McDD/Northrop/BAe ASTOVL/MRF/JAST/JSF studies

[overscan (PaulMM)]

McDD JAST (via Elider)

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Added some posts from elsewhere in the forum to the start of this topic.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

This design is used in NASA/McDonnell-Douglas studies of offtake jetpipes, e.g. NASA Technical Memorandum 106387. Probably not a real "project" but interesting nonetheless.

 

[flateric]

This one was discussed here http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2219.0.html in relationship to model of 1986-1988 ASTOVL studies that Chris Gibson found in Newark Air Museum

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Yep. Here are some pics. This design seems to date back to joint UK-US ASTOVL studies in the late 1980s. RCS model is from Newark, photographed by Chris Gibson.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

a brief history of JSF program.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Nice windtunnel model of McDD model above

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Another one

 

[hesham]

Hi,

the McDonnell Douglas and BAe designed an ASTOVL aircraft to
replace AV-8B,studies were also underway into a Harrier III),
all details are here;


http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1992/1992%20-%201037.html

 

[hesham]

Hi,

the JAST from Flightglobal.
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1995/1995%20-%200834.html

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Added in more related designs from other topics.

 

[flateric]

MACAIR/AFWL 1992 Fighter Airframe/Propulsion Integration Study (FAPIS)

AlAA 92-3333
Fighter Airframe/Propulsion Integration - A McDonnell Aircraft Perspective
James Mace and Gregory Nyberg
McDonnell Aircraft Company
St. Louis, MO

"The Air Force Wright Laboratories funded
studies with McDonnell Aircraft Company
(MCAIR) and Pratt 8 Whitney Aircraft (P&W) to
identify payoffs and penalties associated with using
emerging integrated airframelpropulsion
technologies in multi-mission fighter aircraft.
P8W provided propulsion technologies to MCAIR
where they were synthesized with advanced
aerodynamic and control technologies and
integrated into advanced fighter aircraft"

 

[flateric]

MACAIR/AFWL 1993 Aero Configuration/Weapons Fighter Technology" (ACWFT) program

AlAA 93-0049
A Sensitivity Study for Pneumatic Vortex Control on a Chined Forebody
by
R. E. Boalbey, W. L. Ely, and B. A. Robinson
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace


"The goal of this
program was to develop multi-mission fighter aircraft
configurations with advanced technologies and
performance characteristics capable of addressing postyear-
2000 needs and threats. Special emphasis was
placed on the design and performance of advanced
aerodynamic control effectors for tailless or reducedtail
concepts. Through a combination of wind-tunnel
testing, performance analyses, and trade studies, a
concept was selected for design refinement, resulting in
the ACWFT 1204 configuration"

 

[JAZZ]

AW&ST refrence to this drawing as MACAIR's MRF-1006 configuration. Looksvery similar to the drawing you have.

 

[flateric]

Courtesy Ian Maddock (JSF JPO) and Denny Kline (Boeing Media Services)

 

[flateric]

Courtesy Richard Pugliese

 

[donnage99]

Some of the pros and cons of McDD JSF concept, taken from Accessmylibrary.com (you need an account to view it, so I'm just gonna copy/paste it here for all to see):

Pros: The McDonnell Douglas design is considered a moderate risk solution (vs. Boeing concept, which is a high risk, and low risk Lockheed concept) with good stealth and low-speed handling characteristics thanks to a near "tail-less" design. Also, open avionics architecture--whereby all systems are designed to a common standard--cuts avionics and systems integration time and costs. Novel bomb-bay allows all versions of the plane to carry either 2,000-pound or 1,000-pound bombs with minor modification. Competing planes can either carry one or the other. Promising YF-23 technologies have been refined over the past several years.

Cons: ASTOVL version has two engines, one in the tail for forward power, another down-ward pointing one for vertical thrust, an arrangement that is said to concern the Marines who fear increased fuel consumption, complexity and maintenance.

Impact: A win would be a major boost for McDonnell Douglas, giving it a valuable and highly profitable franchise for the future as other programs wind down. A loss would have severe long-range repercussions, more so than for Lockheed Martin and Boeing because McDonnell is a prime aircraft contractor with a limited number of major programs, analysts say. But a loss would not put the company into immediate jeopardy because it would continue building F/A-18E/Fs for the Navy and Marines, as well as C-17 transports and T-45 trainers, along with a massive Air Force T-38 upgrade.

 

[donnage99]

Another strong point of mcdonnell douglas JSF concept. It was so revolutionary for the Defense Department, so they cut it off (probably too risky for a low-cost objective aircraft).

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbZ2Q6lStJE

 

[hesham]

Hi,

Euler Technology Assessment for Preliminary Aircraft Design-Unstructured/Structured Grid NASTD Application for Aerodynamic Analysis of an Advanced Fighter/Tailless Configuration

Boeing Aero Configuration/Weapons Fighter Technology (ACWFT) 1204

Euler Technology Assessment for Preliminary Aircraft Design-Unstructured/Structured Grid NASTD Application for Aerodynamic Analysis of an Advanced Fighter/Tailless Configuration - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

This study supports the NASA Langley sponsored project aimed at determining the viability of using Euler technology for preliminary design use. The primary objective of this study was to assess the accuracy and efficiency of the Boeing, St. Louis unstructured grid flow field analysis system...

ntrs.nasa.gov

(edit: merged)

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Two more cgi pics, apologies for scan quality but my scanner is still in a container, making do with a cheapie Lexmark all-in-one

Source:
Roy Braybrook, Harrier: The Vertical Reality

 

[hesham]

Hi,

the McDonnell Douglas Model 287-1006.

Structural design optimization with survivability dependent constraints application: Primary wing box of a multi-role fighter

Structural design optimization with survivability dependent constraints application: Primary wing box of a multi-role fighter - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

The superior survivability of a multirole fighter is dependent upon balanced integration of technologies for reduced vulnerability and susceptability. The objective is to develop a methodology for structural design optimization with survivability dependent constraints. The design criteria for...

ntrs.nasa.gov

 

[flateric]

nice find! Thanks!

 

[elider]

That looks like the model shown in post 22 of this thread?

 

[hesham]

Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19950021806_1995121806.pdf

 

[Triton]

If the tail-less McDonnell-Douglas/Northrop Grumman/British Aerospace design had been chosen as the winning Joint Strike Fighter design would it have gone into service as the F-36?

 

[flateric]

F- designation was completely unaffected by factor of winning team
read Andreas Parsch notes at http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/nonstandard-mds.html#_MDS_F35

a question stays what woulf be if MDC would proceed with their X-36 design considering it a success

 

[Triton]

F- designation was completely unaffected by factor of winning team
read Andreas Parsch notes at http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/nonstandard-mds.html#_MDS_F35

a question stays what woulf be if MDC would proceed with their X-36 design considering it a success

Thank you for the link flateric. ;D It answers a lot of questions concerning fighter number designations in the US inventory. I wonder what the classified YF-24 will be revealed to be?

 

[Antonio]

Colour version from elider's pic on reply#22

 

[elider]

Thank you very much for the color version pic. I like this design better than any of the competitors.

 

[quellish]

MACAIR/AFWL 1993 Aero Configuration/Weapons Fighter Technology" (ACWFT) program

AlAA 93-0049
A Sensitivity Study for Pneumatic Vortex Control on a Chined Forebody
by
R. E. Boalbey, W. L. Ely, and B. A. Robinson
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace


"The goal of this
program was to develop multi-mission fighter aircraft
configurations with advanced technologies and
performance characteristics capable of addressing postyear-
2000 needs and threats. Special emphasis was
placed on the design and performance of advanced
aerodynamic control effectors for tailless or reducedtail
concepts. Through a combination of wind-tunnel
testing, performance analyses, and trade studies, a
concept was selected for design refinement, resulting in
the ACWFT 1204 configuration"

Not McD, but possibly related:

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=my0ZAAAAEBAJ&dq=D394039

http://www.google.com/patents?id=-GEoAAAAEBAJ

 

[CFE]

I recently read some old Richard Aboulafia newsletters and found an interesting quote. In describing the risk-averse business strategy that sank McDonnell Douglas, he asks, "Remember the lamentable McDonnell Joint Strike Fighter design, with the words 'Please Eliminate Me From The Competition' stenciled boldly on the wings?" I usually respect his opinions, but I'm wondering what he's evidence he's going on.

http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=139

There were some areas where I can see where he's coming from. Lift + Lift Cruise probably wasn't the best solution for the STOVL mission. The intakes were of a conventional design rather than the diverterless LockMart intakes. The structure was fairly complex, unlike Boeing's single-piece wet wing.

But there were plenty of innovative features in the McDD concept. I'd expect it to be more maneuverable based on its decelerons + Pelikan tails for yaw control. The lambda wing probably was stealthier from the aft view than either the LockMart or Boeing competitors. Perhaps this all added up to a plane that was too expensive. But truth be told, there's so much I don't know about the design's weaknesses and strengths.

 

[LowObservable]

Very nice stuff - C02 looks a lot like some of their F/A-XX pictures.

By the way, please don't link to Aboulafia when I'm drinking coffee....

The 7E7 is touted as the key to Boeing Commercial’s renaissance. And I have no doubt that they’d get it right, as with all Legacy Boeing 7-Series jets.

... unless you want to buy me a new keyboard.

As for comments on the Macs JSF entry: One problem was that the customer had a strong prejudice against LPLC. It wasn't logical - the reason that LPLC was not included in the original DARPA program that was the ancestor of JSF was that it had already been done and therefore was not "DARPA-hard" - but the program office was entranced by the potential of SDLF. Boeing then became the "more different", high-payoff concept because direct lift was the cheapest way to go, if you could make it work. Macs' other problem was that they never really got the "dream team" working well together.

 

[Antonio]

In describing the risk-averse business strategy that sank McDonnell Douglas

In a recent Le Fana article, René Francillon also talk about McDonnell Douglas disastrous management refered to the airliner business.


Thanks a lot Flateric for that document.

 

[donnage99]

But there were plenty of innovative features in the McDD concept. I'd expect it to be more maneuverable based on its decelerons + Pelikan tails for yaw control. The lambda wing probably was stealthier from the aft view than either the LockMart or Boeing competitors. Perhaps this all added up to a plane that was too expensive. But truth be told, there's so much I don't know about the design's weaknesses and strengths.

according to this video, the almost tailless aircraft is so unstable that it is also aided by a multi axis thrust vectoring nozzle. This would be the first of its kind, because no other aircraft has ever used TVC as part of the fly-by-wire system to keep the plane stable. It was too risky that the DoD cut it off. A Lockheed person later recalled that anyone could design a plane on paper, but only lockheed has the experience to put the whole package together, avionics, integration, etc or something like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbZ2Q6lStJE

Concerning the STOVL approach, McDonald Douglas chose it because it offer a plane that is lean and sleak, which directly translate into better raw powers (agility, speed, acceleration, etc.) I wouldn't be surprised if the McDD design was the only that could achieve mach 2+ instead of the 1.6-1.8+ based line, consider how sleek it is and its wing sweep angle.

Concerning the wing, I'm not sure about stealthier, I believe that it offered better agility rather than stealth, because it offer more "spikes" radar returns than say.... a diamond wing. To my understanding, it would also be structural heavier and complex wing than the other proposals though, according to this slide on the choice of lambda wing for FATE project.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/fatereport/sld035.htm

All in all, I think what Aboulafia meant is that McDD proposal is too risky for a low cost fighter to gain advantages in area that, though desireable, weren't priorities, such as better raw performance (speed and agility was only required to match legacy aircraft, with avionics more emphasized) and stealthier (low end fighter, adequate stealth was enough). If we look at the other designs, we see that they too take risk, but for advantages that the DoD greatly sought after. The boeing's was the riskiest of all 3, but the risk was to offer a very low cost production aircraft with enormous fuel. The lockheed approach of STOVL was risky, but what it offered was what marines mostly sought.

 

[Machdiamond]

the almost tailless aircraft... This would be the first of its kind, because no other aircraft has ever used TVC as part of the fly-by-wire system to keep the plane stable.

This is probably correct but I remember that the X-31 came pretty close to it by simulating rudder deflections so as to more or less negate the presence of the vertical fin (quasi-tailless as they said), and relying on TVC for directional stability.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19950007829_1995107829.pdf

Of course the question of flight idle descent is raised, not to mention engine-out. One would think that B-2 style split ailerons methods are more useful.

--Luc

 

[hesham]

Hi,

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1996/1996%20-%201664.html

 

[elmayerle]

When I was at LM-Ft. Worth, an aerodynamicst I worked with mentioned that tehy'd always seen McDD as their main competitor and were surprised by their downselect. He was not especially impressed by Boeing's X-32 aerodynamics, considering them but thought highly of the MCDD proposal. It's a shame that McDD's efforts on the GCLF didn't work, though it's not totally surprising considering that earlier efforts (XV-5) were not as efficient as expected nor have other gas-coupled efforts (XV-12A with augmentor flaps) proven successful. I rather suspect there are some inherent inefficiencies that make a gas-coupled approach unlikely to work.

 

[Sundog]

Of course the question of flight idle descent is raised, not to mention engine-out. One would think that B-2 style split ailerons methods are more useful.

Actually, split ailerons wouldn't be as effective as you think due to the small lever arm. The B-2 has much greater leverage due to it's much higher aspect ratio. Besides, they can get the same effect by using differential displacement of the flight controls on the wing, such as up aileron, down flaperon, to create higher drag on one side without inducing a rolling or pitching moment and without the complexity and weight of a split aileron. In fact, that's what many of the tail less UAVs and UCAVs do, however, I don't know if they do that for just stability, as in using the control surfaces for stability and thrust vectoring in yaw for control, or using the trailing edge surfaces for stability and control. Although, I think the X-31's wingspan is too small to have too much of an effect, unless they were doing that to aid stability. Of course, that increases the drag. The question is whether or not it increases the drag as much as having a vertical tail would or possibly even higher. Then it becomes a trade study in terms of is it worth it for the weight saving. As such, it's most likely LO which is the driver. Then again, it may be a win-win situation all around. I don't have the exact numbers and they don't seem to be sharing that with me. ;D

 

[CFE]

It's a shame that McDD's efforts on the GCLF didn't work

It would seem that the Lift Plus Lift-Cruise option wasn't the wisest choice for McDD, possibly used as a fallback after GCLF didn't work out. Would runway erosion have been a concern with the McDD STOVL aircraft?

 

[elmayerle]

It's a shame that McDD's efforts on the GCLF didn't work

It would seem that the Lift Plus Lift-Cruise option wasn't the wisest choice for McDD, possibly used as a fallback after GCLF didn't work out. Would runway erosion have been a concern with the McDD STOVL aircraft?

For LPLC? I'd reckon it likely. That's one of the advantages of the approach Lockheed took.