Can anyone provide details of:

uk 75 · January 16, 2004, 04:40:26 AM

Seeing the excellent scans of aircraft projects from various sources could I put in a request for some info, which I have so far not been able to find in any British magazines:

The A9 and A10 were the winners of the AX competition. Does anyone have pictures/drawings of any of the other competitors.

The B1 won the competition to find a replacement for the B52/B70. Did any companies apart from Rockwell?

VSTOL Grumman Mohawk?

Ralph

retro_seventies · January 16, 2004, 03:56:32 PM

found this re: the AX...

"Northrop Co. flying demonstrator ... represents the company's concept for the Air Force AX close-support aircraft design competition. Pusher system eliminates torque problems found in single-engine puller designs, Northrop believes." (1968 Aviation Week via Ron Dupas)

some more:

"The need for a Close Air Support and ground attack aircraft designed specifically for those roles was apparent and in the spring of 1970, the AX System Program Office (SPO) was established at the Aeronautical Systems Division at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. On May 8th, 1970, the AX SPO issued a request for proposal (RFP) to 12 aircraft manufacturers. Six of the 12 companies given the RFP responded with proposals: Boeing, Cessna, Fairchild Hiller, General Dynamics, Lockheed and Northrop. On 18 December 1970, the Northrop and Fairchild Hiller entries were selected for prototype construction. The USAF intended to test the prototype aircraft in a "Fly Before Buy" competition"

so the proposals we know about are the northrop a-9 and the fairchild a-10...what of cessna, general dynamics, lockheed and boeing? i'll let you know if i dig anything up...

all the best,

ben

elmayerle · January 16, 2004, 06:55:22 PM

I've been told that Cessna's proposal resembled nothing so much as a flying flat iron with straight wings and tail. The Kansas Aviation Museum in Wichita Kansas might very likely have any info on it that was still extant.

Tophe · January 16, 2004, 07:59:23 PM

Problem : on the Web site of the Kansas Museum, the e-mail address seems outdated as the posts are rejected...

Tophe · January 16, 2004, 08:03:33 PM

QuotePusher system eliminates torque problems found in single-engine puller designs

Could you explain, dear Elmayerle ? I understand countro-roatating propellers do eliminate torque, but a single propeller has the same problem facing rear or facing front, I thought, no ?

elmayerle · January 16, 2004, 08:35:17 PM

Quote
QuotePusher system eliminates torque problems found in single-engine puller designs
Could you explain, dear Elmayerle ? I understand countro-roatating propellers do eliminate torque, but a single propeller has the same problem facing rear or facing front, I thought, no ?

Well...I'd certainly think that a single propeller, either in tractor or pusher position would still have a torque effect on the aircraft. What a pusher propeller will not have, though, is the effect of the propeller's slipstream over the fuselage and tail surfaces. In any case, I note that Northrop decided to go with a different approach to their final submission.

Tophe · January 16, 2004, 09:17:41 PM

Thanks Evan for the explanation.

I have checked my second-hand Jane's All the World Aircraft 1968-69 and 1969-70 and found nothing illustrated. But found many unbuilt projects I had forgotten like the one below, nice little Concorde...

elmayerle · January 16, 2004, 09:57:33 PM

QuoteThanks Evan for the explanation.
I have checked my second-hand Jane's All the World Aircraft 1968-69 and 1969-70 and found nothing illustrated. But found many unbuilt projects I had forgotten like the one below, nice little Concorde...

Yeah, though I suspect it was still subsonic. I would love to see the flow patterns around the fuselage from the engine nacelles aft; I rather suspect some "interesting" interferences.

Tophe · January 17, 2004, 08:43:29 AM

As usual : you are right, Evan, it was designed as subsonic. But so beautiful...

elmayerle · January 17, 2004, 06:02:45 PM

QuoteAs usual : you are right, Evan, it was designed as subsonic. But so beautiful...

Oh, I agree. It is quite an aesthetically appealing design. Though it never saw the light of day, let alone production. *Sigh* That seems to happen to a lot of Ed Swearingen's ideas; folks I know who've worked with him say he doesn't have a lot of patience with working out the details.

Shasper · January 18, 2004, 01:01:41 PM

I do know that the Cavalier A-51 & the Piper Enforcer versions of the P-51 were considered for A-X or as a part of a Hi-Lo AX mix.

Ves B)

retro_seventies · January 18, 2004, 07:16:18 PM

with the a-7 flying high?

Shasper · January 19, 2004, 06:13:51 PM

What I gathered was that the A-51/Enforcer was considered for *Lo*(stuff like COIN and FAC) while the A-9/A-10 wouldv'e been the *Hi* (CAS and battlefield Interdiction)

Ves

Tophe · January 20, 2004, 08:19:32 AM

Quotethe A-51/Enforcer was considered
Ves

A-51 Mustang Enforcer ?? I am interested... Could you confirm this code of P-51 derivative ? In my archives, the USAF XA-51 code had been given to Martin, for an Attack version of the XB-51. Could you tell me your source, I should check and correct... Thanks a lot, dear Ves !

elmayerle · January 20, 2004, 09:18:20 AM

Quote
Quotethe A-51/Enforcer was considered
Ves
A-51 Mustang Enforcer ?? I am interested... Could you confirm this code of P-51 derivative ? In my archives, the USAF XA-51 code had been given to Martin, for an Attack version of the XB-51. Could you tell me your source, I should check and correct... Thanks a lot, dear Ves !

As far as I know, the Enforcer never got a designation for the tests conducted by the US; googling it turns up data from the US Air Firce Museum showing that it never received a US designation. The only designation the Enforcer had was Piper's internal design number, PA-48.