USN VFX Competition (Alternatives to the F-14)

[sky105]

Hi
This McDonnell Douglas Model 225...

 

[TinWing]

Tony Buttler's VFX/FX article in the Novermber/December 2005 issue of Air Enthusisast features a similar, but less detailed, drawing of the 225 proposal.

Sky105, what is the source of your drawing?

 

[QUANTUM1]

Another source is Francillon's book on McDonnel Douglas. There is some basic info on the design. According to Francillon, the design was judged outstanding, very close to the winning one.

Check also US patent 3, 680, 816 (dated Aug. 1, 1972). The assignee is McAir, and it does look similar. An odd feature is the downward-folding canard, which is clearly shown in the patent, and was a feature of McAir VFX (and a reason for the defeat in VFX competition?).

Does the nose look like a Phantom's, or is it my idea? Are there any sound engineering reasons for the similarity (e.g. radar with similar features, aerodynamics, etc.)?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

[Topics merged]

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Rockwell NA-323 VFX design (the only fixed wing contender)

 

[Matej]

Ouha. Do you really want this? If I start to post this stuff, nobody will stop me! ;D

 

[Matej]

You were warned

 

[Matej]

More...

 

[Matej]

More...

 

[Matej]

More...

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Same drawings, different scans, including basic data.

Source:

Mike Spick, Modern Fighting Aircraft: F-14 Tomcat

 

[Matej]

More...

 

[Matej]

More... Someting is also on my web, but it is (as everything :-[) awaiting update.

Program VFX - Grumman F-14 Tomcat

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

2 more

 

[devi]

VFX Competition:
1) General Dynamics/Convair Model 44
2) Grumman Model 303.....
3) McDonnell-Douglas Model 225.....
4) North American Rockwell Model NR-323
5) Vought Model 507

 

[Archibald]

Just some precisions about Dassault VG prototypes.
The TF-306E powered Mirage G flew from November 1967 to its crash on January 1971 at Istres test center. It logged 316 flights. Some american pilots were in detachment around the 1968-69 era.

After that, two twin-jet VG aircraft followed, the G8. The two-seater G8-01 flew in may 1971, the two-seat G8-02 in July 1972. Flight lasted until November 1974, with a top speed at mach 2.34 (just like the Tomcat! on 13th July 1973 (reached with the weak Atar
9K-50 engines , only 7200 kgp each!)

These dates seems quite compatible with the dates of the VFX program...

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

US Patent 3,680,816 McDonnell-Douglas (thanks, Quantum1)

Its for pop-up canards on a VG design, not unlike Grumman's glove vanes.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Fascinating page on NASA Langley's contribution to the VFX program, including their "LFAX-4" generic configuration which also influenced the VG FX designs.

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Partners/F_14.html

 

[Matej]

Confirmed.

 

[Antonio]

It does but i don't have permission to post them as i got them from Tony

I'm dreaming on this Secret Projects: fighters. Just a bit of patience

 

[Skybolt]

Ok, patience. Tony and Scott (with his Bomber book) are the most patienced-after people in the secret projects field ;D

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Forum member EEP1A tried to post this image of the McDonnell-Douglas Model 225.

 

[EEP1A]

Hello everyone!
I happened to know this excellent site and joined few days
ago.
I have been looking for cancelled US aircraft projects for
more than 30 years as my hobby.
I looked through most of the messages in your site and
found many interesting pictures like Republic AP-75, Sikorsky AAH mock-up and
enjoyed very much.

By the way, I am a Japanese and I was encouraged to know
that non US people like Tony Buttler and Andreas Parsch
are also playing active roles in disclosing cancelled US
projects and US designation system.

I think I can contribute a little bit regarding cancelled
projects.
To begin with, I am posting a McDonnell Douglas drawing of
its VFX proposal Model 225.　(For some unknown reason, I could not upload the drawing so I asked overscan to upload for me. See previous post. Thank you overscan.)

Please enjoy!

 

[Archibald]

Welcome here! I know it sounds stupid, but this project looks like the PKA / FA (or T-50, or Sukhoi I-21...)

 

[Pioneer]

I am glad to see that we have not given up on this topic/subject yet

Keep up the good work, and keep looking through those old books.
There has to be more to this VFX Competition (F-14 alternatives)

Regards
Pioneer

 

[sferrin]

Hi guys! First post. Here are some drawings of the Vought V507 with GE engines from the Vought archives. I checked all that I could find on this site for image size guidelines and did not find them. I hope the images are not too large.

bill

Did you grab these off the Vought Heritage site or did you go to the archive yourself? If the latter I don't suppose you picked up any Pluto/SLAM info did you?

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Another source is Francillon's book on McDonnel Douglas. There is some basic info on the design. According to Francillon, the design was judged outstanding, very close to the winning one.

How so?

Ouha. Do you really want this? If I start to post this stuff, nobody will stop me! ;D

Anybody have any data regarding the GD TFX design in terms of performance and weight?


KJ Lesnick

 

[sferrin]

Thanks for the kind words. I got the during a visit to the Vought Archives.
They were from an executive brief on the program along with weapons loadout
configs and the same three views with Pratt engines.

I will try to be mindful of the posting sizes, thanks!

bill

Did you happen to notice if they had anything on Pluto/SLAM while you were there?

 

[Pyrrhic victory]

Some more pictures of the G303 model via the Tomcat Association forums and Warbird Information Exchange

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Beautiful pics, thanks for sharing!

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

That 303F design... the one that has wings like the F-4 looked pretty slick!

KJ

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

What was the reasons that Rockwell's (who had the only fixed-wing design) competitor was rejected?

Kendra Lesnick
BTW: If anybody knows, why did McDonnell Douglas' model 225 -- which was an outstanding design allegedly -- lose?

 

[F-14D]

What was the reasons that Rockwell's (who had the only fixed-wing design) competitor was rejected?

Kendra Lesnick
BTW: If anybody knows, why did McDonnell Douglas' model 225 -- which was an outstanding design allegedly -- lose?

Only McDonnell's and Grumman's designs were able to meet the Navy requirements, and McDonnell's only barely. Grumman's design was head and shoulders above everyone else's. But like all the designs, it was based on the Gov't being able to deliver the F401, which didn't happen. The F-14A was never meant to be a production model, it was supposed to be a development version of which only 13-69 would be built to d a lot of the testing since the airframe was running well ahead of the engine development. The [original] F-14B was to be the first production standard model with the definitive engine and other changes for series production (including an APU). In effect what happened would be the equivalent of the vast majority of F-22s being EMD models.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Only McDonnell's and Grumman's designs were able to meet the Navy requirements, and McDonnell's only barely. Grumman's design was head and shoulders above everyone else's.

What qualities made McDonnell and Grumman's design able to meet the USN requirements, and what characteristics put Grumman's design "Head and Shoulders" above everybody else?


BTW: Can you clarify the question I asked earlier: When you said the F-100 got better only when the F-110 was competing with it, do you mean when the F-401 and F-100 were being developed? Or do you mean when the F-15C was being built in the late seventies and the new F-100 designs featured the revised electronic fuel control which made for nearly surge-free operation even in trouble-areas of the engine's performance envelope? If the former, how much of a thrust difference was there between the F-401 and F-100? And if the latter, why didn't the USN just use the F-100 with the necessary modifications?

 

[F-14D]

Only McDonnell's and Grumman's designs were able to meet the Navy requirements, and McDonnell's only barely. Grumman's design was head and shoulders above everyone else's.

What qualities made McDonnell and Grumman's design able to meet the USN requirements, and what characteristics put Grumman's design "Head and Shoulders" above everybody else?


BTW: Can you clarify the question I asked earlier: When you said the F-100 got better only when the F-110 was competing with it, do you mean when the F-401 and F-100 were being developed? Or do you mean when the F-15C was being built in the late seventies and the new F-100 designs featured the revised electronic fuel control which made for nearly surge-free operation even in trouble-areas of the engine's performance envelope? If the former, how much of a thrust difference was there between the F-401 and F-100? And if the latter, why didn't the USN just use the F-100 with the necessary modifications?

In answer to your first question, the Navy had certain requirements stated in their Request for Proposals. Grumman and McDonnell met all of them. Everyone else didn't. Grumman's design was judged to be a lot better and exceeded the requirements in a number of areas by a significant margin (providing the Gov't delivered the engine it promised.) To get the exact details would involve researching the documentation of the Source Selection board.


You actually asked your second question in a different forum. I'll repeat part of what what I answered there.
Basically, the bottom line was that when the services had nowhere else to go, Pratt had no real incentive to fix the F100. When GE started offering an engine that was more powerful, with better performance and more reliable, customers started buying that engine instead. At that point, Pratt sat up and took notice and started making the F100 what it always should have been.

The F401 was to be at least 10% more powerful than what the F100 was supposed to deliver. In reality, if it would have worked, it would have ended up being 20% more powerful, due to the derating of the F100 to meet its reliability criteria. Of course, if they had to derate the F100 they almost certainly would have had to derate the F401.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

F14D,

I apparently asked that question in a different post not forum

Was the F-100 able to fly at a higher mach number than the F-401 (due to it's lower bypass-ratio)? Because, from what I remember, the F100 (and the plane that it propelled) was supposed to be able to achieve the same mach-numbers the MiG-25 could fly at...


KJ Lesnick

 

[F-14D]

F14D,

I apparently asked that question in a different post not forum

Was the F-100 able to fly at a higher mach number than the F-401 (due to it's lower bypass-ratio)? Because, from what I remember, the F100 (and the plane that it propelled) was supposed to be able to achieve the same mach-numbers the MiG-25 could fly at...


KJ Lesnick

And I answered this one in a different post not forum

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

The search engine is our friend. So say we all.

 

[Evil Flower]

Does anybody know if the GD entry was supposed to have any external pylons? Tony's book only gives the reference "at least 4xAIM-7" which does sound a little small. Just wondering since I'm underway building this thing for a certain flightsim.

 

[F-14D]

Does anybody know if the GD entry was supposed to have any external pylons? Tony's book only gives the reference "at least 4xAIM-7" which does sound a little small. Just wondering since I'm underway building this thing for a certain flightsim.

The "at least 4...", probably comes from the requirement in the VFX solicitations to be able to carry at least 4 AIM-7, so we can assume any design could do at least that or it would be eliminated off the bat.