Hughes MACH 3 Interceptor

[Barrington Bond]

From "The Aeroplane" 30 September 1960.
Regards,
Barry

 

[jzichek]

Wow! I'd sure like to find a three-view of that monster. I wonder if it was created in connection with the F-108 competition?

 

[Antonio]

Nobody noted similarities in this design configuration and the Douglas Model 26 "Atomic Bomber"?

Ref: American Secret Projects: Bombers, Attack and ASW aircraft (Tony Buttler) page 94.

 

[hesham]

Hi,


I think the Douglas Model-26 Atomic Bomber was based on or developed from Hughes
design,so the "Model-26" here is reference to Hughes Model-26.

Models from the Sir George Cox Collection

 

[blackkite]

So Hughes MACH 3 atomic powered interceptor?

The layout was clearly designed to keep the crew as far away from the engines as possible!(Radiation shield)

 

[MaxLegroom]

That's all well and fine, but with no canards, it would have been interesting to fly, to say the least...

 

[thefrecklepuny]

Firefox anyone?

 

[sferrin]

That's all well and fine, but with no canards, it would have been interesting to fly, to say the least...

Most deltas don't have canards and they seem to manage.

 

[shedofdread]

That's all well and fine, but with no canards, it would have been interesting to fly, to say the least...

Most deltas don't have canards and they seem to manage.

Whilst it's quite possible that there's either something VERY heavy in the aft end of the fuselage OR the forward fuselage is quite light but to me it looks as though they would need canards to bring the N/P forward enough that it wouldn't be excessively nose heavy.

Another possiblity is that the canards are missing [for whatever reason] from the first photo in the thread...

 

[lark]

Could it be that the picture in "The Aeroplane " -first post- is printed upside down..

 

[Jemiba]

Had similar thoughts, that the picture shows the underside of a model, but
there seems to be a canopy.

 

[TomS]

There's a simpler way of telling that it is not upside down. The USAF star on the fuselage is right side up.

 

[robunos]

There's a simpler way of telling that it is not upside down. The USAF star on the fuselage is right side up.

In that case, then this image is flipped horizontally, since the USAF star is on the starboard wing, unlike the image of the Douglas model, which we know is correct, because we can read the lettering on the stand...

cheers,
Robin.

 

[TomS]

Assuming the model maker put the markings on correctly (national insignia on upper left wing and lower right). The model maker might have got it wrong, but it is possible the image has been flipped for some reason.

 

[Jemiba]

And there's something protruding from the nozzles, which could be a fin, as on the bomber,
with the model put on its back. But then, of course, the US star actually would have been
applied the wrong way.

 

[Rickshaw]

What are the bulges on the forward fuselage for?

 

[TomS]

And there's something protruding from the nozzles, which could be a fin, as on the bomber,
with the model put on its back. But then, of course, the US star actually would have been
applied the wrong way.

Could be a ventral fin.

 

[Grey Havoc]

What are the bulges on the forward fuselage for?

Something like an RCS system, perhaps?

 

[lark]

It was just that protruding part behind the engines who made me thinking about Jens ..

 

[steelpillow]

Most deltas don't have canards and they seem to manage.

Whilst it's quite possible that there's either something VERY heavy in the aft end of the fuselage OR the forward fuselage is quite light but to me it looks as though they would need canards to bring the N/P forward enough that it wouldn't be excessively nose heavy.

All that lead shielding next to the reactor, perhaps?

A lot depends on the way the wing is stabilised in pitch. If the rear section has reverse camber then the centre of lift can be surprisingly far forward, as the rear will spend quite a lot of time actually pushing downwards. This also leads to a large wing area, which is consistent with the model. Such a forward position would also help keep down the size of the tail fins needed for directional stability.

Another possibility is that those "duck-head" bulges at the front provide significant lift and a degree of sideways drag reduction in yaw, kind of proto-chines.