US Navy "V/STOL Type A" competition

[flateric]

Found at NASA Glenn Research Center ImageNet site

Title says VARIABLE STEAM CONTROL ENGINE - MCAIR MCDONNELL AIRCRAFT V/STOL VERTICAL SHORT TAKE OFF LANDING - RI V/STOL - BOEING V/STOL that questions whose stuff it is

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I'm well aware we have dozens of posts already in the existing US VSTOL Projects topic, but I want to split that one up a bit. Therefore I'm creating this topic, with an image from NASA Glenn image archives.

 

[Jemiba]

Interesting program which brought up very interesting designs ! Here are 3 more, not
shown in the NASA picture:
- a derivative of the Bell XV-15
- a General Dynamics propulsion lift wing concept
- a Lockheed four engined/3 fan design
(All from Aviation Week November 1977)

 

[yasotay]

My gosh! Those were the days; six competing companies for a VTOL program.

 

[GTX]

Hi,

http://www.scramble.nl/wiki/index.php?title=Image:1978_02347L.jpg

Any chance of a bigger scan of the picture?

Regards,

Greg

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

My gosh! Those were the days; six competing companies for a VTOL program.

What's more, the illustration doesn't include the Bell Tilt Rotor proposal, which was arguably proven to be the best candidate from a practicality and performance standpoint for Type A V/STOL, at which point the Navy effectively terminated the program.

 

[Stargazer]

According to my files, here are the identified contenders for the U.S. Navy's "Type A" design competition.

• Bell D324
• Boeing unknown designation
• Boeing 1041-133
• Boeing 1041-134
• Grumman G-698
• General Dynamics 310
• General Dynamics A-311
• Lockheed unknown designation (2 variants)
• McDonnell Douglas 260
• McDonnell Douglas 260R
• McDonnell Douglas 276
• Rockwell NA-420
• Rockwell NA-430
• Rockwell NA-431
• Vought V-530 (2 tail configurations)
• Vought V-534
• Vought V-537

Attached are two little diagrams that show the main contenders and complement the one overscan posted at the beginning of this thread.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Here's what was probably the primary Sikorsky response to the Type A requirement. Ultimately was not officially submitted.

 

[Grey Havoc]

A bit more on the USN Type A, and the related Type B and Type C requirements can be found in this 1980 Rand report, primarily on pages 14 & 15, although there are other little tibbits throughout the document (note: search function doesn't work for body text, so you'll have to go through it the hard way!).

By the way, there's a few paragraphs on the Rockwell XFV-12A (page 43), as well as mention of certain other programs.

Another separate little tibbit. In at least one related study, the Type A was also referred to as the 'Projected Future Tactical Aircraft'.

 

[Grey Havoc]

A fair bit of info on the Vought primary submission for the Type A requirement, the V-530, as well as it's STOL Attack twin (also referred to as a CTOL baseline), the V-534, can be found throughout this thread. Also in the thread, among other things, is data on Vought's Type B proposals and related work.

Here's a chart borrowed from another thread on a possible Micro S-3 variant:

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

One of the more unreasonable requirements for the V/STOL Type A was that it be operable from the DD-963 Spruance-class destroyer and fit in the hangar (which was designed to hold two LAMPS MkIIIs, if I remember correctly). This is a fairly large model of the helipad and hangar of this ship.

The "powered-lift" contenders tried desperately to kill the tiltrotor as a candidate. One of the features that was condemned as a drawback was the benefit of ground effect on rotor thrust. The knock was that one rotor would lose lift as it moved off the deck, causing a loss of roll control. This demonstrated either mendacity or a complete lack of understanding of the aerodynamics involved. The tiltrotor uses differential collective for roll control. Collective is very responsive and with the thrust out at the wingtips, roll control is excellent.

In response to the criticism, Bell built a simulator about the size of half a ping-pong table for trade shows which featured a flying tiltrotor model powered by two electric motors turning fixed-pitch propellers; varying the motor rpm varied thrust. The controls provided were collective (vertical thrust) and roll (differential thrust). It could be flown onto and off of a model of the aft end of a DD-963 by anybody with a minute or two of practice. Although not strictly speaking a valid engineering demonstration, it effectively put an end to the prattle about deck-edge effect.

 

[Stargazer]

After several merges and splits in the past, this topic is now reserved for discussions and sharing about the US Navy's "Type A" program as a whole or to submit unidentified or ill-documented contenders.

Please post info and pictures about specific design in one of these specific posts:

• Grumman G-698 V/STOL (US Navy "Type A" proposal) [link]
• Bell D321 and D324 V/STOL (US Navy "Type A" proposals) [link]
• Rockwell NA-430 and NA-431 (US Navy "Type A" proposals) [link]
• Boeing Model 1041 and other V/STOL "Type A" proposals [link]
• McDonnell Douglas Model 276 V/STOL (US Navy "Type A" proposal) [link]
• Lockheed V/STOL (US Navy "Type A" proposal) [link]
• Lockheed "Micro" S-3 Viking variant (US Navy "Type A" proposal) [link]
• Vought (LTV) V-530 and V-534 (US Navy "Type A" proposals) [link]
• General Dynamics A-310/A-311 V/STOL (US Navy "Type A" proposals) [link]

Thanks a lot!

 

[Stargazer]

In a Vought report describing also the Vought V-530, a second "Type A" proposal is described (presumably also a Vought study).

Description of Tilt Nacelle Aircraft

This V/STOL aircraft uses two propulsive nacelles mounted such that total (or effective) thrust in the V-Mode acts through the aircraft C.G. Each propulsive nacelle contains a turboshaft engine driving a high-by-pass ratio fan. The nacelles tilt through an arc of 100°.

The moderately high aspect ratio wing is mounted low on the fuselage with the inboard trailing edge section cut out for the tilting nacelle.

The conventional fuselage size and shape is determined by the requirements of crew, equipment, fuel volume, and support for wing, surfaces, nacelles, and alighting gear attachments.

The wide stance main gear is mounted in pods extending aft from the wing structural box to satisfy tip-over and tip-back considerations. The nose gear mounts and retracts into the fuselage.

In aerodynamic forward flight control is from conventional surfaces; ailerons for roll, elevators for pitch, and the rudder for directional. In thrust supported flight, control in all three axis is obtained as follows:

• Roll – Variable inlet guide vanes on each fan allow modulating the thrust differentially between left and right fan thrust.
• Pitch and yaw — Fore and aft reaction nozzles whose thrust is provided by continuous bleed air from the two engines.

A general arrangement of this aircraft is shown in Figure 8. Propulsion system characteristics are presented in Figure 9 and the drive system is shown schematically in Figure 10 with a list of the main propulsion components.

Source: V/STOL Aircraft Design Sensitivity To Flying Qualities Criteria Study - Mid-term Report (Vought Corporation, 28 September 1979)

 

[Mike Pryce]

The UK also put up some designs, with Hawker Siddeley/BAe Hatfield taking the lead. Pics attached.

Config 1 – 3 Pegasus (one in fuselage) with RCS + control fans
Config 2 – 2 RB.193 and 4 x XJ.99
Config 3 – 6 RB.202 lift fans, two of which pivoted for lift/cruise
Config 4 used 4 turboshafts to drive fan via gearbox, with two reverse mounted in booms

Ref AHS Paper:

UK V/STOL Transport Aircraft Concepts of the 20th Century
Michael J. Pryce
Michael J. Hirschberg

 

[VTOLicious]

Discovered at the Ames Research Center Image Libary:

2 high res. pics of a multi mission lift-cruise fan model in the 40x80ft wind tunnel!...apparently a McDonnell Douglas 260.

https://ia600409.us.archive.org/3/items/AILS_AC76-1060/AC76-1060.jpg
https://ia600502.us.archive.org/12/items/AILS_AC76-1061/AC76-1061.jpg

Enjoy!

 

[Stargazer]

I thought it was a McAir 260 at first, but then it could also be a Boeing 1041...

 

[VTOLicious]

Stargazer, don´t think so. The Boeing model is a tilt-nacelle design. But you are right, lots of similarities.

Btw, I´m in progress of making a CAD-3D model of the Boeing Model 1041-133-1 ASW-airplane. I based the shape on the attached side and top view. Unfortunately low resolution and no cross sections available

Rgds Michael

 

[VTOLicious]

YES! Finally found the high resolution version!

http://ia600306.us.archive.org/11/items/C-1978-2347/1978_02347.jpg

Cheers, Michael

 

[circle-5]

YES! Finally found the high resolution version!

http://ia600306.us.archive.org/11/items/C-1978-2347/1978_02347.jpg

Cheers, Michael

It's about time! Thank you.

 

[Stargazer]

YES! Finally found the high resolution version!

Way cool! Thanks for sharing.

Stargazer, don´t think so. The Boeing model is a tilt-nacelle design. But you are right, lots of similarities.

Indeed. On second look the propulsion system is decidedly very different, but general configuration shows a lot of common ideas.

 

[hesham]

Also from 17-18/1980 file,


maybe that was a Boeing concepts for Navy Type A.

 

[hesham]

maybe that was a Boeing concepts for Navy Type A.

It is a Boeing Navy Type A,and here is again in details.


http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.58602

 

[hesham]

Hi,


here is some Navy Type A designs,with strange concept in the first picture,right drawing.


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a053417.pdf

 

[The Artist]

4.PNG Figure 1 above looks like it's based on the Saberliner.

 

[VTOLicious]

4.PNG Figure 1 above looks like it's based on the Saberliner.

The Boeing Model 1041-135 (and 136) is indeed based on the T-39 Sabreliner:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9577.msg164810.html#msg164810

Unfortunately never built :-\

BR Michael

 

[nova10]

There was a diagram of a really interesting Type A proposal in a link from this thread. It was an aew variant, but instead of having a radome it had sideways looking radars on the sides of the rear fuselage and radars in the nose and tail for maximum coverage. I can't seem to find it now. Can anybody point me in the right direction? Cheers!

nova

 

[nova10]

Found it! It was the McDonnell Douglas Model 276 with the side antennas. These "Type A" aircraft could be very useful for the navies with aircraft carriers that aren't large enough for fixed wing aew and asw, i.e. most of them. With the increasing number of navies with submarines and carrier based fighters an aew/asw aircraft with better performance and range than a helicopter is a definite plus. Would a S-3 Viking re-engined with Pegasus fulfil this role too? After all, the Pegasus powered Harrier is the only aircraft not to have a place in The V/Stol Wheel Of Misfortune. Some of the "Type A" contenders (for example, the Boeing Model 1041) look too complicated to work and sacrifice too much internal room and weight for myriad interconnecting cross shafts, moving ducts and too many fans and engines. Far too many things to go wrong. IMHO, the Grumman 698, the Lockheed proposal and the Bell D321 and D324 look like the surest bets, if only because their designs appear less complicated. I'd be interested in what your opinions on this subject are. Cheers!

nova

 

[VTOLicious]

Article found in the AW archive:

 

[hesham]

Hi,

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a144214.pdf

 

[Grey Havoc]

From the September 1987 Hatfield Future Projects Newsletter:

1976-77 BAe/HSA Hatfield entries for the US Navy Type A V/STOL competition. Two designs are shown, one a twin boom ducted fan design, the other with three vectored thrust engines and three lift fans.

"This page devoted to our work of a decade ago for a submission to meet a US Navy requirement for a V/STOL aircraft, is published to serve as a small tribute to Charles Bradbury*. Who, in 1977 when this HSA/BAe submission being entered with other US competition for the Type A Aircraft capable of carrier borne operation, was responsible for the overall design of one of four types proposed. Known as Aircraft Configuration No 1, Charles designed this to incorporate three lift/cruise engine and three lift fans. In 1976 the US Navy confirmed the need for a V/STOL Type A, with missionised versions suitable for ASW, AEW Marine Assault, VOD, Tanker and SAR roles, in order to increase effectiveness of ship based airpower. VTOL would allow dispersal to small ships, with STO would permit increased capability from larger ships. BAe/HSA was one of six companies who submitted some eight volumes comprising the total submission in answer to US Navy requirements. One of the principal projects included in this submission was an advanced ducted fan, twin boom aircraft, for which Charles displaying his talents as an artist produced this lively impression in oils of the aircraft, for use within the promotional and presentation material."

Zeb

* Recently deceased at time of publication, edition also features a full obituary

 

[nova10]

Greetings and salutations my friends,

I'm trying to find a schematic of an aircraft on this site. I'm not entirely sure it is even part of the US Navy "Type A" competition though it certainly fits the specification. It is a three seat (I think) asw v/stol aircraft powered by a single Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine. I've been tearing my hair out trying to find it on this site with no joy. Can anybody help?

Have a better one,

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

YES! Finally found the high resolution version!

http://ia600306.us.archive.org/11/items/C-1978-2347/1978_02347.jpg

Cheers, Michael

I see your high res version and raise you this super-high res version from NARA.

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/17425517

 

[hesham]

From Aviation magazine 1979.

 

[JFC Fuller]

V/STOL Type A notional requirements, these were found to be unrealistic through the industry studies:

A single base aircraft to perform ASW, AEW, Marine Assault, COD, Tanker, and SAR missions with an operating radius of 150-300nm, except for in the COD role where a 1,875nm range with 7,500lbs of cargo was requested. The aircraft was to be able to operate from the flight deck of a DD-963 (Spruance) in Sea state 5 and 0-0 weather and make an automatic landing with one engine out.

The requested mean time between failure (MTBF) was 11 hours and mean time to repair failure of 1 hour whilst a complete engine change should be possible in 20 minutes.

In terms of survivability, the aircraft was to be hardened against nuclear effects and no single hit should result in the loss of the aircraft.

The folded dimensions were to be within 50ft (length) x 19 (width) x 14.5ft (height) to enable stowage of one aircraft in DD-963 (Spruance) and DDG-47 (Ticonderoga) ships and two in the CSGN Mk-1. Initial estimates suggested 40-47,000lb vertical take-off weights for the ASW and AEW versions which was compatible with the DD-963 class, with 60,000lb for STOL operations from Vertical Support Ships (VSS) or carriers.

The proposed development timeline is attached.

 

[hesham]

From Hearing report.

 

[Scott Kenny]

One of the more unreasonable requirements for the V/STOL Type A was that it be operable from the DD-963 Spruance-class destroyer and fit in the hangar (which was designed to hold two LAMPS MkIIIs, if I remember correctly). This is a fairly large model of the helipad and hangar of this ship.

The "powered-lift" contenders tried desperately to kill the tiltrotor as a candidate. One of the features that was condemned as a drawback was the benefit of ground effect on rotor thrust. The knock was that one rotor would lose lift as it moved off the deck, causing a loss of roll control. This demonstrated either mendacity or a complete lack of understanding of the aerodynamics involved. The tiltrotor uses differential collective for roll control. Collective is very responsive and with the thrust out at the wingtips, roll control is excellent.

In response to the criticism, Bell built a simulator about the size of half a ping-pong table for trade shows which featured a flying tiltrotor model powered by two electric motors turning fixed-pitch propellers; varying the motor rpm varied thrust. The controls provided were collective (vertical thrust) and roll (differential thrust). It could be flown onto and off of a model of the aft end of a DD-963 by anybody with a minute or two of practice. Although not strictly speaking a valid engineering demonstration, it effectively put an end to the prattle about deck-edge effect.

Gotta love the "take that!" prototypes built for either lawsuits or trade fairs like this.

 

[hesham]

From this Hearing report.

 

[hesham]

From Hearing report.

 

[Scott Kenny]

From Hearing report.

There are some very goofy looking aircraft in that report.

The second image, labeled Figure 9, looks like something the US Army is working on today for FVL.

 

[hesham]

From this report.

Prediction Methods for Jet V/STOL Propulsion Aerodynamics. Volume I. Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the Institute for Defense Analyses, Arlington, Virginia on July 28-31, 1975,

High speed VSTOL aircraft operating from widely dispersed platforms have become of increasing interest to the U.S. Navy. The dispersed force concept requires a well developed technology base, involving phenomena and problems which do not occur on conventional aircraft or low speed VSTOL craft...

apps.dtic.mil