USN VFX Competition (Alternatives to the F-14)

[sferrin]

Thanks Gregory - sure is fun to hunt this stuff and I am very, very lucky to have the access I've had to the Vought Archives. And looking forward to another trip this spring!

When you go any chance you could poke around for Pluto/SLAM stuff? Vought did the work on the missile portion of Pluto (called "SLAM" Supersonic Low-Altitude Missile).

 

[Mark Nankivil]

I went looking for that info for Scott Lowther but came up short - I did not find anything missile related save for Scout and misc. aircraft launched missiles. There may be another drawer somewhere else and I'll pick up the search next time I am down there, hopefully this coming Spring.

Looking on the bright side, I at least know where it's not

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

That fixed-wing LTV design looks pretty awesome...

 

[Pyrrhic victory]

A really bad scan of NAR's VFX from an October 1968 Av week. Hopefully someone can find a better version than I did :x

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Cool. Other artwork was posted in the start of the topic.

 

[Maki]

I wonder what was the estimated top speed of NAR's concept. Those wings don't look like they are optimized for supersonic performance.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

I think a lot of members would be happy to see this one: I actually found the RFP for the VFX... I don't know how accurate this is so I could use to know if there were changes

- Two-man crew (tandem-seating)
- Two-engines (Pratt &Whitney TF-30 P-412 to be used as interim)
- Incorporate AWG-9 and AIM-54 Phoenix weapon system
- Carry up to 6 x AIM-54 Phoenix, or 6 x AIM-7 Sparrow, and/or 4 x AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles plus one internal M61-A1 Vulcan-cannon.
- Be designed to endure high fighter loads exceeding those of the F-4J loaded with AIM-7 Sparrow or AIM-54 Phoenix missiles
- Carrier suitability: Landing strengths for 6 x AIM-54 Phoenix missiles and 4,000 lbs of fuel. Landing speeds and weights of VFX are suitable for operations from the Hancock-Class CVA's.

There are probably other requirements too but these I remember finding online. If only I wrote down the URL.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Does anyone have more data about the Grumman Fixed-Wing VFX Study?

I've seen a bunch of pictures of it but very little data, particularly pertaining to wing area (and/or any data pertaining to it's performance). I could really use the data if anyone has it.


KJ Lesnick

 

[Skybolt]

KJ, was that the VFX-A or -B ? There were TWO specifications.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

What's the difference between the VFX-A and VFX-B?

KJ

 

[Pyrrhic victory]

I wonder what was the estimated top speed of NAR's concept. Those wings don't look like they are optimized for supersonic performance.

NAVAIR doubted the performance claims of NAR's entry, they didn't think the VFX could be done without VG. The wing was also good deal straighter and less "gothic" than the FX (F-15) entry was. It's also interesting no pictures with an AIM-54 hanging off it have appeared either.

KJ, was that the VFX-A or -B ? There were TWO specifications.

Never heard of the terms of VFX-A or -B. I've heard of VFX-1, VFX-2 and VFX-3 though; the original plan the F-14A, B, C production transition plan. (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1969/1969 - 0395.html)

Here's a picture of the F-14 model after it grew a second tail with the lead designer Mike Pelehach.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Pyrrhic Victory,

NAVAIR doubted the performance claims of NAR's entry, they didn't think the VFX could be done without VG.

I didn't know NAVAIR was totally opposed to a VG-design.

Never heard of the terms of VFX-A or -B. I've heard of VFX-1, VFX-2 and VFX-3 though; the original plan the F-14A, B, C production transition plan. (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1969/1969%20-%200395.html)

How long would it take for them to go from A to C? I was always under the impression they'd go from the original TF-30 directly to the F-401?

Additionally, I was never under the impression that spot-factor relative to the F-4 was considered such a gigantic deal (It was mentioned in the article)


KJ

 

[Pyrrhic victory]

Captures from an Italian doc on the F-14

Underside shots of the mock up with two AIM-54 and AIM-7 place on the engine nacelles. Also some orange thing that I did not recognize.

 

[Racer]

The red one could be a Harpoon Mock up?

An Italian Doc? About what?

Why are the under engine nacelles not used like this? Is it because of little space to the deck on hard landings?

 

[starviking]

The red one could be a Harpoon Mock up?

I think it's too small in diameter to be a Harpoon.

 

[Skybolt]

An Italian documenary on the F-14, made by using US videos. Probably by DELTA. I myself own the B-52 one, that you can find in original version on YouTube.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

So there was nothing that could have been done that would have persuaded the USN that a fixed-wing would have worked?

 

[Howedar]

The red one could be a Harpoon Mock up?

I think it's too small in diameter to be a Harpoon.

I disagree. Compare it to the inlet just to the right, which should be about the same size as the one on the F-14 we know and love. Harpoon's only a hair over a foot in diameter, and a man could crawl down an F-14 inlet if he wished.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Hi All -

Some photos of the McDonnell Douglas Model 225 model in the St. Louis Aviation Museum collection that match up with the post that started this thread.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Wow. Beautiful pics, Mark. Thanks for sharing!

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Seriously nice Model 225 artwork

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

This McDonnell-Douglas fixed wing FX design derivative was considered for the VFX requirement.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Some greatly reduced (15% of original size) snips of some Convair Model 44 diagrams I came across. The full-rez, complete versions of these may or may not wind up for sale, but for now the full rez versions are "embargoed."

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

The cutaway drawing is particularly beautiful. Thanks, Scott.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The cutaway drawing is particularly beautiful.

Yeah, it's a hell of a piece of artwork. The first time I saw it, it was in the form of a far-to-big-for-my-flatbed-scanner "blueprint," seen here in photo form. The next day I came across a conveniently sized version that scanned well at 600 dpi.

 

[robunos]

Regarding the McDD model 225, that's the only low-wing VG aircraft I think I've ever seen.

Where would the main undercarriage go? Looks like the wing pivot box gets in the way. ???

cheers,
Robin.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Tu-22M has low wing and VG wings.

Granted, the pivots are further outboard, but then the McDD 225 also seems to me to have larger fixed glove sections and wider spaced pivots than other VFX designs. Grumman also had a low wing VFX design, 303D.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

That fixed wing design, was that the F-15N or another Naval FX derivative?

 

[TomS]

The Su-17 also has a more or less low-mounted wing with VG. In the case of the McDD 225, the pivots would seem to be in the front part of the large gloves, with the landing gear probably located in the main fuselage near the aft end of the glove. The underside of the model shows a blank spot around that point where there is only a centerline missile.

The painting don't seem to show the VG structure very well -- there's no hint of a panel line between the fixed glove section and the pivoting outer wing section.

 

[robunos]

Tu-22M has low wing and VG wings.

DOHH!!!!!!!!..........................Got my fighter head on! ;D

The Su-17 also has a more or less low-mounted wing with VG

that counts as mid-wing for me!

Anyway, found this on page 418 of Putnam's 'McDonnell Douglas' volume 2, it shows the position of the undecarriage on the fuselage, could still do with an underside view, though.

cheers,
Robin.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Here's a few more additional Model 225 illustrations...

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Anyway, found this on page 418 of Putnam's 'McDonnell Douglas' volume 2, it shows the position of the undercarriage on the fuselage, could still do with an underside view, though.

cheers,
Robin.

You do realise that picture was the first post in this topic?

 

[robunos]

OOPS !!!!!!!!!!!!

That'll teach me not to bother tracking through the thread before posting! :-[ :'(

If you want an excuse, I'll say that I was tired after trying and failing to get into the Cosford airshow, eventually finding a vantge point on one of the surrounding roads, only to have my camera pack up and cause most of my pictures to come out blurred.

Anyway, back on topic, Mark Nankivill, I see that your Model 225 3-view has 'Phantom' type intakes, rather than the wedge type shown in the other illustrations.
Would this be an earlier version? Or were the intakes changed to allow the mounting of the canards shown in the other images?

Cheers,
Robin.

 

[Skybolt]

Fanà article incoming ?

 

[F-14D]

Abraham Gubler,

If you are going to Sponge KJL at least try and ask less inane questions...

I wasn't trying to sponge, and I didn't think it was an inane question. I know spot factor is important to some extent on all Navy Fighters, I'm just wondering how big a deal it was for this particular program over others for example.

Unless you're the F/A-18, spotting factor is always a major factor. It determines how many you can carry, how many you can maintain, how you can park and store and how you can move around the deck.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

This Feb 1969 Navy project seems to be from immediately after McDonnell-Douglas lost VFX to Grumman. Seems to be derived from Model 225. Single seat design.

Scan by Mark Nankivil.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Greetings All -

I spent my first day as a docent over at the Greater St. Louis Air & Space Museum and had a chance to look thru a filing cabinet I had not perused before. I found a variety of photos and these two of the Model 225 wind tunnel model were mixed in with the batch.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Nice! Top one is the Model 225A with canards, bottom the 225. They are quite distinct in shape.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1969/1969%20-%201308.html?search=VFX

 

[elmayerle]

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.

It should be noted that the inability to deliver the F401 was partially due to a crusade against it by a member of the House of Representatives in 1974. His battlecry was "The TF30 is good enough!" and, after two F401 test engines were brought back from the test cells in pieces over the space of a week, he managed to marshall enough support to kill the program. Four years later, with the TF30, which he forced the USN to keep, causing real problems, he charged that "The Navy bought a "Turkey", not a 'Tomcat'!" needless to say, he said nothing about his role in this mess. To some degree, he was emulating his mentor and the sernior senator from his state, WIlliam Proxmire, but with less, IMHO, intelligence. This Representative went on to become president Clinton's first SecDef, Les Aspin.

If you're wondering how/why I remember all this, the F401 cancellation got me laid off from P&W's FLordia R&D Center.