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

[Triton]

Winning bid was US $142.50.

 

[InvisibleDefender]

Winning bid was US $142.50.

Somebody got ripped off!

 

[Triton]

Winning bid was US $142.50.

Somebody got ripped off!

Really? Why do you say that?

 

[InvisibleDefender]

Winning bid was US $142.50.

Somebody got ripped off!

Really? Why do you say that?

Because its 1/144! I own a few original 1/48 models. I never ever saw a 1/144 model around.

 

[Triton]

It's a fake?

 

[InvisibleDefender]

It's a fake?

It looks right, but have you ever seen an aeronautical company make a 1/144 display model during a competition? I'm not suing that it is fake, but definitely odd.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The original concept was to use a gas-driven lift fan instead of the mechanically-driven one that Lockheed-Martin used. When that didn't work out, McDD went with a lift engine and that broke the terms of the competition and they were eliminatated. I'm told that the aero types in Fort Worth considered them a much more worthy and dangerous competitor than Boeing.

Does anybody know what actually happened to the gas driven fan configuration MDD was working on as part of the ASTOVL programme for ARPA? As I understand it MDD were actually contracted to build a demonstrator rig using a YF-120 and a lift-fan derived from the F110, was this project a technical failure or did it just fall by the wayside? The official story appears to be that the merging of ASTOVL with JAST introduced an affordability element that killed the viability of the gas driven fan concept- was this a product of its relative technological immaturity of the concept or of it simply being more expensive to procure?

 

[flateric]

Yes, they have built test rig - I've seen photos. Problem was, as it was written here many times, lover battle damage survivability of the system.

 

[Sundog]

Yes, they have built test rig - I've seen photos. Problem was, as it was written here many times, lover battle damage survivability of the system.

How would battle damage for that system be any different than battle damage for the shaft driven system? Or are you saying the drive shaft system takes up less volume, and as a result, is somewhat less susceptible to damage?

I was always thought the problem with the gas driven system is it's just not as efficient as a shaft driven system due to the duct losses being higher than the friction losses in the drive system? Also, I would think a shaft driven system would be more responsive.

 

[flateric]

You know, that somehow was imprinted in my memory as main reason it was dropped out...pipes, hot gases...no good in case of getting a shell in one of these. I'll check in the evening.

Of course, it also takes volume inside the airframe.

Elmayerle once wrote of it that "The original concept was to use a gas-driven lift fan instead of the mechanically-driven one that Lockheed-Martin used. When that didn't work out, McDD went with a lift engine and that broke the terms of the competition and they were eliminatated."

Advanced derivatives of Yak-41 that WERE planned to use THE SAME concept, btw, whould use instead inflatible tubes made of some wonder rubber laying over the fuselage for their variant of GDF concept they have studied. Interesting to note that MDD at the same time was playing with 'inflate this, inflate that' concepts for JAST - if you check their patents from that era, but didn't came to that decision for JAST. Whatever, who knows would it work as planned or not.

 

[flateric]

"The positive attributes of the GCLF were its extensive risk
reduction during the ASTOVL program, and better up and
away performance. Its negative attributes included its large
size, adverse temperature ranges and pressure environments
for the ducts, and the required cost of engine development for
higher airflow."

"From JAST to JSF: The Evolution of the Joint Strike Fighter"
by Ian A. Maddock



"Although the Gas Coupled Lift Fan (GCLF) system did not add as much concentrated
weight as a Shaft Driven Lift-Fan (SDLF) or a lift engine, it required more volume for the ducting of engine gas
forward to the lift fan, which decreased the fineness ratio of the aircraft and, thereby, supersonic efficiency. Under
the JAST program, McDonnell realized they would need to leverage development of the F119 engine – then being
readied for production, in contrast to the F120. The lower volume of fan air, coupled with the increased payload
requirements for JAST, meant that the gas-couple fan could not produce sufficient thrust. Unable to team with
Allison for the shaft driven lift fan being developed for the Lockheed concept, McDonnell decided to adopt
Northrop’s lift plus lift/cruise configuration.
...

Construction of their GCLF LSP PM propulsion system (without the airframe) was begun in 1994 at GE’s
Peebles, Ohio test facility. Full-scale p propulsion system testing using a GE YF120 engine and d a lift fan using GE
F101 components was conducted. The engine with a slave nozzle was first run in February 199 95. After 22 hours of
check-out and calibration tests, the bifurcated air induction system and the lift fan were installed led the next month for
a further 9 hours of tests, which concluded in May 1995. The test rig with the inlet system is sh hown in Figure 5; the
lift fan inlet is covered with screens to prevent anything falling or getting sucked in.

The MDA/NGC/BAe team did not test a complete LSPM due to the change in STOVL concept. When they
abandoned the GCLF approach, construction of the LSPM was discontinued since it was no longer relevant to their
selected concept. However, the experien ience with the aft lift module consisting of the diverter valve and the aft lift
nozzles was directly applicable to their L+L/C concept. Although the lift fan concept was dropped, the duct
blocker/lift nozzle feature was maintained in the L+LC design. Interestingly, it would have beeen a GE/Allison built
Aft Lift Module between the P&W engine and the P&W nozzle.

McDonnell Douglas was notified ied in November 1996 that it was not selected to continue to the Concept
Demonstration Phase (CDP).


The Quest for Stable Jet Borne Vertical Lift: ASTOVL to F-35 STOVL
Ian A. Maddock
Jacobs Technology, Arlington, Virginia 20112
and
Michael J. Hirschberg
American Helicopter Society International, Alexandria, Virginia 22314


AIAA 2011-6999
AIAA Centennial of Naval Aviation Forum "100 Years of Achievement and Progress"
21 - 22 September 2011, Virginia Beach, VA

 

[Sundog]

Thanks Flateric for all of the references. I do recall the volume being a problem, but I always thought of it in regards to packaging, I hadn't considered how it affected the mold lines/shape of the vehicle and the resulting penalties. Very good reading in that post.
I wonder if BAe ever redesigned their stealthy STOVL strike aircraft design, the one with the submerged cockpit, to use a shaft driven engine? I'll bet they have some drawings sitting on their CAD systems like that.

 

[Triton]

Northrop CALF? MRF concept?

 

[quellish]

Northrop CALF? MRF concept?

MRF. See

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1748.0

 

[Triton]

MRF. See
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1748.0

Thank you, quellish.

 

[Triton]

Artist's impressions of McDonnell Douglas / British Aerospace / Northrop Grumman team JAST 10 design concept.

Source:

Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

The McDonnell Douglas early concept for the JSF and the team behind the bid. The McDonnell Douglas, Northrop Grumman and British Aeros...

aviationarchives.blogspot.com

 

[pedrospe]

This is the first time i see these pictures, thanks a lot for sharing.






regards


pedro

 

[donnage99]

Nice find. Thanks for sharing

 

[Kartek]

Why do most of the links in this thread ( and a few others ) just go back to the home page?

I never thought the gas coupled lift fan had a chance in the world, too much efficiency loss.

LM pitched their concept as a single engine F-22 and would thus be sure to be cheap since all the work ( other than all that vertical bother ) had already been done and paid for with the Raptor.
I preferred the Boeing design, simpler overall and a much more adaptable design due to the wing. I built a model of it ( the original delta wing version ) from scratch and it was a very slick design.
Oh well.

 

[Stargazer]

Why do most of the links in this thread ( and a few others ) just go back to the home page?

I believe they pointed to topics which have since either been merged, moved around or even deleted.

The best thing to do when you find one such link is to indicate it to a moderator so we can try to edit in the correct link. Thanks!

 

[Mr London 24/7]

The Road to JSF: forty years of UK ASTOVL work and its relevance today

(https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/uk-ac-man-scw:2b909)

P.1216 WT model picture inside PDF is *perhaps* of relevance to: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2219.msg74492.html#msg74492)

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Northrop CALF concept shared by Aldo Spadoni on the "The Greatest Planes That Never Were" page on Facebook.

I created this CALF artwork back in 1994. Here's a USMC version.

Aldo Spadoni was part of the Advanced Design and Development Team at Northrop Grumman and created many of the CGI artist impressions in this topic. His job title was Advanced Projects Manager - Engineering Visualization at Northrop Grumman.

Source:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10204020853029656&set=p.10204020853029656&type=1&theater

 

[Triton]

From Aldo Spadoni on the "The Greatest Planes That Never Were" page on Facebook:

McDonnell Douglas / British Aerospace / Northrop Grumman team JAST 9C-4 design concept, UK Royal Navy variant.

Image by Aldo Spadoni.

Source:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/34366349783/

 

[Triton]

From Aldo Spadoni on the "The Greatest Planes That Never Were" page on Facebook:

McDonnell Douglas / British Aerospace / Northrop Grumman team JAST 9C-4 design concept, USAF CTOL variant rollout.

Image by Aldo Spadoni.

Source:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10204025767312510&set=gm.10153346129469784&type=1&theater

 

[Triton]

From Aldo Spadoni on the "The Greatest Planes That Never Were" page on Facebook:

Here's a notional unpainted view of the McDonnell Douglas / British Aerospace / Northrop Grumman team JAST 1 design concept for the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program. I created these texture maps in the mid 1990's for a computer animated manufacturing sequence.

Source:

Log into Facebook

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

www.facebook.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

Nice find there.

 

[pedrospe]

Great pictures Triton,thanks for sharing.




best regards


Pedro

 

[Triton]

I was posting JAST concept images on "The Greatest Planes That Never Were" page on Facebook and Aldo was kind enough to comment a correction and share some additional images that he created while at Northrop Grumman. It was just timing and luck.

 

[flateric]

It's a fake?

It looks right, but have you ever seen an aeronautical company make a 1/144 display model during a competition? I'm not suing that it is fake, but definitely odd.

No, 1/144 model is not a fake, according to Tony Chong (a retropost).

 

[Triton]

No, 1/144 model is not a fake, according to Tony Chong (a retropost).

Thank you for clearing that up, flateric.

 

[fightingirish]

Don't know if this belongs in this thread. It is the MDD MRF model 1006 from Bill Sweetman's article in JDW about 15 years ago. It was a part of the design evolution to JAST, and is one of my favorite design concepts.

Colour version from elider's pic on reply#22

McAir Multi-Role Fighter
Article 1 Article 2a An article also from the Sept McAir “Team Talk’ on the upcoming McDonnell entry to the Multi-Role Fighter (Which became the F-16, I believe). It is interesting as it details some of the paperwork that we had to deal with, even to just start a new project!

Click here to read the article
Source:

McAir Multi-Role Fighter

An article also from the Sept McAir “Team Talk’ on the upcoming McDonnell entry to the Multi-Role Fighter (Which became the F-16, I believe...

aviationarchives.blogspot.de

 

[Triton]

From Aldo Spadoni on the "The Greatest Planes That Never Were" page on Facebook:

Color sketch artwork I created 23 years ago. Northrop multirole fighter concept derived from the YF-23 program. If we would have stuck to a clean straightforward single-service derivative like this, we might have had something mature and operational today, well before that "other" program.

Source:

Log into Facebook

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

www.facebook.com

 

[Sundog]

He also posted this pic of that configuration, which I think is also posted further up this thread.

 

[SpudmanWP]

A lot of work would need to be done with that design to meet JSF specs.


Don't forget that you need to pack 5000 lbs of internal munitions and STOVL capability into that OML.

 

[TomS]

I think the idea is that this would have been a USAF-only light fighter to complement the F-22.

 

[RAP]

Big MD/NG JSF Model

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MD-Northrop-Grumman-BAe-Joint-Strike-Force-JSF-Proposal-In-house-Aircraft-Model-/331755218650?&_trksid=p2056016.m2518.l4276

Very large (61 inche) model of MDNG JSF. Buy it now $2495. There are more pictures on Ebay. The picture of the bottom of the model shows an interesting fairing around the weapon bay which I don't think I've seen on any of the drawings.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Re: Big MD/NG JSF Model

All photos.

 

[donnage99]

Cross posting (more pics in the thread)

Secret Projects Forum

Unbuilt Projects, Military and Aviation Technology

www.secretprojects.co.uk

I wonder what the bum on the bottom is for

(pictures see above)

 

[Dsadow]

Okay, Now we have some excellent images of aircraft. Does anyone out thee have a really good 3 view or 5 view drawing of the McDonnell JSF submission ? If you do, please post.

 

[flateric]

Does anyone out thee have a really good 3 view or 5 view drawing of the McDonnell JSF submission ?

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2392.msg20063.html