your Questions Answered...' page that hesham found a while back, though the expert responding to a reader's question on the Kitten seems to have incorrectly thought (based on the limited information available at the time it has to be said) that the G-72 Kitten II was just the Kitten I prototype rebuilt (the confusion possibly originating with the modification of the G-36 into the G-36A).
Click to expand...
Some major dyslexia at work here. You meant G-63 and G-63A (the G-36 was of course the Wildcat)
In my files, I have its initial name as "Hepcat Kitten".
 

Attachments

  • 91690863_2015591881904261_7111051225977585664_o.jpg
    91690863_2015591881904261_7111051225977585664_o.jpg
    80.1 KB · Views: 9

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom