McDonnell-Douglas ATS, pre-ATF and ATF studies

[hs1216]

it wasn't a direct quote, more like extreme paraphrasing, i just remember reading that somewhere

 

[donnage99]

I wonder how the MDD design will effect its speed, 'cause if you look closely, the aircraft's body is full of small facets like the f-117.

 

[Gavin]

I read a quote once from an air force type in the decision making process regarding the initial 7 companies' entries (Lockheed, Northrop, General Dynamics, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Rockwell, and Grumman). He said "we had two really good designs, a couple decent designs, and the rest just didn't get it." (Not his exact words but close.)

As reported by Bill Sweetman, the quote comes from Col. Albert Piccirillo, the ATF program system officer: "We had two excellent designs and three good designs, and two where the designers hadn't quite got the idea."

The MDD design did, indeed, make use of some faceting, but this apparently wasn't just for stealth. MDD suggested that the flat body panels, made of composite materials, would be simpler -- and, therefore, less expensive -- to manufacture. If this design feature concerned the Air Force, I've never read a report of it.

Instead, according to Sweetman, Piccirillo criticized the proposal for being overweight. MDD insisted that the ATF requirements couldn't be met within the original weight limit. And, ironically, MDD was right.

Here's a closer look at the facets:

 

[donnage99]

It was said that the proposal was one of the heavier designs AND not promising performances. So it's not just heavy.

 

[lantinian]

It was said that the proposal was one of the heavier designs AND not promising performances. So it's not just heavy.

MDD was the most experience heavy fighter manufacturer at the time. I read somewhere that their design was around 60,00.

At the time the required combat take of weight (8 AAMs + full fuel) was 50,000lb. In the Dem/Val phase however the requirement was relaxed to 60,000.

Today an F-22 with full weapons and half fuel weights around 65,000lb. So who's design was actually overweight anyway?

If I had to make an assumption about them, it would be that they were the only one stating realistic values for their ATF.

 

[Gavin]

It was said that the proposal was one of the heavier designs AND not promising performances. So it's not just heavy.

I read somewhere that their design was around 60,00 . . . If I had to make an assumption about them, it would be that they were the only one stating realistic values for their ATF.

Exactly.

 

[donnage99]

It was said that the proposal was one of the heavier designs AND not promising performances. So it's not just heavy.

MDD was the most experience heavy fighter manufacturer at the time. I read somewhere that their design was around 60,00.

At the time the required combat take of weight (8 AAMs + full fuel) was 50,000lb. In the Dem/Val phase however the requirement was relaxed to 60,000.

Today an F-22 with full weapons and half fuel weights around 65,000lb. So who's design was actually overweight anyway?

If I had to make an assumption about them, it would be that they were the only one stating realistic values for their ATF.

And nobody argued with that. I'm saying that it was said that it ALSO did not have promising performance, as far as they said.

 

[tacitblue]

It was said that the proposal was one of the heavier designs AND not promising performances. So it's not just heavy.

It doesn't look to be any heavier than either the YF-22 or the YF-23. In fact the YF-23 was/is much heavier than thos McD design appears. I remember back in the early 90's that the McD wasn't selected because they didn't have any expertise in low observables and in fact they even hired away a Lockheed engineer to assist them in LO. Its a shame the Pentagon did not select this plane instead of the YF-23 for the flyoff competition (with a modified air intake geometry).

 

[tacitblue]

it's said that the proposal was too conservative for air force, can anyone elaborate on this? I only read somewhere that it didn't emphasize on stealth as much as Air Force wanted, but that's all that I know.

Too conservative? What in the hell would the USAF call the YF-22? Oh and then they cited one of the reasons for not awarding the Northrop the contract because their design was too radical.

 

[tacitblue]

I read a quote once from an air force type in the decision making process regarding the initial 7 companies' entries (Lockheed, Northrop, General Dynamics, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Rockwell, and Grumman). He said "we had two really good designs, a couple decent designs, and the rest just didn't get it." (Not his exact words but close.) Lockheed and Northrop of course had their years of stealth experience, General Dynamics (Convair) had stuff going back to the days of Fish/Kingfish and the AGM-129 experience (that's all I know about anyway), not sure where Boeing got it's expertise and then supposedly McDD raided Lockheed for employees. Leaving Rockwell with it's B-1B experience in RCS reduction and Grumman with?

Rockwell is one of the companies that, 'Just didn't get it.' Along with the lacklust General Dynamice design with ONE straight up verticle tail.... What in the hell was wrong with them? What were they smoking?

 

[donnage99]

Too conservative? What in the hell would the USAF call the YF-22? Oh and then they cited one of the reasons for not awarding the Northrop the contract because their design was too radical.

The yf-22 was conservative because it LOOKS conservative? And the yf-23 was radical because it LOOKs out of this world? I'm sorry, but this is just an extremely oversimplification take on the matter, here.

It doesn't look to be any heavier than either the YF-22 or the YF-23. In fact the YF-23 was/is much heavier than thos McD design appears. I remember back in the early 90's that the McD wasn't selected because they didn't have any expertise in low observables and in fact they even hired away a Lockheed engineer to assist them in LO. Its a shame the Pentagon did not select this plane instead of the YF-23 for the flyoff competition (with a modified air intake geometry).

And based on what you think that they yf-23 was heavier than MDD proposal? LOOK again? And why is that a shame that it wasn't chosen over yf-23 proposal. It's still a debate whether which PROTOTYPE of the ATF was the better one, but Northrop PROPOSAL was hands down the best one, since it required little change from the original proposal to the prototype, and still met all requirements while excelled in some. Lockheed proposal was in fact un-flyable and had to be reconfigured.

Rockwell is one of the companies that, 'Just didn't get it.' Along with the lacklust General Dynamice design with ONE straight up verticle tail.... What in the hell was wrong with them? What were they smoking?

No, General Dynamics were placed third behind the chosen Lockheed and Northrop, so their design fit in the "decently good" group. The other one that didn't get it was referred to Grumman. And no, they weren't smoking anything. They did try various configuration with their design's tails, but they all proved too unstable, so finally they HAD to settle with a single large vertical tail. And this was their downfall, since according to them later on, they said that they were too focused on configuration design aspect to make an flyable airplane instead of on the details to just get down all the requirements like the Lockheed one.

 

[sferrin]

I read a quote once from an air force type in the decision making process regarding the initial 7 companies' entries (Lockheed, Northrop, General Dynamics, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Rockwell, and Grumman). He said "we had two really good designs, a couple decent designs, and the rest just didn't get it." (Not his exact words but close.) Lockheed and Northrop of course had their years of stealth experience, General Dynamics (Convair) had stuff going back to the days of Fish/Kingfish and the AGM-129 experience (that's all I know about anyway), not sure where Boeing got it's expertise and then supposedly McDD raided Lockheed for employees. Leaving Rockwell with it's B-1B experience in RCS reduction and Grumman with?

Rockwell is one of the companies that, 'Just didn't get it.' Along with the lacklust General Dynamice design with ONE straight up verticle tail.... What in the hell was wrong with them? What were they smoking?

GD's was #3.

 

[donnage99]

McDonnell-Douglas ATF submission.

Did you draw the side-view of the plane, Overscan? 'cause to my knowledge, there's only one available pic of this MDD proposal ???

 

[Antonio]

Did you draw the side-view of the plane, Overscan?

The drawing is mine. Please don't take it seriously, it's only an informal sketch and I'm not a professional artist. It was a personal exercice to see how the aircraft could look.

cheers

Antonio

 

[donnage99]

Did you draw the side-view of the plane, Overscan?

The drawing is mine. Please don't take it seriously, it's only an informal sketch and I'm not a professional artist. It was a personal exercice to see how the aircraft could look.

cheers

Antonio

oh, then thanks alot for the contribution!

 

[flateric]

The St. Louis ATF effort was led by a conservative retired USAF fighter general who had rejected a stealth-driven approach in favour of what programme officials called a "super F-15." McDonnell Douglas placed fifth, behind Boeing.

Sweetman, Bill
Interavia Business & Technology
Friday, November 1 2002

 

[Antonio]

A bigger version from that in Overscan's post#3

I found it in a Spanish popular Science mag from the 80's

[Removed low res image - better quality posted later in topic - Administrator]

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Greetings All -

Some McAir advanced concepts artwork I scanned that appears to fit in with the pre-ATF or ATS designs. Please correct me if you see a better fit elsewhere.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

A 1971 USAF project, probably strike oriented, via Mark Nankivil.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Thanks Mark! The first two designs are Model 269-F2 and Model 269-E (E2?), a fairly serious study for a supersonic cruise fighter with a primary ground attack and recce role but secondary air superiority, deep strike and strategic capabilities. Gross weight at takeoff over 40,000lb.

The third design is clearly descended from the Model 263 VFAX.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Two McDD ATS designs, phase 1 and phase 2.

Source:

P E. Hiley, McDonnell Aircraft & D.L. Bowers, Air Force Wright Aeronautical Labs
AIAA-81-1441 Advanced Nozzle Integration for Supersonic Strike Fighter Application

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Thanks Overscan for sorting out the artwork to the appropriate threads. Thanks too for the specifics - will help me when I go talking to some retired McAir engineers and managers.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

From the ever vigilant Mark Nankivil and St Louis Aviation Museum:

SF-1302 Supersonic cruise fighter, 1981.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

McDonnell Douglas ATF Air-to-Surface concept formulation study, 1982. Some elements common to their final ATF design can be seen.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

McDonnell Douglas ATF Air-to-Air concept formulation study, 1981.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

this is new to me, seems to have traces of Northrop DNA in the rear fuselage/tail and wing shape. Not sure of designation, seems likely to be ATF precursor.

[Edit - identified as SF-1107 - Admin]

 

[Pyrrhic victory]

McDonnell Douglas ATF Air-to-Surface concept formulation study, 1982. Some elements common to their final ATF design can be seen.

Suprised to see Dual Tex on an aircraft, guess it was really all the rage during early 1980s.

 

[Gavin]

McDonnell Douglas ATF Air-to-Surface concept formulation study, 1982. Some elements common to their final ATF design can be seen.

Is this the same design, labeled here as "17" and "18?"

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Yes, the same design.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

McDonnell Douglas ATF Air-to-Surface concept formulation study, 1982. Some elements common to their final ATF design can be seen.

Interesting concept in bomblet dispenser in the bottom picture. Kind of a bomb bay version of MW-1/JP233.

 

[fightingirish]

pre-ATF & ATF studies @ militaryphotos.net.

These b/w pictures of pre-ATF and ATF studies are from Jay Miller's Aerofax on the F-22.
Due to copyright and forum rules, I won't post them as an an attachment or a an image link in this forum.
Our mod Overscan approved this procedure.

 

[Gavin]

pre-ATF & ATF studies @ militaryphotos.net.

In the last photo of post No. 110, is that the McDonnell-Douglas proposal in the background? It looks like it, judging from the shape of the wing and what we can see of the tail. If so, does the book include any clear photos or drawings of the McDonnell design, other than what we've already seen here? It might be worth tracking down that book . . .

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

No, it isn't, AFAIK.

When I asked Jay Miller about these photos before, he said:

The event was an employee open house at Lockheed Martin. I was invited by the p.r. folks because we're simply old friends and they knew there would be some items on public display that I would find of interest (such as the models). Photographed them all, though it would not be easy for me to lay my hands on the negatives if someone asked me to do so.

The models appear to be mainly General Dynamics models (now Lockheed Fort Worth).

 

[donnage99]

No, it isn't, AFAIK.

When I asked Jay Miller about these photos before, he said:

But did Jay Miller also take the picture of the particular aircraft in question?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Yes, assuming I understand which picture you mean correctly.

 

[donnage99]

Yes, assuming I understand which picture you mean correctly.

One in the red circle

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Yes, that is from the Lockheed event photographed by Jay Miller himself.

 

[Gavin]

Yes, that is from the Lockheed event photographed by Jay Miller himself.

I think Donnage is trying to ask if there's a clear photo of the plane circled in red . . . I would like to know too. This being from a Lockheed event, I doubt it's the McDonnell design, but from the wing shape and tail, I can't match it to any of the G-D designs either.

To change subject a little, it's frustraing and odd that we have better images of McDonnell's pre-ATF work than the company's ATF proposal itself. But such is the world of "secret projects," I suppose.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Jay took photos of every model, but he doesn't have easy access to the negatives. The book doesn't have a photo of the design.

 

[sferrin]

Jay took photos of every model, but he doesn't have easy access to the negatives. The book doesn't have a photo of the design.

I wonder if Scott happened to get any of the ATF stuff in his haul when he visited Jaay Miller's archive. ???