McDonnell-Douglas Advanced Design Proposals - Name That Design Game

[Dew]

#5

Shown in Mark's previous posting without the boosters, but in colour

 

[Tuomasn]

View attachment 694380View attachment 694423

#2 and #28 are both McDonnell-Douglas "Orient Express"/MD-2001. Compare for example the vertical tail and ramjet module shape with the model and painting in the Orient Express thread.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Cheers for the participants so far - I will be adding more pics tonight. These ones have filename clues.

I'll then move each post to its appropriate topic.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Okay - here's where it gets gnarly. Model 226 is "Quiet Attack", right?

Nope. 4 known apparently Model 226 designs are "Quiet Attack", 226-450A, 226-452, 226-453A, 226-454A.

Here's 226-333D and 226-333F.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

226-401

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

226-522A

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

226-5038???? (perhaps 226-593B)

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

252-F5

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

252-LW16A

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

263E

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

263-P2

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

265-1J is one we know

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

282 looks ATS-ish

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

So, as has happened before, I think we are mixing our designation /drawing systems up. Things don't seem to be sequential.

Model 226 is 1968 USAF Advanced Manned Interceptor according to the Project List. First two of our 226 designs match this designation but none of the rest do.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Quite a few of these concepts have Professor Cszyz's name written on them without actually saying so. I so wish the good doctor was still with us to provide more insight.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

C-5 Galaxy carrying.... what?

View attachment 694382

Could this be tied to Isinglass or Rhineberry?

 

[Silencer1]

C-5 Galaxy carrying.... what?

How Galaxy could carry such a big load - in terms of ground clearance? In my humble opinion, C-5 almost "lays" on the ground at airstrip.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

263E
View attachment 694522

Seems to be a conventional Model 263 VFAX design similar to this:

 

[starviking]

CiTrus90 has covered some of these, but I’ll chip in anyway.

Nos. 6, 24, 26, and 33 all have Vought SAMI-style nozzles, so probably aimed at a similar role. No. 31 has smaller versions of the SAMI nozzles, but I’d question of the power would be enough for the high-mach SAMI job.

No. 27 is almost definitely for a Quail-type role.

 

[Dew]

Nos. 6, 24, 26, and 33 all have Vought SAMI-style nozzles, so probably aimed at a similar role. No. 31 has smaller versions of the SAMI nozzles, but I’d question of the power would be enough for the high-mach SAMI job.

Almost certainly the same article discussed in this thread - they're most likely GE14/16 wrap-around turboramjet used in the 'advanced interceptors'' mentioned in same thread (but in pairs in that case)

 

[TomS]

The really wide range of designs associated with the same initial three digits start to sound like the first number is more like a design team or office code than a specific requirement. Just a guess, though.

 

[Yellow Palace]

It's certainly not unusual for companies to have a 'project' which exists primarily as a framework to bill the customer for other, smaller projects which wouldn't warrant their own contract.

It's possible that 226 is one such thing; perhaps a contract to carry out concept studies. Given that Quiet Attack was an ONR project, they'd be my initial guess for the Project 226 customer.

 

[Silencer1]

Could "fat" A-4 (No.3) be equipped with two turbofan engines with high bypass ratio?
Just a guess, because I couldn't imagine why A-4 need such type of engines...

 

[starviking]

Nos. 6, 24, 26, and 33 all have Vought SAMI-style nozzles, so probably aimed at a similar role. No. 31 has smaller versions of the SAMI nozzles, but I’d question of the power would be enough for the high-mach SAMI job.

Almost certainly the same article discussed in this thread - they're most likely GE14/16 wrap-around turboramjet used in the 'advanced interceptors'' mentioned in same thread (but in pairs in that case)

Well then in No. 31 we could have at least the airframe designers positing a sub-scale version of that turboramjet.

 

[starviking]

Could "fat" A-4 (No.3) be equipped with two turbofan engines with high bypass ratio?
Just a guess, because I couldn't imagine why A-4 need such type of engines...

I think you’re right - the aft fuselage shaping suggests one engine on the port, logic suggests another to starboard.

However, I have to say - the intakes are massive! Are they for a non-standard engine? VTOL? STOL? Or is the payload substantial?

 

[starviking]

Could "fat" A-4 (No.3) be equipped with two turbofan engines with high bypass ratio?
Just a guess, because I couldn't imagine why A-4 need such type of engines...

I think you’re right - the aft fuselage shaping suggests one engine on the port, logic suggests another to starboard.

However, I have to say - the intakes are massive! Are they for a non-standard engine? VTOL? STOL? Or is the payload substantial?

 

[Tuomasn]

Cheers for the participants so far - I will be adding more pics tonight. These ones have filename clues.

I'll then move each post to its appropriate topic.

Digging up this old thread, would it be possible to do this moving of the identified designs by now?
(Also everyone can take a second look round if we might get any more ID's )