USN VFX Competition (Alternatives to the F-14)

[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. 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.

Absolutely true. Another contributing factor was USAF's playing fast and loose with the 150 hr reliability test. By doing that, by the agreement on who paid for what in developing the Advanced Technology Engine (which became the F100/F401), USN would be solely responsible for all costs involved in bringing the ATE up to an acceptable level of reliability. Navy didn't have enough money budgeted to do that. That, plus the factor so accurately described above, was why the F401 died. Ironically, Navy probably ended up paying far more trying to make the TF30 work than they would have spent fixing the far superior F401.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Hi,

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

Aha! So it seems Flight made the mistake about this being the Grumman design....

 

[hesham]

Hi,

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

Aha! So it seems Flight made the mistake about this being the Grumman design....

You are right my dear Overscan.

 

[hesham]

Hi All -

Some artwork from the Greater St. Louis Air & Space Museum archives showing the design evolution of the McDonnell Douglas F-15.

Based on the photo print numbers, this appears to be a decent timeline at what was transpiring.

I have some more to scan from this set but those pretty much fit into the final design layout though you'll see some of the details disappear or morph into what we all know as the Eagle.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

From NASA report,the LFAX-4 with 71 degree swept.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19830002871_1983002871.pdf

 

[Steve Pace]

Does anyone have a good rundown for G-numbers associated with all versions of the F-14? The only thing I have is 303E for the F-14A.

 

[Steve Pace]

Can anyone help with this?

 

[Stargazer]

XB-70 Guy, you're too impatient! I've gotten you used to speedy answers, and now you can't wait! Some topics here find their answers months after the initial message was posted, so please give it some more time...

 

[Steve Pace]

Roger that.

 

[aim9xray]

You know how to search, don't you? (Y'know, it sounded better when Lauren Bacall said almost the same line... )

Go up to search and enter VFAX. A lot of excellent work has already been done by board members, just waiting for you to research it.

 

[Steve Pace]

With 26 published books and hundreds of articles - yes, I do know how to research. I'm just new to Secret Projects and, frankly, I didn't think of VFAX.

 

[Matej]

aim9xray - not VFAX but VFX.

Here is something, trying to remember the source...

 

[Steve Pace]

Thank you!

 

[aim9xray]

aim9xray - not VFAX but VFX.

My apologies to all; I did mean to say VFX. Guess I did not take my anti-grumpy pill this morning!

To our esteemed (or steamed) author - yes, I have many of your efforts. The point that I did not make very well was that a lot of the information that you are starting new threads on has already been covered by postings - all you need to do is look! There is a fantastic amount of hitherto unknown information that has come to light *here* in the past few years.

And the VFX thread is at:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,229.0

 

[Orionblamblam]

aim9xray - not VFAX but VFX.

Here is something, trying to remember the source...

Great big hugenormous book from the 80's. I forget the title, but it's got big chapters on the F-14, F-15, B-1, Harrier, etc. I seem to recall "Mike Spick" being an author on the B-1 chapter. Similar sort of early B-1 drawings.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Greetings All -

A recent find in the museum archives is this general arrangement drawing of the McDonnell Model 225A.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[norseman]

With these engine problems I am even more baffled why the option on the TF41/Spey wasn't looked at further especially with 17,500/27,000lb available in this timeframe (and an option of 28,000lb reheat on customer requirements - RR option from 71). Considering the reliability record the Spey derivitives had created (not least with the A-7) would have been an interesting fit and even better fuel economy and improved servicing was on the cards from what I have read. The British Phantoms with these engines would have been very interesting indeed.

 

[TinWing]

With these engine problems I am even more baffled why the option on the TF41/Spey wasn't looked at further especially with 17,500/27,000lb available in this timeframe (and an option of 28,000lb reheat on customer requirements - RR option from 71). Considering the reliability record the Spey derivitives had created (not least with the A-7) would have been an interesting fit and even better fuel economy and improved servicing was on the cards from what I have read. The British Phantoms with these engines would have been very interesting indeed.

While the thrust levels were improved over the TF-30, the TF-41 had its own issues, both with maintenance and reliability.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Greetings All -

A few more Model 225A related drawings from the Greater St. Louis air & Space museum archives....

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[F-14D]

With these engine problems I am even more baffled why the option on the TF41/Spey wasn't looked at further especially with 17,500/27,000lb available in this timeframe (and an option of 28,000lb reheat on customer requirements - RR option from 71). Considering the reliability record the Spey derivitives had created (not least with the A-7) would have been an interesting fit and even better fuel economy and improved servicing was on the cards from what I have read. The British Phantoms with these engines would have been very interesting indeed.

While the thrust levels were improved over the TF-30, the TF-41 had its own issues, both with maintenance and reliability.

The notional Advanced Technology Engine that the F-14 designed around had to meet other requirements besides just increased thrust (unrestricted throttle movement, rapid response, function at high angle of attack, improve reliability, etc.). I doubt if the TF41/Spey could have met those, and if it couldn't what would be the point of moving to it? Come to think of it, the F100 didn't meet those requirements until it was faced with competition from the F110. Also, the TF41/Spey was still pretty much a "paper" engine. The TF41 was excellent in the A-7, but that was also a much less demanding role.

The Navy didn't have the money anyway, and if they did, they'd rather have put the money into something that would give them what the gov't originally promised. They finally got it with the arrival of the F110.

Also, the Navy watched what happened in the UK with the Spey on the F-4. The Spey Phantom was a disappointment, and in retrospect many concede that doing it was a mistake, given its performance vs. its cost. The USN probably saw no reason to spend all the money, even if they could have gotten it, on a similar experiment.

 

[Sundog]

Until the 3 view just posted by Mark above, I had never noticed the retractable/folding canards on the Model 225A. I had thought they were a control surface, but apparently they just "extended" them to move the A.C. forward for supersonic flight, in much the same manner as the glove vane on the F-14? Has anyone seen any references to their function in the 225/225A data?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

you obviously never read page 2 of this topic then

Relevant patent is here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,229.msg3999.html#msg3999

 

[Sundog]

you obviously never read page 2 of this topic then

Relevant patent is here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,229.msg3999.html#msg3999

Thanks, I've actually downloaded most of the pics in this thread, but I somehow missed that. Doh!

 

[AeroFranz]

Thanks to Mark for the GORGEOUS -225 drawings and cutaways. Sadly I doubt aviation manufacturers employ artists to draw like that anymore. The equivalent picture, today, would be a CAD screenshot.

 

[elmayerle]

With these engine problems I am even more baffled why the option on the TF41/Spey wasn't looked at further especially with 17,500/27,000lb available in this timeframe (and an option of 28,000lb reheat on customer requirements - RR option from 71). Considering the reliability record the Spey derivitives had created (not least with the A-7) would have been an interesting fit and even better fuel economy and improved servicing was on the cards from what I have read. The British Phantoms with these engines would have been very interesting indeed.

While the thrust levels were improved over the TF-30, the TF-41 had its own issues, both with maintenance and reliability.

The notional Advanced Technology Engine that the F-14 designed around had to meet other requirements besides just increased thrust (unrestricted throttle movement, rapid response, function at high angle of attack, improve reliability, etc.). I doubt if the TF41/Spey could have met those, and if it couldn't what would be the point of moving to it? Come to think of it, the F100 didn't meet those requirements until it was faced with competition from the F110. Also, the TF41/Spey was still pretty much a "paper" engine. The TF41 was excellent in the A-7, but that was also a much less demanding role.

The Navy didn't have the money anyway, and if they did, they'd rather have put the money into something that would give them what the gov't originally promised. They finally got it with the arrival of the F110.

Also, the Navy watched what happened in the UK with the Spey on the F-4. The Spey Phantom was a disappointment, and in retrospect many concede that doing it was a mistake, given its performance vs. its cost. The USN probably saw no reason to spend all the money, even if they could have gotten it, on a similar experiment.

The F401 was cancelled due to a crusade led by Rep. Les Aspin to kill the F401 engine (it didn't help that just after he started this crusade two F401's came back from the test cells in bushel baskets - in one case, there was a manufacturing problem in a second-stage tubrine disk that wasn't caught; the other was a new vibratory mode that was dealt with by re-design for both the F100 and the F401)> I have to assume, given their lack of fight for it, that the USN had lost fiath in the F401. Mind you, Aspin's cry that'The TF30 is good enough!" was manifestly in error as was proved later in the 1970s. Of course, when he later said, "The Navy bought a Turkey, not a Tomcat!", he did not own up to his role in neutering that Tomcat.

 

[F-14D]

With these engine problems I am even more baffled why the option on the TF41/Spey wasn't looked at further especially with 17,500/27,000lb available in this timeframe (and an option of 28,000lb reheat on customer requirements - RR option from 71). Considering the reliability record the Spey derivitives had created (not least with the A-7) would have been an interesting fit and even better fuel economy and improved servicing was on the cards from what I have read. The British Phantoms with these engines would have been very interesting indeed.

While the thrust levels were improved over the TF-30, the TF-41 had its own issues, both with maintenance and reliability.

The notional Advanced Technology Engine that the F-14 designed around had to meet other requirements besides just increased thrust (unrestricted throttle movement, rapid response, function at high angle of attack, improve reliability, etc.). I doubt if the TF41/Spey could have met those, and if it couldn't what would be the point of moving to it? Come to think of it, the F100 didn't meet those requirements until it was faced with competition from the F110. Also, the TF41/Spey was still pretty much a "paper" engine. The TF41 was excellent in the A-7, but that was also a much less demanding role.

The Navy didn't have the money anyway, and if they did, they'd rather have put the money into something that would give them what the gov't originally promised. They finally got it with the arrival of the F110.

Also, the Navy watched what happened in the UK with the Spey on the F-4. The Spey Phantom was a disappointment, and in retrospect many concede that doing it was a mistake, given its performance vs. its cost. The USN probably saw no reason to spend all the money, even if they could have gotten it, on a similar experiment.

The F401 was cancelled due to a crusade led by Rep. Les Aspin to kill the F401 engine (it didn't help that just after he started this crusade two F401's came back from the test cells in bushel baskets - in one case, there was a manufacturing problem in a second-stage tubrine disk that wasn't caught; the other was a new vibratory mode that was dealt with by re-design for both the F100 and the F401)> I have to assume, given their lack of fight for it, that the USN had lost fiath in the F401. Mind you, Aspin's cry that'The TF30 is good enough!" was manifestly in error as was proved later in the 1970s. Of course, when he later said, "The Navy bought a Turkey, not a Tomcat!", he did not own up to his role in neutering that Tomcat.

The reason the Navy lost faith was that people like the senator mentioned above were trying to kill the Tomcat, and Navy didn't want to take on a separate fight over the engine. Since the plane would work with the TF30 (although nowhere nearly as well) they decided to marshal their strength around saving the plane and hope that later they could take care of the engine. At that time, they didn't realize how bad the TF30 was. A major, major additional factor was in my Sept 16, 2009 post replying to your post of earlier that same day. I also went into this issue in greater detail here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4927.msg39836.html#msg39836

 

[TinWing]

With these engine problems I am even more baffled why the option on the TF41/Spey wasn't looked at further especially with 17,500/27,000lb available in this timeframe (and an option of 28,000lb reheat on customer requirements - RR option from 71). Considering the reliability record the Spey derivitives had created (not least with the A-7) would have been an interesting fit and even better fuel economy and improved servicing was on the cards from what I have read. The British Phantoms with these engines would have been very interesting indeed.

While the thrust levels were improved over the TF-30, the TF-41 had its own issues, both with maintenance and reliability.

The notional Advanced Technology Engine that the F-14 designed around had to meet other requirements besides just increased thrust (unrestricted throttle movement, rapid response, function at high angle of attack, improve reliability, etc.). I doubt if the TF41/Spey could have met those, and if it couldn't what would be the point of moving to it? Come to think of it, the F100 didn't meet those requirements until it was faced with competition from the F110. Also, the TF41/Spey was still pretty much a "paper" engine. The TF41 was excellent in the A-7, but that was also a much less demanding role.

The Navy didn't have the money anyway, and if they did, they'd rather have put the money into something that would give them what the gov't originally promised. They finally got it with the arrival of the F110.

Also, the Navy watched what happened in the UK with the Spey on the F-4. The Spey Phantom was a disappointment, and in retrospect many concede that doing it was a mistake, given its performance vs. its cost. The USN probably saw no reason to spend all the money, even if they could have gotten it, on a similar experiment.

The F401 was cancelled due to a crusade led by Rep. Les Aspin to kill the F401 engine (it didn't help that just after he started this crusade two F401's came back from the test cells in bushel baskets - in one case, there was a manufacturing problem in a second-stage tubrine disk that wasn't caught; the other was a new vibratory mode that was dealt with by re-design for both the F100 and the F401)> I have to assume, given their lack of fight for it, that the USN had lost fiath in the F401. Mind you, Aspin's cry that'The TF30 is good enough!" was manifestly in error as was proved later in the 1970s. Of course, when he later said, "The Navy bought a Turkey, not a Tomcat!", he did not own up to his role in neutering that Tomcat.

My own personal take on the F401 is that it came too late to survive the budget ax. Despite all of its early woes, the F100 was too far along to kill, but the derivative F401 was an easy target. Personally, I'm inclined to say that USN made a mistake by insisting on a slightly higher bypass ratio derivative of the USAF F100, despite the obvious advantages in range and loitering performance. The F401 was just different enough from the vanilla F100 to create additional development costs, risk and delays on top of the early issues associated with the F100. Perhaps a marinized, minimum change F100 would have survived the scrutiny Rep. Aspin? Of course, the decreased endurance of a F100 powered F-14 might have tipped the scales against the entire program?

Of course, the real issue was the high unit cost of the F401 in comparison to the TF30. Even the F100 was substantially more expensive than the TF30.

 

[F-14D]

With these engine problems I am even more baffled why the option on the TF41/Spey wasn't looked at further especially with 17,500/27,000lb available in this timeframe (and an option of 28,000lb reheat on customer requirements - RR option from 71). Considering the reliability record the Spey derivitives had created (not least with the A-7) would have been an interesting fit and even better fuel economy and improved servicing was on the cards from what I have read. The British Phantoms with these engines would have been very interesting indeed.

While the thrust levels were improved over the TF-30, the TF-41 had its own issues, both with maintenance and reliability.

The notional Advanced Technology Engine that the F-14 designed around had to meet other requirements besides just increased thrust (unrestricted throttle movement, rapid response, function at high angle of attack, improve reliability, etc.). I doubt if the TF41/Spey could have met those, and if it couldn't what would be the point of moving to it? Come to think of it, the F100 didn't meet those requirements until it was faced with competition from the F110. Also, the TF41/Spey was still pretty much a "paper" engine. The TF41 was excellent in the A-7, but that was also a much less demanding role.

The Navy didn't have the money anyway, and if they did, they'd rather have put the money into something that would give them what the gov't originally promised. They finally got it with the arrival of the F110.

Also, the Navy watched what happened in the UK with the Spey on the F-4. The Spey Phantom was a disappointment, and in retrospect many concede that doing it was a mistake, given its performance vs. its cost. The USN probably saw no reason to spend all the money, even if they could have gotten it, on a similar experiment.

The F401 was cancelled due to a crusade led by Rep. Les Aspin to kill the F401 engine (it didn't help that just after he started this crusade two F401's came back from the test cells in bushel baskets - in one case, there was a manufacturing problem in a second-stage tubrine disk that wasn't caught; the other was a new vibratory mode that was dealt with by re-design for both the F100 and the F401)> I have to assume, given their lack of fight for it, that the USN had lost fiath in the F401. Mind you, Aspin's cry that'The TF30 is good enough!" was manifestly in error as was proved later in the 1970s. Of course, when he later said, "The Navy bought a Turkey, not a Tomcat!", he did not own up to his role in neutering that Tomcat.

My own personal take on the F401 is that it came too late to survive the budget ax. Despite all of its early woes, the F100 was too far along to kill, but the derivative F401 was an easy target. Personally, I'm inclined to say that USN made a mistake by insisting on a slightly higher bypass ratio derivative of the USAF F100, despite the obvious advantages in range and loitering performance. The F401 was just different enough from the vanilla F100 to create additional development costs, risk and delays on top of the early issues associated with the F100. Perhaps a marinized, minimum change F100 would have survived the scrutiny Rep. Aspin? Of course, the decreased endurance of a F100 powered F-14 might have tipped the scales against the entire program?

Of course, the real issue was the high unit cost of the F401 in comparison to the TF30. Even the F100 was substantially more expensive than the TF30.

The thing to remember is that the TF30 was never considered an adequate engine for the F-14, it was only meant to power the first 13-69 aircraft (some of which would be re-engined). The F401 was not a derivative of the F100. Rather, it and the F100 used the common core developed as part of the Advanced Technology Engine program, and the F100 and F401 were derivatives of that, tailored for the services' individual needs. The F100 actually was not that much more reliable than the F401. The thing is, the F-14 could survive without the F401, until something better came along, but the F-15 could not survive without the F100, so USAF was going to do whatever it took to insure that the latter engine survived. Not wanting to toot my own horn too much, but also not wishing to retype (for me a major exercise), but I again refer the folks to my post http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4927.msg39836.html#msg39836
which goes into detail about how USAF "adjusted" the results of F100 testing, and how USN would have been forced to foot a big bill to get a workable F401. Remember, also, anything that hurt the F-14 was not necessarily a bad thing in USAF eyes.

F100 was not really a worthwhile choice for USN. Aside from not meeting the loiter, marinization (which is a complex process if not designed in from the start) and low speed thrust requirements, it only offered 1,100 lbs. more max thrust than the TF30, and its reliability was not all that good. F100 didn't get good until years later when it was faced with competition from the F110. So, it didn't make sense for USN, if it couldn't get F401, to spend a boatload of money and risk the whole F-14 program on an engine that wouldn't do that much for them.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Greetings All -

Here's the SAC for the Model 225A pulled from the Performance volume of the proposal.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[AeroFranz]

nice present Thanks!

 

[Machdiamond]

Ooooh yes Mark, that is the kind of document that I really like
Many thanks,
--Luc

 

[Talos]

Greetings All -

Here's the SAC for the Model 225A pulled from the Performance volume of the proposal.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Oh, that's just what I needed for the profile drawings I'm doing for the VFX birds. Thanks! It confirms my suspicions regarding the stations and armament of the 225A, with a couple surprises (podded 20mm, centerline fuel tank, and the Phoenix layout). Do you have any other VFX documentation like that for the proposals, particularly for NR-323, the North American/Rockwell one?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Mark wanted to post the Model 225A Performance Report here, enjoy it.

 

[AeroFranz]

I've got to stop posting my thanks. Mark, automatically assume a big thumbs up anytime you post anything!

 

[The Artist]

Two shots that I took today of a pair of 225 models that I'm told were used for deck spotting. These are in the collection of the Greater St. Louis Air & Space Museum along with the large design and structure model of the Model 225.

I'm posting just this tease shot of the structure model now. I have 32 additional shots that are detail shots and I'm not sure if I should launch a flood.

There is some overlap in these shots but the differences in the angles may offer different information to each viewer. Some were taken by holding the camera way over my head and guessing at the aim. The shots are from above, below and along side the model.

Should I launch a flood, of should I take detail requests and try to match a shot to the request?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Whatever you think best is fine. I have no problems with you posting them all

 

[The Artist]

I've looked them over and decided to post them all. Four batches of eight pictures.

Something to note for size comparison. The white sign in the lower center of the teaser image is a standard 8.5 by 11 inch sheet. Also, that dark thing to the left in pictures 11 and 12 is a horizontal stab from a Phantom II.

 

[The Artist]

Second batch.

 

[The Artist]

Third batch.

 

[The Artist]

Last batch.

 

[shockonlip]

Thanks guys for these GREAT McDonnell 225 design photos!

Beautiful design !!