NASA Technical Memorandum 85938

V/STOL Concepts in the United

States-- Past, Present, and
Future
W. P. Nelms
S. B. Anderson, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

NASA
National Aeronautics and
Space Adrninistrat_on

Ames Research Center

Moffett F_eld California 94035
 V/STOL CONCEPTS IN THE UNITED STATES
PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE

W. P. Nelms and S. B. Anderson

NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, California 94035, U.S.A.

SUMMARY

This lecture summarizes V/STOL aircraft developed in the United States and describes concepts considered
for future applications. The discussion is limited to non-helicopter types of vehicles. In particular, past
V/STOL aircraft will be reviewed, and some lessons learned from a selected number of concepts will be high-
lighted. The only current concept described is the AV-8B, which was developed by modifications to the British
Harrier. Configurations recently proposed for the future subsonic, multimission aircraft and the future super-
sonic fighter/attack aircraft will be described. Emphasis in the lecture will be on these supersonic concepts.

1. INTRODUCTION

In the history of aviation development, visions of vertical-takeoff and landing (VTOL) flight preceded
visions of fixed-wing operation. Leonardo da Vinci proposed a lift fan VTOL version in 1483- an idea that
would have to wait some 475 years to become reality. Even as the conventional aircraft's appearance and
successful development was paced by the requirement for a relatively lightweight power plant, the development
of the VTOL concept obviously needed a major breakthrough in the ratio of engine power to weight. VTOL capa-
bility has been achieved in the helicopter, but the additional desire for high-speed flight and maneuverability
resulted in a continued search for other approaches. The surge to achieve VTOL operation occurred soon after
World War II (WW II) when large thrust-to-weight jet and turboprop engines became available. Particularly in
the United States, a vast proliferation of VTOL concepts were designed and tested in the period following
WW II.

There were many reasons for the failure of some of these concepts to become operational, including a lack
of a requirement for VTOL operation, in addition to a need for further technological development. Although a
sharp cutback in VTOL flight articles occurred in the U.S. in the late '60s, studies have continued by the
Department of Defense (DOD) to weigh the cost effectiveness of various VTOL designs and to consider the impact
of the related aeronautical and propulsion disciplines that have improved over the years.

The intent of this lecture paper is to briefly review (in chronological order) some of the past VTOL con-
cepts in the United States (non-rotorcraft) and to summarize the lessons learned, either good or bad. Hope-
fully, some of these lessons learned will influence present and future concepts developed in the U.S. The
prospect of accomplishing this will be left for the reader to ponder, as the paper continues with a description
of the present (AV-8B) and proposed concepts.

2. PAST CONCEPTS

Although only a small measure of operational utility has resulted from the large number of VTOL concepts
developed and tested in the post-WW II period, valuable information was obtained from these programs which can
help guide the design of future vehicles. In contrast to the European approach, which used jet-lift exclu-
sively for the vertical thrust mechanism, a wide variety of lifting principles were examined in the U.S. In
part this was due to the differing mission requirements specified by the Air Force, Army, and Navy, and also
due to a "flight research" attitude which prevailed on the DOD/NASA ad hoc advisory committees. For this
paper, only those vehicles which achieved some form of flight evaluation are discussed; unfortunately, this
results in the exclusion of some interesting concepts such as the XFV-12A. The material presented herein is
taken from Refs. 1 and 2, which give additional details on the aircraft presented here as well as a description
of additional concepts.

2.1 Tail Sitters

In the late 1940s, a U.S. Navy program to permit VTOL operation from small ship platforms spawned several
tail-sitter designs; i.e., the vertical attitude takeoff and landing (VATOL) aircraft concepts. Two were
turboprops, the Lockheed XFV-I (Fig. 1) and the Convair XFY-1 (Fig. 2), and the other the jet-powered Ryan X-13.
Of the turboprop types, the Convair XFY-1 achieved a more complete VTOL operational evaluation; the Lockheed
XFV-1 highly tapered, straight-wlng design made the transition to vertical flight only at altitude, using a
jury-rigged, landing-gear cradle for conventional takeoff and landings.

The Convair XFY-I, which had a delta wing planform and was powered by an Allison YT40A-14 turboprop, made
its first vertical flight in August 1954; six transitions to conventional flight were successfully completed
before testing was curtailed because of engine and gear-box reliability problems.

In retrospect, the XFY-1 and the other VATOL concepts had some serious fundamental limitations which were
not fully appreciated in the early years of VTOL aircraft testing. Foremost among the deficiencies was the
lack of STOL operational capability which could improve the poor payload and range capabilities of these air-
craft. The benefits to be gained from STOL capability were not recognized during the early development of
these VTOL concepts. Although dispensing with a conventional landing gear improved the empty weight fraction
for these VATOL aircraft, some form of gear was required on the vertical and horizontal tail surfaces. Not
only were these landing gears limited to relatively low allowable sink rates, but as can be appreciated from
the photograph of the Lockheed XFV-1 (Fig. 1), tip-over tendencies were a constant worry in gusty air and on
uneven ground, particularly with the propellers turning. Another problem was the pilot skill required to
operate these tail-sitter designs in landing approach and touchdown because of (1) the unusual spatial orien-
tation where the pilot looked over his shoulder and down, (2) the sensitivity to atmospheric turbulence, and
(3) reduced control power near touchdown. The precision of flightpath control offered by these concepts was,
needless
to say,lessthandesired.In addition,hovering overa givenspotandtouching down precisely was
extremely
difficult.
Althoughverticaltakeoffend transition to conventional flight was easily carried out, the transition
from conventional flight to landing approach utilized by the Convair XFY°I was somewhat unorthodox in that a
zoom climb was made to achieve a vertical attitude for the descent and to reduce airspeed (altitude gain of
about 3,000 ft).

The only jet VATOL, the Ryan X°13 Vertijet, which first flow in May 1956 (Fig. 3), was more successful,
completing over 120 flights. It used a high-wing, delta planform and was powered by a Rolls-Royce Avon turbo-
jet. In part because of the concern for operating the turbojet engine close to the ground, the X-13 was flown
from an elevated position on a vertical platform. Although it had deficiencies similar to those of the
Convair XFY-1 from the standpoint of the lack of STOL capability for increased payload and range, as well as
some limitations in precise flightpath control in approach and hookup, the aircraft satisfactorily demon-
strated the potential for VATOL operation from a portable landing pad. These tests were carried out in spite
of an undesirably large positive dihedral effect (particularly at high angles of attack), and heavy buffet in
transitioning from conventional to low-speed flight as the wing operated through the stall angle-of-attack
range.

On the positive side, no hot-gas ingestion or aerodynamic suck-down were evident and the high-speed per-
formance potential was not compromised by the VTOL features of these designs.

2.2 Bell Air Test Vehicle and X-14 Aircraft

The Bell Air Test Vehicle (ATV) (Fig. 4) was a proof-of-concept vehicle and the first jet VTOL aircraft
to fly in the United States (1953). Using a high wing with a "T" tail layout, and powered by two Fairchild
J-44 turbojet engines and a separate Poulouste compressor for reaction-control jets, the ATV was flown from a
platform to reduce exhaust ingestion effects. Although it never made the transition to conventional flight, it
effectively demonstrated that this VTOL design could indeed be flown at low airspeeds using a simple reaction
control system with no stabilization augmentation system (SAS). As a result, work proceeded on the design
and development of the Bell X°14 vehicle, which had a much broader flight envelope.

The X-14 (Fig. 5) used Beech Bonanza wings, engine bleed air nozzles at the aircraft extremities for
hover control, and Bristol Siddeley Viper turbojet engines with cascade thrust diverters. It first hovered
in February 1957 and transitioned in May 1958. This configuration clearly demonstrated the detrimental effects
of engine gyroscopic cross-coupling, aerodynamic suck-down, and hot-gas ingestion in hover operations. No
STOL performance potential (favorable lift-induced flow)'was possible with the type of cascade thrust-
deflection system used. Partially vectored thrust caused undesirable random flow which seriously affected
precision of low-speed flightpath control. Because of this, the thrust could not be rapidly vectored from
forward acceleration to a partial vectored position for STO operation, as is done for the Harrier.

It is of interest to note that in spite of a long, successful, trouble-free, flight operational history
(over 25 yr), the cascade-vector principle used on the X-14 has not been used in any subsequent U.S. VTOL
designs; however, the Russian experimental YAK-36 ("Free-hand") used a similar VTOL principle.

2.3 Bell XV-3 Tilt Rotor

The XV-3 tilt-rotor aircraft (Fig. 6) transitioned in December 1958, with a two-bladed rotor system. It
was powered by a single piston engine in the fuselage. It had a positive aerodynamic ground effect, but
could not hover out of ground effect. The XV-3, tested extensively at NASA Ames Research Center, disclosed
that the design had good STOL performance capability by virtue of favorable induced flow effects, rapid tran-
sition with only small trim changes, and a wide speed and angle-of-attack corridor.

Maximum speed was limited by a pitch and yaw dynamic instability associated with destabilizing side forces
on the rotor blade which was forward of the center of gravity. This was aggravated as blade angle was
increased for high-speed operation. This instability could have been reduced by stability augmentation or a
larger tail volume or both.

In general, the performance and handling qualities of the XV-3 were favorable enough to warrant proceed-
ing to a more advanced (higher-performance) tilt-rotor vehicle (the XV-15, discussed later).

2.4 Ryan VZ3-RY Deflected Slipstream

The VZ3-RY (Fig. 7) was one of the more successful fixed-wing designs employing the deflected slipstream
principle for high lift. Powered by a Lycoming T-53-L-1 turboshaft engine, it first flew in December 1958,
with large (40% chord) double-slotted flaps and a hot-exhaust nozzle for pitch and yaw control. The VZ3-RY
clearly demonstrated good STOL performance; however, hover capability was limited by ineffective turning of
the slipstream, recirculation, and random flow disturbances in ground effect (IGE). Improvements in low-speed
capability were obtained during tests at NASA Ames Research Center by installing a full-span leading-edge slat.
Although this lift improvement allowed hovering out-of-ground-effect (OGE), slipstream recirculation precluded
making a true VTOL vehicle of this design. In addition, transition with this concept required precise pilot
techniques because of static pitch instability at high CL, very large pitch trim changes with flap deflection
and engine power changes, and poor flightpath control in steep approaches as power was reduced to descend.

2.5 Boeing-Vertol VZ-2 Tilt Wing

The VZ-2 (Fig. 8) high-wing, "T" tail configuration first flew in August 1957, with the first transition
in July 1958. It was powered by a Lycoming YT53-L-1 turboshaft engine with cross-shafting between the two
propellers. The VZ-2 successfully demonstrated the good STOL performance potential of the tilt-wing concept.
Because of low pitch-control power and no SAS to aid the low inherent pitch damping, hover operations had to be
restricted to calm air conditions. Tests at NASA Langley Research Center disclosed the need to provide good
wing leading-edge stall protection during deceleration or descent when power was reduced. Transition to
 / -

wing-supported flight imposed nolimitations,lending confidence to proceed to high-performance tilt-wing

designs.
2.6 Doak VZ-4Ducted Fan T_

TheVZ-4(Fig.9), a low-wing conventional planform, first flewin February 1958, powered bya Lycoming
YT53 turboshaft engine withcross-shafting to tilting ductsat each wingtip. Thisconfiguration suffered
fromlowinherent controlpower about all axes,sensitivityto ground-effect disturbances, largesideforces
associated withthelargeducts,anda large(positive)dihedral effectwhichrestrictedoperation to calm-air
conditions andnocrosswinds. NolargeSTOL performance gainwasevident withthis design.Transition to
conventional flight couldbemade rapidly(17sec);however, largenose-up trimchanges required carefulspeed
andduct-angle programming. Thedeceleration and/or descent corridorwasrestrictedbyduct-lipstall as
power wasreduced. Although this aircraftwaslimitedin low-speed andhover capability,it indicated the
feasibilityaswellastheinherent problems of thetilt-ductconcept whichhelped theX-22design which
followed andis described later.
2.7 Lockheed XV-4A Augmentor Concept
TheXV-4A (Hummingbird) (Fig.10)made its first conventional flight in July1962 andfirst transition
in November 1963.TheXV-4A wasa 7,200-Ib, two-seat, twin-engine (JT-12 turbojet)vehiclewhichused the
engine exhaust directedintoanaugmentor jet ejectorsystem contained in thefuselage to provide increased
verticallift. Jet(bleed-air) reaction nozzles onthreeaxes wereused for hover control.Good low-and
high-speed performance potentialexistedforthis concept (estimated 530mph), because theverticallift capa-
bility wascompletely enclosed in thefuselage andfull engine thrustwasavailable for conventional flight.
STOL performance waspoor,however, because of thelargeramdragassociated withturningtheairflowthrough
theaugmentation system andthelackof favorable flowoverthewinginduced bytheaugmentor exhaust to
increase lift. Hover performance wascompromised byinadequate augmentor efficiency,aerodynamic suck-down
(approximately 5%),andhot-gas ingestion.Theaircrafttrimpositionin hover wasnose-up, whichincreased
thepossibilityof hot-gas ingestion asforward speed wasincreased. Flowmixingin theaugmentor reduced gas
temperature from1,200°F at theengine exit to 300°F at theaugmentor exit. Animportant lesson waslearned
duringtransitionattempts in which a strongpitch-up wasencountered at 60knots.Anunusual operational
procedure wasused to getthrough this critical speed range; engine power wasreduced when thepitch-up
occurred andthenadded astheaircraftwasin thedynamic process of pitchingdown.Thisprocedure wastoo
difficult andtheaircraft(andpilot)werelost duringtransitionin June 1964.
2.8 Ryan XV-5A andXV-5B Fan-in-Wing
TheRyan XV-5 VTOL design (Fig.11)wasa 9,200-Ib twin-engine, tri-fan, turbojet-powered research air-
craft; it hovered in June1964 andfirst transitioned in November 1964.Two fansin thewingsanda third in
theforward fuselage for pitchcontrolprovided verticallift. Thisvehiclehadmany successful flights
because of extensive ground andfull-scalewind-tunnel testprograms thatpinpointed potentialproblem areas
before flight. Thelift-fan concept proved to berelativelyfreeof mechanical problems. Amoderate dihedral
effectandlowroll-controlpower limitedcrosswind operation to 12-15 knots.Although positiveaerodynamic
lift wasinherent in this design (favorable fountain effect),hot-gas ingestion fromtheexhaust of thetip-
turbinefandrivedegraded lift-off thrustbyasmuch as15% until a wheel heightof 10ft wasattained.
Operational techniques tominimize ground effectsincluded lifting off in a slightlynose-high attitude,
keeping thetail to thewind,andgaining heightasrapidlyaspossible.Forseveral reasons STOL performance
wasextremely poor:(1) largeramdragof thethreefans,(2) lowhorizontal acceleration because of limited
turningof exhaust flow(maximum fan-thrust angle was45°),and(3) lowthrust-vector rotationrate. The
transitioncorridorwasmarginally adequate because of limitedforward thrustandtheneed to abruptly increase
angleof attack(about 12°) to gainaerodynamic lift when thewingfandoors wereclosed.Because of a
strongnose-up forcewithwingfanstart-up,a largereduction in angleof attackwasrequired byelevator
input. This,together withfanoverspeed tendencies, increased conversion difficulties. Low-speed stall char-
acteristicsincluded a potentialdeep-stall problem. NASA testsof theXV-5B disclosed flightpathcontrol
problems duringsteep(upto 20°) decelerating approaches including thefollowing:(1)power management was
compromised bydualheight-control methods (lift spoilage or engine speed) (pilot prefers o_ne leverfor power
management), and(2)therewasa need to minimize aerodynamic lift because longitudinal staticstability
changed adversely asspeed decreased.
Thisconfiguration haslimitedhigh-speed potential because of therelativelythickwingsectionneeded
to house thelift fansandvectoring hardware.
Several lessons werelearned fromoperational demonstrations of theXV-5A. One demonstration involved a
largepitchtrimchange in converting fromconventional flight. Theaircraftwasobserved to pitchdown
abruptly fromlevelflight (about 45°) duringtransitionto powered-lift flight. (Thepilot ejectedjust
before ground contact butwaskilled.) Theaccident wasattributedto inadvertent selection of full nose-down
stabilizerpositionat toohighanairspeed.Another concern of this design wasthesusceptibility of the
fansto foreignobjectdamage when thevehiclehovered neartheground.
2.9 Ling-Tempco-Vought XC-142 Tilt Wing
TheXC-142 tilt-wing(Fig.12)used fourT64-GE-1 engines withcross-shafting to fourpropellers anda
tail propeller for pitchcontrol.Thefirst conventional flight wasmade in September 1964, thefirst hover
in December 1964, andtransitionin January 1965.Hover of theXC-142 wassatisfactory withnoadverse flow
upsets, and precise spot positioning was good. This configuration produced no adverse lateral-directional
characteristics in sideward flight to 25 knots. In slow forward flight, a long-period (20-sec) oscillation
was apparent which could lead to an uncontrollable pitch-up. On one occasion full-forward stick did not
arrest the pitch-up, whereupon the pilot reduced engine power, the nose fell through, and the aircraft was
extensively damaged in a hard landing. STOL performance was not as good as predicted, and low-speed con-
trollability was compromised IGE by several factors, including (I) severe recirculation of propeller slip-
stream for wing-tilt angles in the range 40 ° to 80 ° (speed range 30 to 60 knots), producing large-amplitude
lateral-directional upsets; (2) weak positive, neutral, and negative static longitudinal stability with speed
changes; and (3) low directional control power. The transition corridor was satisfactory, with ample
acceleration/deceleration capabilities. Higher drag inherent in the configuration geometry resulted in poor
cruise performance.

Many successful demonstration flights were made with the XC-142, some directed at commercial applications;
however, the complexity of the design and the deficiencies noted would have made FAA certification difficult.
A failure of the drive shaft to the tail propeller (pitch control) in low-speed flight caused a fatal crash
which curtailed further development.

2.10 Curtiss Wright X-19A Tilt Prop

The six-passenger X-19A aircraft (Fig. 13) had twin intershafted engines, a tandem high wing, and four
tilting, large-chord propellers. These were designed to develop large radial (lift) forces in conventional
flight, thereby reducing wing-area requirements and subsequent drag. The first hover flight was made in
November 1963. Transition tests progressed to about 120 knots, but the aircraft never completed transition.
Poor mechanical control system characteristics, not peculiar to the concept, severely penalized low-speed oper-
ation and made precision hover impossible. Upsets caused by random-flow IGE further increased pilot workload
in hover. A positive ground effect was observed up to wheel heights of 4 to 5 ft. Low downwash velocities and
lack of hot-gas ingestion were favorable features of this design. Control and height coupling was a problem,
in part because of sluggish height-control response (engine rpm was varied instead of collective prop pitch).
A pilot induced oscillation (PIO} tendency in height control was encountered as a result of these character-
istics which were not concept-inherent. A moderately favorable STOL performance could be expected with this
configuration as well as good cruise performance because of the clean (low-drag) design. One prototype crashed
because of a fatigue failure of a gearbox mounting. This caused the left rear propeller to separate from the
aircraft during transition tests. This exemplified an inherent deficiency of this VTOL (lift) arrangement:
to safely transmit power to the extremities of the planform, very strong (and fatigue-resistant) structures
must be incorporated with an obvious weight penalty.

2.11 Bell X-22A Ducted Fan

This tandem-wing ducted-fan/propeller X-22A aircraft (Fig. 14) was powered by four GE T-58 turboshaft
engines in the rear fuselage interconnected to the ducted fans such that in the event of an engine failure the
remaining engines would drive all four fans. The first hover flight took place in March 1966, and transition
was completed in June 1967. Hover operation OGE in no wind was rated excellent, with no perceptible hot-gas
ingestion. A 12% positive thrust increase was generated IGE by the favorable fountain. Airframe shaking and
buffeting occurred at wheel heights up to about 15 ft, and cross-wind effects were quite noticeable because of
large side forces generated by the ducts. Vertical cross-wind landings required an excessive bank angle to
avoid lateral drift. STOL performance was rated good by virtue of the increased duct-lifting forces. High-
speed performance was limited by inherent high drag associated with the four large ducts. Transition to con-
ventional flight could be made easily because of a wide transition corridor; however, inherent damping was
low. Deceleration and descent at low engine powers caused undesirable duct "buzz" as a result of flow separa-
tion on the lower duct lips. Vortex generators appreciably improved this flow-separation problem.

2.12 Bell XV-15 Advanced Tilt Rotor

The Bell XV-15 research aircraft (Fig. 15), a modern version of the XV-3, is powered by two Lycoming
LTC IK-4K engines rated at 1800 shaft hp each. This aircraft first hovered in May 1977. Two interconnected
25-ft-diameter three-bladed rotors are used with a blade twist of 45 ° from root to tip. Hover characteristics
are similar to those of other tandem-rotor helicopter configurations in that wind direction changes rotor
span-loading, affecting hover precision. The concept has a large hover envelope (30 knots sideward and
30 knots rearward) with no handling-qualities limitations. There is an unsteadiness when hovering close to
the ground which disappears above a wheel height of 6-12 ft. Transition to conventional flight is easily
accomplished with this concept because of a wide speed corridor, a large reduction in power required for level
flight, and good (0.4 g) acceleration capability. Trim changes are small, and stability and damping are ade-
quate to minimize unwanted flightpath excursions.

In conventional flight, a unique aircraft longitudinal response (which has been called "chugging") occurs
in gusty air; it is attributed to gust-induced angle-of-attack changes on the propeller blade. No undesirable
limits in stability or damping (which restricted high-speed flight in the XV-3 aircraft) have appeared to
speeds of 300 mph. Stalling behavior in conventional flight is mild, with ample warning and no roll-off. In
the event of an engine failure, the aircraft can be either landed at low speeds with the propellers windmilling
or brought to a hover-type landing in an autorotative mode. One-engine-out hover performance is not possible
with the power currently available. Reconversion characteristics permit slow or fast decelerations with
adequate descent rates and a wide speed corridor. A variable tilt rate for the rotors would appear to enhance
operational flexibility.

This design shows the best potential for combining good hover performance with reasonable cruise effi-
ciency. It remains to be seen if the relatively complex propulsive system can achieve a low-cost maintenance
record and high reliability.

2.13 Lessons Learned

An overview of the development of a wide variety of V/STOL concepts has served to identify several prob]em
areas which, when considered collectively, make it easier to understand why no fixed-wing commercial V/STOL
design exists today, and why only one type has achieved military operational status.

Foremost among the reasons for lack of acceptance were poor handling qualities, some unexpected and some
ignored in the design stage. Deficiencies in handling qualities were serious enough to cause the loss of
several aircraft and pilots. The dominating factors were the inadequate control power to trim out the moments
associated with power-induced effects, ground-effect disturbances, and changes in power, flap setting and
speed. Flightpath control in landing approach was less than desired, particularly for the VATOLs and tilt-
wing vehicles with power reduced for steep descents.
 i £

Theneed for some degree of SASfor all lift concepts in hover andlow-speed flight wasapparent for
safelycarrying outevensimple operational tasks,particularly in turbulence. Formany types,VFR operation
wasmarginal andIFRcapabilityimpossible because of lowinherent stabilityanddamping.
Marginal performance restrictedoperational evaluations for many V/STOL concepts. Somevehicles exhibited
marginalperformance in transitionto conventional flight. Theneed for goodSTOL performance,a virtuenot
sharedbymany of thevehicles, wasnotappreciated at theonset.V/STOL aircraftthateffectivelyutilize
propulsion-inducedflowto augment aerodynamic lift have thebestchance to betruly competitive. Severalof
theaircraftlacked good low-andhigh-speed compatibility in thatthefeatures thatprovided VTOL capability
severelycompromised high-speed performance.
Most of theaircraftsuffered in several ways fromground effects. Reingestion of engineexhaust lowered
takeoffthrust,andexhaust floweffectsresultedin aerodynamic suck-down for most jet-poweredconcepts.
Grounderosion wasamajorprob3em for all turbojetoperations. Noise fromtheturbojetengines wasamajor
deficiencyfor com_rcial operation.Recirculation of thepropeller slipstream resulted in performancedegra-
dationandstabilityandcontrolproblems for tilt-wingtypes.Thesignificance of theseground-effect prob-
lemswasnotappreciated at theaircraftdesign stageandthereis a continued need for betterprediction
techniques.

3. PRESENT CONCEPT
TheonlyV/STOL fighteraircraftcurrently in service in theUnited States(Marine Corps) is theAV-8A
Harrierdeveloped byBritishAerospace. Thisaircraftis described in another lecturein this series,soit
will notreceive attentionhere.Rather, thehigher-performance AV-8B HarrierII, developed byMcDonnell
Douglas andthemajorsubcontractor, BritishAerospace, will bereviewed. Since theconcept is wellknown, the
discussion will bebrief, focusing primarilyonthedifferences between theAV-8A andAV-SB. Atpresent, four
full-scaledevelopment AV-8Baircraftareflying,andproduction is under wayfor thefirst squadron of AV-8Bs,
scheduled to beoperational by1985.
Figures 16and17show theAV-8B aircraftin hover.Three viewsaregivenin Fig.18. Thepropulsion
system is a single21,500-1b-thrust, Rolls-Royce Pegasus 11turbofan engine withfourrotatingexhaust nozzles.
These rotatingnozzles directthrustverticallyfor VTOL or at intermediate angles for STOL operation.In
cruiseflight, thrustis directed to therear,andthrustvectoring canbeused to improve maneuverability
throughout theflight envelope. AircraftattitudecontrolduringV/STOL andhover is accomplished byreaction
controlslocated at thewingtips, thenose,andthetail. Acanonis available for air-to-ground or air-to-
air attack.Seven storestationsareavailable for a varietyof bombs, flarelaunchers, rocketpods, AIM-9
missiles,guided weapons, and/orexternal fuel.
Anumber of changes weremade to theAV-8A design to develop theAV-8B Harrier11. These aresummarized
in Fig.19together witha drawing showing theinteriorarrangement of theaircraft. Anumber of advanced
technologies havebeen incorporatedintotheAV-8B, andthesearesummarized in Fig.20. Ofnoteis thenew
winghaving a supercriticalairfoil for improved lift andcruisecharacteristics, plusgreater fuel capacity.
Graphite-epoxy/composite materialsareusedforthewing,ailerons,flaps,horizontal stabilator,rudder, and
outrigger fairings. Redesigned inletsandfuselage-mounted lift-improvement devices enable greaterlift for
verticalandshorttakeoffandfor more efficientcruise.Araisedcockpithasbeen incorporated to improve
visibility. Apositive-circulation, inboard flap is used to increase STOL capability andawingrootleading-
edgeextension to improve maneuverability.
4. FUTURE CONCEPTS
Thepastandpresent V/STOL aircraftwhichhave beendescribed arecharacterized byactualhardware. As
for thefutureconcepts, thedescriptions will bebased onextensive studies conducted bytheU.S.Government
andindustry.Insome cases, theconcepts described areseveral yearsoldandmany notnecessarily represent
thecurrentthinkingof theorganization involved.However, theconcepts represent thepossible applications
of various propulsive lift systems andaretherefore appropriateto include in this paper.
Two classes of futurevehicles will beconsidered. Thefirst is thesubsonic, multimission aircraft,some-
timesreferred to as"Type A,"buthereinreferred to asthemedium-speed concept.Thesecond is thesupersonic
fighter/attack aircraftwithtwinor singlecruiseengines.Thefighteraircraftwill begiventhemajor
attention in thepaper.
4.1 Medium-Speed Concepts
During thepastseveral years,thesubsonic, multimissionV/STOL aircrafthasreceived considerable atten-
tion in theUnitedStates,primarilyasa resultof theNavy's desireto develop aversatileaircraftto per-
formanumber of criticalmissions fromeitherlargeor smallsurface vessels.These missions includeASW,
AEW, COD, Tanker, SAR, Marine Assault,andMissileer. More recently,a V/STOL aircraftof this typeis of
interestto perform otherspecialized missions, suchasrapiddeployment of forcesandheavy lift logistic
transport.
Numerous V/STOL aircraftconcepts to fulfill theseroleshave beenstudied bytheU.S.Government and
industry.These concepts have included a number of approachesto thepropulsive lift system.Theconcepts
described arenotall-inclusive,butareintended to serveasexamples of theapplication of thevariouspro-
pulsivelift approaches. It should benoted thattheconcepts described represent thethinkingof thecontrac-
tor involved at thetimeof thestudyandmay not,in all cases, bethecurrently preferredconcept.
4.1.1 Boeing
In therecentpast,Boeing studied several approachesto themedium-speed concept.Two of theseare
brieflydescribed here.
 One concept features two tilting nacelles and a forward lift fan. An artist's rendering of this concept
is shown in Fig. 21. The two tilt-fan engines, with a pressure ratio of approximately 1.3, are used for both
hover and cruise flight. The nose-mounted lift fan is used for hover and transition only. The tilt engines
and nose fan are interconnected _y a mechanical system. Pitch and roll control in hover are provided by
differential collective fan blade pitch, and yaw control is provided by movable vanes in the fan efflux.

Another concept studied by Boeing features a blown flap system, (Fig. 2_). Two fixed-fan engines (pres-
sure ratio of about 1.15) are mounted on the wings. The exhaust is directed below the wing, and in hover is
directed downward by triple slotted trailing edge flaps. Also in hover half of the fan exhaust is directed
downward in front of the wing through "chin" nozzle ports (Fig. 22). In hover, roll control is achieved by
differential fan blade pitch, pitch control by angular change in the trailing-edge flaps and the chin exhaust
vanes, and yaw control by differential motion of the flaps and vanes.

4.1.2 General Dynamics

A medium-speed concept studied by General Dynamics, Fort Worth Division, features a powered lift system
referred to as ABLE (Advanced Blown Lift Enhancement). The heart of this system is a "lifting nacelle" inte-
grated into the wing that vectors the thrust of turbofan engines by using a series of movable flaps to make up
the nozzle as illustrated in Fig. 23. One flap forms the upper surface of the two-dimensional nozzle, and two
flaps form the lower surface. The upper flap has two slots. The upper forward slot forms the high-aspect-
ratio nozzle for the turbine engine exhaust, and the upper aft slot is a boundary layer control slot. The
intent is to energize the external boundary layer and thus maintain attached airflow over the "lifting
nacelles" to produce significant gains in STOL and transition performance and in aircraft controllability in
these modes of flight. In forward flight, the flaps are arranged as shown on the left in Fig. 23, and in
transition flight the flaps are deflected into intermediate positions as in the center of the figure. In
hover flight (right in Fig. 23) the lower aft flap becomes a part of the aft wall of a vertical-thrust nozzle.
The lower forward flap becomes the forward wall of the nozzle and provides a generous radius of the inside of
the turn to reduce separation.

This propulsive lift system has been used in a configuration (A-311) illustrated by the model in Fig. 24.
A three-view sketch is shown in Fig. 25, and the means of providing folding capability for a Navy configura-
tion is illustrated in Fig. 26. Reference 3 gives a more complete description of this concept.

Four turbofan engines are used in the lifting nacelles of configuration A-311. The fans are cross-shafted
together using bevel gears in the fan nose bullets for engine-out considerations. Two load compressors are
mounted between the inboard engines and the fuselage and are driven directly from the cross shaft. These
compressors provide co_ressed air to the pitch trim/control system in the aft fuselage. This compressed air
drives two air turbines which in turn drive two fans. The fan exhaust passes through dual nozzles which can
be aimed up or down using a movable deflection system. Roll control in hover is achieved by biasing the
thrust of the main engines either left or right through the cross shaft. Yaw control in hover is achieved by
differentially deflecting the main engine nozzle flaps fore and aft on opposite sides of the aircraft.

4.1.3 Grumman

A medium-speed concept studied extensively by Grumman features a tilt-nacelle arrangement for propulsive
lift. This concept (Design 698) is shown in Fig. 27, which depicts the various modes of flight from hover, to
transition, to cruise. In this concept, all V/STOL related equipment have been located within the engine
nacelles. Some of the features of the concept are noted in Fig. 28. Grumman has been working on the 698
concept since about 1976, and they have accumulated over 6000 hr in wind tunnels and on simulators.
References 4-15 describe these study and test activities.

Design 698 is a twin tilt-nacelle configuration controlled in vertical flight through horizontal and ver-
tical vanes located in the turbofan exhaust flow, supported by booms attached to each nacelle. In conventional
flight, control is provided by spoilers, an all-movable horizontal stabilizer, and a rudder. The large-scale
model of the 698 undergoing tests at NASA Ames uses two General Electric TF34-100 turbofan engines, which are
proposed also for the demonstrator aircraft.

As shown in Fig. 29, the control vane assembly behind each engine rotates with the nacelle and thereby
maintains its position in the engine's exhaust flow. Each vane assembly consists of one horizontal vane
crossed by a pair of vertical vanes. The horizontal vane of each assembly is outfitted with a 30% chord
antibalancing flap that is geared to move in opposition to the vane's deflection with a 1:1 ratio. The verti-
cal vanes are positioned to remain clear of the hottest region of the engine exhaust flow.

During vertical flight, the pitch of Design 698 is controlled by symmetrical deflection of the horizontal
vanes on the two control vane assemblies. Yaw is controlled by differential deflection of the two horizontal
vanes as depicted in Fig. 30. Deflection of the vertical vanes and differential operation of variable inlet
guide vanes in front of the two engines work together to provide roll control (Fig. 31). Differential opera-
tion of the variable inlet guide vanes amounts to differential thrust control of the two engines. Collective
variation of thrust is used to control height during vertical flight.

4.1.4 Lockheed

Lockheed has conducted studies of medium-speed V/STOL concepts for the past several years (Refs. 16-20).
In their current approach, a split-fan, fixed-nacelle concept is employed for propulsive lift and aircraft
control/trim during vertical/transition operation. This propulsion concept is shown schematically in Figs. 32
and 33, and is described in detail in Ref. 17. The nacelle internal arrangement is shown in Fig. 32, and an
example of the control concept is illustrated in Fig. 33. A cross duct and associated nacelle plenums provide
cross-flow capability from one nacelle to the other. Figure 32 shows twin engines installed in nacelles below
and integral with the wing. Each nacelle has two exhaust nozzles, a thrust-vectoring nozzle located aft of the
aircraft center of gravity and a fixed-position nozzle located forward of the aircraft center of gravity, each
having variable exit area. Airflow to the forward nozzles is supplied from a plenum located circumferentially
around the fan duct aft of the fan exit.
 During ground acceleration andcruiseoperation, theentireengine fanandcoreflowsaremixed and
exhausted horizontally through theaft nozzle.During verticaloperation theengine coreair anda portion
of thefanair exhausts verticallythrough theaft nozzle.Theremainder of thefanair is exhausted through
theforward nozzle.Themodulated split of fanair between theforeandaft nozzles is thatrequired to
maintain pitchtrim.
During verticalflight, pitchcontrolcanbeprovided bythenacelle foreandaft nozzles or byusing
fanbleedair fromthecrossducttoanaft fuselage-mounted nozzle(Fig.33). Yaw controlis provided by
differentialvectoring of thenacelle aft thrustdeflectors.Inaddition to these examples, Lockheed has
studied a number of options for controlof thesplit-fanconcept duringverticalflight (Ref.17). These
options includenacelle fanair transfer,fanbleedreaction control,compressor bleedreaction control,and
combinations of these.Thesystem selected will depend to a largedegree ontherange/payload mixfor the
mission under consideration.
Lockheed hasdeveloped a number of configurations featuring thesplit-fanpropulsive-lift concept.These
configurations areeithertwin-or four-engine designs.Ona four-engine configuration, sufficientcrossflow
canbeprovided duringanengine failureto maintain adequate lift, trim,andcontrolfor a safevertical
landing at reduced gross weight.Ona twin-engine design, thecrossflow should allowawings-level attitude
for crewejectionduringa single-engine failure. Figure 34shows threeviewsof a twin-engine design using
FI01engines withcross-duct coupling.Asimilarbutsomewhat smaller aircrafthasbeen configured usingtwo
TF34 engines.Three viewsof a four-engine design usingTF34 engines is shown in Fig.35. Intheirstudies,
Lockheed conducted anassessment of cross-shafting versus cross-ducting asameans of coupling multiengine
concepts. Thecross-ducting approach resulted in anappreciably higherusefulloadcapability(Ref.16).
4.1.5 McDonnell Douglas
Overthepast10yr or so,theMcDonnell AircraftCompany (MCAIR) hasconducted studies of medium-speed
V/STOL utility aircraft. Candidate concepts included gasandmechanically coupled lift-fan aircraft. Anumber
of theseconcepts were wind-tunnel-tested. Parallelto thislift-fan activity,MCAIR conducted theAV-8B
program andgained valuable experience in thedesign of vectored thrustconcepts. Thisexperience wasrecently
(1980) applied to thedesign of another medium-speed concept featuringa "two-poster" propulsive lift system.
All of theseconcepts arebrieflydescribed in thefollowing paragraphs.
Thefirst concept, proposed in 1973 for Navy consideration, wasa gas-driven aircraft(Model 260)utiliz-
ingathree-fan, lift pluslift/cruisepropulsion system.Figure 36is anartist's rendering of theMCAIR
gas-driven version of the260design.Thepropulsion andvertical-flight-control system areillustratedin
Fig.37. In this system, pitchandroll controlareaccomplished viaenergy transferbetween thefanassem-
blies,andyawcontrolis achieved through differentialthrustvectoring.Thrust vectoring of thelift/cruise
engines is provided bymeans of a MCAIR-developed vented "D"nozzle (Ref.21). Figure 38illustratesthe
characteristics of this nozzle in boththecruiseandVTOL modes. Thenozzle consists of movable deflector
hoods anda split yawvane/closure doorassembly attached toa singlesupport beam centrallylocated onthe
bottom of thenozzle structure.In thecruisemode, theyawvanedoors areclosed to forma flat bottom duct
anda "D"shaped exit area(Fig.38). Fortransitionto verticalflight, theclosure doors areeach rotated
90° to forma singlesplit-yaw vane.Longitudinal thrustvectoring is thenaccomplished byrotationof the
deflectorhood elements. Lateralvectoring is obtained bydeflection of thesplit-yaw vane.
The"D"nozzle utilizesa concept referredtoas"venting."Thisis accomplished byremoving theinside
wallof theelbow turnof a conventional deflectornozzle design, whichhasbeen shown to improve the90° vec-
toringperformance (Ref.22). Theperformance characteristics of the"D"vented nozzle wasdemonstrated in a
NASA Ames/MCAIR testprogram (1981) usinga TF34 engine.Theresultsarediscussed in Refs.22and23.
In1977 MCAIR proposed a mechanically drivenversion of theModel 260to theNavy.Thisconcept is shown
in Fig.39. Thebaseline aircraftfeatured alowwing,threeengines, anda mechanically driventhree-fan
arrangement. Thispropulsion andvertical-flight-control concept is illustratedin Fig.40. Thethirdengine,
mounted forward of theverticalfin, is used onlyduringV/STOL operation.All jet-borne aircraftcontrolis
provided bydifferentialoperation anddeflection of thepropulsion system, eliminating theneed for a separate
reaction-control system.All threefansandturboshaft engines areidentical,minimizing development andmain-
tenance costs.Lift/cruisethrustfromeach of thedirect-drive, wing-mounted fan/engine assemblies is pro-
videdviathe"D"vented nozzle.
In 1980 MCAIR initiateddefinitionof a twin-engine vectored-thrust concept witha simplerpropulsion
system thanthethree-fan Model 260concept.Thisconcept is designated Model 276andis depicted bythe
artist's rendering in Fig.41anddiscussed in Ref.24. TheModel 276is a highwingdesign withtwoshoulder
mounted highby-pass turbofan engines.Asshown in Fig.42,attitudecontrolin powered-lift flight is pro-
videdbyanengine-bleed reaction-control system in pitch,differentialthrustmodulation in roll, anddiffer-
entialthrustvectoring in yaw.Power transferbetween engines bymeans of crossshafting permits awiderange
of thrustmodulation for roll control,including engine-out balance capability.Atechnology demonstrator of
this concept usingtwo"D"vented nozzles andTF34 engines hasbeen defined.Mission performance characteris-
tics of theModel 276aircraftarediscussed in Ref.24.
4.1.6 Rockwell
During thestudies of "Type A"aircraft,oneof theconcepts developed byRockwell is a design that
employs lift-augmenting ejectors for thepropulsive lift system.Theejectors arelocated spanwise in thewir_g
asshown in theartist's concept in Fig.43. Thisfigureshows thefull-spanejectors openin thehover oper-
atingmode.Theejectors arepowered during verticalflight bytheflowfromthetwoturbofan propulsion
systems at thewingroots. Integrating theejectors intothewingasRockwell hasdonein this concept pro-
videsgood transitionandSTOL performance, sincetheexhaust flowsfromtheejectors actasa jet flapto
increase thecirculation lift of thewing.
Rockwell hasconsidered twovariations in thepropulsion system for this concept.Depending onthedesign
requirements, each nacelle contains eithera singlecorewitha fanor twocoreengines drivinga singlefan.
Thelatter propulsion arrangement allowsthelossof a coreengine withoutlossof theaircraft. Thisis
based onthephilosophy thatthemajorportionof engine failuresarecorerelatedratherthanassociated with
thefan.
Figure 44givesthreeviewsof theRockwell ejector-in-wing concept.Aninteresting featureof the
design is thetwinbooms whichsupport theverticaltails, thehorizontal tail, andtheaft reaction control
system (RCS) pitchpipes.Alsovisiblein thefigurearethetwinductsfor thetwocoreengines in each
nacelle located below thefaninlet.
Forpitchcontrolduringhover,Rockwell usesforward andaft pitchpipes.Rollcontrolcanbeprovided
bywing-tipRCS or bydifferentiallift fromtheejectors.Yaw controlis achieved bydirectingtheflowfrom
oneejectoraft andtheotherforward.During up-and-away flight, aileron-type controls areused,asare
rudders ontheverticaltails andanelevator onthehorizontal tail.
4.1.7 Vought
Forthepastseveral years,Vought hasstudied a medium-speed concept (V-530) thatfeatures a tandem-fan
propulsion system (Refs.25and26). Figure 45is anartist's rendering of anearlyV-530 configuration which
emerged fromstudiesin support of theNavy's "Type A"subsonic multimission V/STOL notional requirements.
Theaircraftis a highwingmonoplane withmoderate-aspect-ratio wingandwinglets,andwithtwoshoulder-
mounted engine nacelles.TheV/STOL propulsion system is essentially self-contained in thetwonacelles.
Each nacelle contains acoreengine, twofixed-pitch fanswithvariable-inlet guidevanes, andassociated
inletsandnozzles.
Figure 46illustratesthetandem-fan propulsion concept. Twofansona common shaftarelocated ahead of,
andaredirectlydrivenby,a turboshaft engine.Smallfandiameters resultingfromtheuseof twofansin
each nacelle permitdirectdrivebythecoreengine withnoreduction gearbetween engine andfans. Also,the
tandem placement of theserelativelysmallfansresultsin a smaller nacelle diameter andtherefore reduced
drag.Each fanhasits owninlet andnozzle, andflowthrough thetwofansis maintained separately at all
times.Theforward inlet supplies air to thefrontfan,whichhasa nozzle thatcanbevectored froma verti-
calpositionfor hover,to anintermediate positionfor transition,andto anaft positionfor cruise
(Fig.46). Theupperinlet feedsboththeaft fanandthecoreengine (which is supercharged bytheaft fan).
Thecoreandaft fanflowsaremixed anddischarged through theaft nozzle.Thisnozzle is alsovectorable
for VTOL andup-and-away flight.
Figure 47illustratesthepropulsion system arrangement in thetwonacelles andthecrossshafting between
thetwonacelles.Acommon fansizeis used in all fourfanapplications. Power is transferred fromthegas
turbinein onenacelle through thecrossshaftto thefansin theopposite nacelle to maintain thrustsymmetry
duringsingle-engine operation or to provide asymmetric thrustfor lateralcontrolduringhover.Variable-
inlet guidevanes oneachfanprovide thrustmodulation for pitchandroll control(Fig.48). Differential
deflection of theleft andrightnacelle nozzles provides yawcontrol.
Theforward two-dimensional nozzle usesa two-piece deflector for vectoring thrust(Fig.46). Variation
of nozzle areain cruiseis achieved witha smallflapmounted onthenacelle surface.Theaft two-dimensional
nozzle vectors mixed flowfromthecoreengine andaft fan. Thenozzle deflectoris hinged alongthelower
portionof thenacelle androtatesdownward for verticalflight. Arotatinglowerflapis used to achieve the
nozzle areasrequired for cruise.
Vought hasconducted a number of testsof thetandem-fan configuration andpropulsion system components
overthepastseveral years.These have included a seriesof inlet testswithNASA Lewis Research Center,
frontandrearnozzletests,powered model teststoevaluate ground effects,andlow-speed wind-tunnel tests.
References 25-33 describe some of theseactivities.
4.2 Supersonic FighterConcepts
TheV/STOL andshorttakeoffandverticallanding (STOVL) fighterconcepts described in this section were
developed in tworesearch programs jointly sponsored byNASA Ames Research Center, theNavy, andtheindustry.
TheNavy organizations thatparticipated weretheDavid TaylorNaval ShipResearch andDevelopment Center and
theNaval Air Systems Command. Thefirst research program considered twin-cruise-engine concepts andthe
second considered single-cruise-engine designs.Although many concepts have been proposed overtheyears,it
is felt thatthoseconsidered in thesetwoprograms represent a reasonable crosssection of thecurrent
thinkingin theUnited States.
Thekeyingredient in theresearch programs wasa contracted effortwiththefollowing objectives:
1. Identifyandanalyze a widevarietyof high-performance V/STOL concepts thathave potentialutility to
fulfill theNavy fighter/attack role.
2. Estimate theaerodynamic characteristics of theconfigurations andassess theaerodynamic uncertain-
ties requiring additional research.
3. Define awind-tunnel program, including model design andconstruction, to explore theseuncertainties
andprovide aninitial high-quality aerodynamic database for Navy, NASA, andindustry use.
Theinformation obtained in thefirst of theseobjectives will beemphasized in this paper.
Thestatement of workfor thiscontractor studywasjointly prepared bytheNavy andNASA Ames toempha-
sizeaerodynamic technology development ofV/STOL fighter/attack aircraft. These guidelines werenotintended
necessarily to reflectspecificfuturenavalaircraftperformance or operational requirements. Rather, the
intentwasto provide a limitedsetof guidelines sufficientto allowthecontractors to perform aconceptual
aircraftanalysis based upon theirdefinitionof amission andpayload.Thefollowingis a briefdescription
of theguidelines furnished in thestatement of work:
 i. Theconceptual aircraftanalysisis for a high-performance V/STOL concept withpotentialto fulfill
theNavy's fighter/attack
roleafter1995.
2. Theaircraftshallhave supersonicdash capability witha sustained Mach number capability of at
least1.6.
3. Theaircraftshallbeoperational fromlandandfromshipssmaller thanCVs withoutcatapults and
arrestinggear.Good shorttakeoff(STO) capabilityis a requirement.
4. Toassure highmaneuverperformance,theaircraftshallhave a sustained loadfactor(NZs) of at
least6.2at Mach number0.6,at analtitudeof 3048 m(10,000 ft) andat 88% VTOL grossweight.
5. Theaircraftshallhave a specificexcess power at 1G(PSIG) of 274m/sec (900ft/sec)atMach num-
ber0.9,at analtitudeof 3048 m(10,000 ft) andat 88% VTOL gross weight.
6. Thefollowing aircraftweightsareto beused asa guide:
Twinengine:VTOL grossweight=9072to 15,876 kg(20,000 to 35,000 Ib); STO sea-based gross
weight=VTOL grossweightplusapproximately 5,436kg(10,000 Ib).
Singleengine:VTOL grossweight= 6,800 to 13,000 kg (15,000 to 30,000 Ib); STO sea-based gross
weight = VTOL gross weight plus approximately 3,630 to 4,540 kg (8,000 to 10,000 Ib).

The following sections describe the twin- and single-engine fighter concepts studied in the contract
efforts. The concepts will be described under headings relating to the contractor involved.

4.2.1 Twin-Engine Concepts

Four contractors proposed twin-engine designs that are described in this section. The contractors were:
General Dynamics, Fort Worth Division, Fort Worth, Texas; Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Bethpage, New York;
Northrop Corporation, Aircraft Group, Hawthorne, California; and Vought Corporation, Dallas, Texas.

Three horizontal-attitude takeoff and landing (HATOL) and two VATOL concepts are described. Northrop
proposed two concepts, a HATOL and a VATOL design.

Typical mission profiles used by the contractors for aircraft sizing are outlined in Fig. 49. These are
only examples as the contractors had some variations in such things as payload, combat time, and best cruise
altitude and velocity (BCAV). All concepts are single-place aircraft with two cruise engines. Each configura-
tion is briefly described in the following sections, and a complete description of the concepts and the wind-
tunnel test activities is given in Refs. 34-50.

4.2.1.1 General Dynamics

The configuration proposed by General Dynamics (Refs. 34 and 35) is a wing-canard HATOL concept that has
Alperin jet-diffuser ejectors as its vertical lift system. The design also features a vectored-engine-over
(VEO) wing-integrated airframe/propulsion system to achieve good transonic maneuvering and STOL performance.
In this design, the full engine flow is directed over the wing aft surface to augment the aerodynamic lift
through a jet flap effect. At low speeds, this is combined with spanwise blowing, which utilizes a portion of
the engine exhaust at high angles of attack to produce leading-edge vortex augmentation. Figure 50 shows
three views of the concept, and Fig. 51 presents isometric sketches of the configuration, showing the four
ejector-diffuser bays closed for up-and-away forward flight and open for vertical flight.

Two Pratt and Whitney augmented-turbofan study engines are used. The ejector diffusers are located
between the fuselage and nacelles in the thick root section of the wings (Fig. 51). For vertical takeoff and
landing, the engine flow is diverted to the four ejector bays, where it is injected in both primary and
diffuser nozzles. Pitch control during vertical flight is accomplished by thrust modulation of the forward
and aft ejectors; yaw control is achieved by vectoring the ejector flow. Wing-tip reaction controls are used
for roll control. The ejector-diffuser nozzles and doors fold into the wing, nacelle, and fuselage to form a
smooth configuration for up-and-away flight (Fig. 51). An augmentation ratio of 1.70 (defined as the ratio of
total lift to isentropic thrust of the engines) is predicted for this concept at liftoff. A major advantage
of the ejector-diffuser lift system, of course, is its relatively cool footprint, which could be an important
factor for shipboard operation.

The VEO-wing feature has been studied by General Dynamics both in-house and under several Air Force con-
tracts. The engine flow exits above the wing surface (Fig. 50) through a two-dimensional convergent-divergent
exhaust nozzle operating in conjunction with the wing flap to provide vectored thrust for pitch control during
transition, improved STOL performance, and maneuver enhancement.

The configuration has a high-mounted variable-incidence canard, a low-mounted wing with trailing-edge
elevons/flaperons, and a single all-movable vertical tail. The air-induction system features two axisymmetric
inlets with aerodynamically operated blow-in doors for adequate flow during takeoff/landing and low-speed
flight.

For this study, General Dynamics sized the aircraft to a deck launch intercept (DLI) mission similar to
that in Fig. 49. The weapons consist of two advanced short-range air-to-air missiles, two advanced medium-
range air-to-air missiles, and one 30-mm gun with 300 rounds of ammunition. To perform this mission and meet
the statement-of-work maneuver guidelines, the aircraft has a VTO gross weight of 15,870 kg (34,987 Ib), a
length of 16.3 m (53.3 ft), and a wing-span of 11.4 m (37.3 ft). Some of the more important vehicle character-
istics are summarized in Table 1.
10
Toserveasa comparative design, General Dynamics conducted a parallelin-house design studyof the
present
concept witha GeneralElectricremote augmented lift system (RALS) insteadof theejector-diffuser
verticallift system.In thePJ_LS propulsion system, the fan air is collected and routed forward to a
burner/nozzle arrangement to provide propulsive lift. Figure 52 is a schematic of the RALS propulsion con-
cept. The General Dynamic RALS _oncept, shown in Fig. 53, uses the same wing/canard arrangement, the same
spanwise blowing feature, and the same podded engines, except that the nacelles are mere closely spaced than
on the ejector-diffuser configuration. The VEO-wing nozzle in this case has provision for full 90 ° thrust
deflection for vertical flight. A vectorable, two-burner, forward lift system is employed which uses fan air
from the variable-cycle engines. Sized to the same mission and payload, the PJ_LS concept has a VTO gross
weight of 14,810 kg (32,650 Ib), or approximately 1,043 kg (2,300 Ib) less than the ejector configuration.

4.2.1.2 Grumman

The second HATOL configuration is a lift plus lift/cruise concept proposed by Grumman (Refs. 34 and 36).
The configuration, shown in Figs. 54 and 55, is a wing-canard design that employs a General Electric RALS.
Grumman _w)dified an earlier V/STOL fighter design (Model 623) by incorporating a canard and a now wing to meet
the maneuver requirements in the present statement of work. Two General Electric variable-cycle augmented-
turbofan study engines are used with General Electric augmented deflector exhaust nozzles (ADEN) (Fig. 56).
The RALS forward lift element is a dual burner/nozzle design. To minimize the size of this forward lift
system, the ADEN nozzles are mounted at the wing trailing edge as far forward on the configuration as possible.
The ADEN nozzles not only provide vertical lift for takeoff and landing, but also have in-flight thrust
vectoring to enhance maneuvering (Fig. 56).

As shown in Fig. 54, the configuration features a high-mounted, variable-incidence canard with leading
and trailing edge flaps, an advanced variable-camber wing with leading and trailing edge devices, and twin
vertical tails. The canard has 5 ° of dihedral, and the wing has 10 ° of anhedral. The air induction system
consists of side-mounted, fixed-geometry inlets with top-mounted blow-in doors for increased airflow during
takeoff/landing and low-speed operation.

In conventional flight, longitudinal control is provided by the incidence of the canard augmented at low
speed and high angle of attack by the canard flaps; roll control is provided by asymmetric deflection of the
wing trailing edge devices; and directional control is provided by the rudder surfaces. In hover flight,
pitch control is provided by flow shifting between the forward and aft nozzles; wing tip reaction controls are
used for roll control; and differential lift/cruise nozzle deflections are used for yaw control.

The configuration has been sized to a deck launched intercept (DLI) mission similar to that shown in
Fig. 49. The weapons are two AIM-7 missiles, two AIM-9 missiles, and one internally mounted 20-mm gun and
ammunition. To perform this mission with a vertical takeoff and to meet the statement-of-work maneuver _uide-
lines, the configuration has a VTO gross weight of 17,112 kg (37,726 Ib). The length is 17.3 m (56.5 ft) and
the wingspan is 11.5 m (37.8 ft). Some of the other configuration characteristics are summarized in Table 2.

4.2.1.3 Northrop (HATOL)

The third HATOL concept is a lift plus lift/cruise design by Northrop (Refs. 34 and 37). This design is
one of two proposed by Northrop. Three views of the concept are shown in Fig. 57; an artist rendering of the
aircraft is given in Fig. 58. Northrop is using a General Electric RJ_LS concept in this design with two
variable-cycle turbofan engines, ADEN nozzles, and a single forward augmentor lift system with a gimbaled
nozzle. The engine has a miniafterburner (IO00°F temperature rise) to provide additional thrust during combat.
This augmentation is not used for vertical takeoff or landing.

The configuration is a wing-canard design with two vertical tails mounted on twin afterbodies, as shown
in Fig. 57. The clipped delta wing has variable camber, using automatically phased leading and trailing edge
flaps. The canard is high mounted and all-movable. Side-mounted, two-dimensional inlets are used with topside
auxiliary inlet doors for takeoff. The two ADEN nozzles are mounted side by side on the aft fuselage center-
line between two wing-mounted afterbodies. These bodies have been shaped and located to provide: (1) a favor-
able area distribution, (2) twin surfaces for additional lift augmentation from flow entrained by the deflected
ADEN nozzles during takeoff, (3) favorable flow on the upper and lower wing surfaces, and (4) space for landing
gear, avionics and fuel storage, which in turn provides a means to adjust the center of gravity.

During takeoff and hover, pitch control is provided by thrust modulation of the forward and aft nozzles;
roll control by wing-tip reaction controls. Yaw control is derived from lateral deflection of the forward
nozzle. For conventional flight, the wing trailing edge elevons are used for pitch and roll control and pitch
stabilization. The all-movable vertical tails provide directional control and stabilization. The leading edge
flaps and canard surface are scheduled as a function of angle of attack and speed for optimum aerodynamic
performance. Thrust vectoring and combined canard/thrust deflection are used for maneuver enhancement.

For this study, a VTO gross weight of 13,608 kg (30,000 Ib) has been selected by Northrop as representa-
tive of a 1995 VSTOL aircraft designed to perform the Navy fighter/attack mission similar to that of the F-18.
To assist in configuration development during the study, an arbitrary fighter escort mission has been used.
To meet the statement of work maneuver requirements with a VTOL gross weight of 13,608 kg (30,000 Ib), the
aircraft (Fig. 57) has a wingspan of 9.9 m (32.6 ft) and a length of 16.0 m (52.5 ft). Some of the configura-
tion characteristics are summarized in Table 3.

When resized to perform a 926-km (500-n. mi.) fighter escort mission, the configuration has a VTO gross
weight of 14,424 kg (31,800 Ib) and a VTO wing loading of 2.87 kN/m 2 (60 Ib/ft2).

4.2.1.4 Northrop (VATOL)

The second concept studied by Northrop (Refs. 34 and 38) in the present effort is a VATOL concept shown in
Fig. 59 and as an artist's rendering in Fig. 60. The configuration is a tailless design that features a wing
leading edge extension (LEX) to maintain lift to high angles of attack. Top-mounted inlets are used to provide
 11
a lowradarcrosssection aswellasto freethelowersurface for efficientweapon/landing gearintegration
andto ease mating withthealightinggantry.
BothNorthrop concepts have a common wingwithleading andtrailingedgeflapsautomatically programmed
to provide variablecamber for optimum aerodynamic performance.
In this VATOL concept, twinPrattandWhitney variable-geometry, nonafterburningturbojetengines areused
withgimbaled axisymmetric nozzles located aft closeto theaircraftcenterline.Thetop-mounted air induction
system hasfixedgeometry, two-dimensional inletswithtopside auxiliaryinlet doors for low-speed operation.
Control in theverticaltakeoffandlanding mode is provided bythegimbaled nozzles, whichcanbe
deflected ±30° in pitchand±15 ° in yaw.Wing-tip-mounted reaction controlsprovide primary roll control;
antisymmetric pitchdeflection of thenozzles canbeused for auxiliaryroll control.In conventional flight,
pitchandroll controlis provided bythetrailingedge elevons, anddirectionalcontrolandstabilizationare
provided bytheall-movable verticaltail. Thrust vectoringin combination withthetrailing edge flapsis
used for maneuver enhancement.
Theconfiguration hasconventional landing gearfor overload takeoffandlanding in thehorizontal atti-
tude. Acapturing hook mechanism is integrated withthenose gearto engage thelaunch-and-retrieval platform
for VATOL operations.
Several means havebeen explored to provide a morefavorable pilot orientation duringtakeoffandlanding.
These means haveincluded a rotatingseatsimilarto theX-13concept, anarticulating capsule, anda system
for hinging theentireaircraftnose.Thepresent designemploys a tilting cockpitmodule.
Forthis study,a VTO gross weight of 13,608 kg(30,000 Ib) hasbeenselected byNorthrop asrepresenta-
tive of a 1995 VSTOL aircraftdesigned to perform theNavy fighter/attack missionsimilarto thatof theF-18.
Toassistin configuration development duringthestudy,anarbitraryfighterescortmission hasbeen used.To
meetthestatement-of-work maneuver requirementswitha VTO grossweight of 13,608kg(30,000 Ib), theaircraft
hasawingspan of 9.9m(32.6ft) anda lengthof 15.8m(51.7ft). Some of theconfiguration characteristics
aresummarized in Table 4.
When resized to perform a 926-km (500-n. mi.)fighterescortmission, theconfiguration hasa VTO gross
weightof 10,523 kg(23,200 Ib)andaVTO wingloading of 2.73kN/m 2 (57 Ib/ft2).

4.2.1.5 Vought

The final configuration is a VATOL concept proposed by Vought (Refs. 34 and 39). As shown in Figure 61,
the design features a fixed, close-coupled, high-mounted canard with trailing edge flaps, a midwing of low
aspect ratio, and a single vertical tail with a rudder. The wing has trailing edge flaps that are optimally
phased to operate throughout the flight envelope in unison with the canard flap to implement longitudinal and
lateral commands. Full-span leading edge flaps are automatically phased to maintain optimal camber for high
maneuver performance. Split-flap speedbrakes are located at the inboard wing trailing edge.

Side-mounted, two-dimensional, fixed geometry inlets (Fig. 61) supply air to two Pratt and Whitney
advanced technology, mixed flow, augmented turbofan engines. Blow-in doors are provided for low-speed opera-
tion. Axisymmetric convergent-divergent nozzles are mounted side by side in the aft fuselage. These nozzles
can be gimbaled ±15 ° in pitch and yaw to provide control during takeoff/landing, hover, transition, and
in-flight maneuvering. A reaction-control system in the wing tips provides roll control for vertical takeoff
and landing.

Conventional tricycle landing gear is used for short takeoff (STO) and conventional takeoff and landing
(CTOL) operation as well as to facilitate deck handling. A capture mechanism is integrated with the nose
landing gear to engage the landing platform grate for vertical attitude takeoff and landing. A tilting-seat
arrangement is employed to provide the pilot with a comfortable position in the VATOL mode of flight as well
as with a conventional seat position for cruise.

The aircraft has been sized to a DLI mission similar to that of Figure 49. The armament consists of two
AIM-7 missiles, two AIM-9 missiles, and one 20-mm gun with 400 rounds of ammunition. To perform this mission
with a vertical takeoff and to meet the statement-of-work maneuver requirements, the configuration weighs
10,603 kg (23,375 Ib) and has a wing span of 8.7 m (28.5 ft) and a length of 13.8 m (45.3 ft). Some of the
configuration characteristics are summarized in Table 5. Figure 62 shows the Vought VATOL concept operating
in the STO overload condition of 15,139 kg (33,375 Ib).

4.2.2 Single-Engine Concepts

Four contractors proposed designs that are described in this section. The contractors are: General
Dynamics, Fort Worth Division, Fort Worth, Texas; McDonnell Douglas Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri; Rockwell
International, Columbus, Ohio; and Vought Corporation, Dallas, Texas. The concepts are all single-place air-
craft with a single cruise engine. Each concept is briefly described in the following sections, and a complete
description is given in Refs. 51-60.

4.2.2.1 General Dynamics

The General Dynamics (GD) slngle-engine fighter concept (Refs. 51-53) combines both vectored thrust and a
thrust-augmenting ejector for vertical flight. This propulsive lift system is combined with a delta wing and
a tailless design (Configuration E7). The E7 hover configuration is shown in Fig. 63, and the cruise flight
mode is depicted in Fig. 64.

The guidelines for the development of this configuration were, first, that it be based on an existing
engine or, at most, on a near-term derivative. Second, the aircraft must be capable of STOVL, rather than pure
VTOL flight. Observations of AV-8A operations indicate that the Harrier rarely takes off vertically for a
12
militarymission; theoverload capability provided bya shortdeckor ground runis used mostoften. For
navaluse,however, theverticallanding provides suchsignificantadvantages in deckcycletimesthatits
retention is highlydesirable.Finally,theaircraftmust becapable of a meaningful navalmission.The
latter setsthemaximum hovergrossweightrequirement: (1)5%reserve fuel, (2) fuelfor20minof sealevel
loiter, and(3)retentionof expensive weapons (e.g.,AIM-7, AIM-9).
Anejectorconcept wasselected asthepropulsive lift system for theGDconfiguration. Theejector
system hasadvantages beyondproviding thrustaugmentation; for example, it is significantthattheejector
exhaust is relativelycoolandthatits velocityis low. Although burner systems suchastheRALS arecapable
of equally good augmentation, andalthough lift engines areprobably themostcompact systemsavailable, the
environmental andinlet ingestion problems associated withthehotandhigh-velocity exhaustsof thesesystems
aresignificant.Anejectorsystem partiallyavoids theseproblems.
Thepropulsive lift system thatappeared attractivewastheejectorsystem developed bydeHavilland of
Canada working withAmes ResearchCenter (Refs.54-57).Thisejectorsystem hasmore volumethana short-
diffusertype,suchastheAlperinejector,butit hasa substantial anddependable augmentationratiothat
hasbeen measured ona large-scale, engine-driven model at Ames.
However, all ejectorsystems present some difficulties,onebeingtheramdragof theentrained air at
forward speeds. Thedatafromtheoriginalejectormodel testedin theAmes 40-by80-Foot Wind Tunnel sug-
gested thatanaircraftusingtheejectorwould bemarginal in transitioning fromejector-borne towing-borne
flight. Although it wasdemonstrated thatthis couldbeovercome byvectoring theejectornozzles aft, an
operational aircraftwould requirecontrollable vectorangles thatin turnwould requirecomplex actuation
systems. One wayto avoidthis problem is to ductonlypartof theengine flowto theejectorandto exhaust
theremainder to a single,vectorable nozzle.Byusingfanair to power theejector,theductweights are
lowered, because of thecoolerflow,andtheinlet thermal reingestion becomes modest.
In theGDstudy,threeaircraftwereconsidered, a flight demonstrator andtwooperational aircraft(a
threshold anda goalaircraft). Theflight demonstrator would bebuilt around anexistingengine or a very
near-term derivative.Theprimary purpose of thedemonstrator would beto investigate theVLandSTO ends of
theflight regimes, andtherefore afterburners would notbeincluded.However, thedemonstrator hasbeen
constrained to possess thesame airframe astheoperational aircraftsothatonlyextrapolations required from
theflight demonstrator arepropulsional. In thedemonstrator, reaction-control-system poweris provided by
anauxiliarypower unit (APU).Thethreshold operational aircraftis defined asonewhose engine thrustmay
beassumed to bedeveloped in thenormal course of engine growth duringthenext15yr or so,butwhich will
requiretechnological advancesprimarilyin theareaof reaction controlpower provided bytheengine.The
goaloperational aircraftrequires amore advanced engine in orderto provide significantlyenhanced hover
thrust. Againit is emphasized thatall threeairframes areidentical.
Configuration. In the GD design, fan air is collected in an annular plenum aft of the engine fan stages
and is released into a duct that runs along the top of the fuselage (Fig. 65). This air can flow either into
an aft nozzle or into the forward ejector nozzles. The ducts are provided with valving to regulate the flow
rate of fan air to the ejectors and to an aft nozzle. An afterburner is placed in the duct forward of the aft
nozzle. The engine core flow exhausts through a separate, two-dimensional vectorable nozzle (Fig. 65). An
afterburner can be located in the core flow duct also. For vertical flight, the core flow is vectored down-
ward, and all fan flow is ducted to the ejectors. For up-and-away flight, the core flow is vectored aft, the
ejector doors are closed, and the fan flow exhausts through its aft nozzle. The afterburners are used as
required for acceleration and supersonic flight. For STO operations, the core flow is partially vectored and
the fan flow is split between the ejector and its aft nozzle as required for balance and acceleration. The
three modes of operation of the propulsion system are illustrated in Fig. 66.

Three views of the E7 configuration are shown in Fig. 67, and a dimensional summary is given in Table 6.
The forward fuselage, cockpit and canopy, and vertical tail are geometrically identical to those of the F-16A.
The wing has an aspect ratio of 1.67 and a leading edge sweep of 60 ° . The main landing gear is located in the
wing; the nose wheel is located in the forward, underside of the inlet. The aircraft is designed to a limit
load factor of 7 5 (11.35 ultimate), and approximately a 35% composite material usage is assumed. The avionics
weights are estimated on the basis of functional equivalence to that of the F-18.

Propulsion System. Although the demonstrator aircraft in the study uses a General Electric FIOI/DFE
engine, GD has evaluated other engines, including FIO0 and Pegasus derivatives as part of another study for
NASA Ames Research Center. A two-dimensional vectorable nozzle is used for the core flow and an axisymmetric
nozzle is used for the fan flow during up-and-away flight. The inlet system has a modified F-16 conformal
shape with a normal shock at supersonic speeds. Both the fan stream and core stream are equipped with after-
burning capability in the operational aircraft.

The ejectors are of the Ames/de Havilland type, with a diffuser area ratio of 1.6 and throat-area-to-
primary-nozzle-area ratio of 25.0. The ejector bays are located longitudinally in the wing root area. In
static tests at Ames Research Center, the de Havilland ejector system demonstrated an augmentation ratio
of 1.725 (Refs. 54-57). This was degraded to 1.63 for the present studies because of design compromises likely
in an actual aircraft. Figure 63 shows the ejector in the open position for hover.

Mission Performance. The primary mission for which the E7 is sized is the naval escort mission (Type
Spec. 169) shown in Fig. 68, with the interdiction mission secondary. These missions have been modified to
specify a 122-m (400-ft), zero-wind, zero-sink takeoff with vertical landing. The payload consists of two
AMRAAM plus two AIM-9L missiles. No gun is used. A summary weight statement of the operational aircraft is
given in Table 7.

Point performance parameters are shown in the first column of Table 8 for the goal operational aircraft.
The second column shows the performance calculated at 60% of full fuel weight in accordance with TS 169. The
E7 configuration meets or exceeds all performance thresholds. The radius for the escort mission is 402 km
(217 n. mi.) greater than that required by the specification, and is a direct result of sizing to meet the
interdiction mission with internal fuel. The performance values given in the third column are calculated at
 13
88%VTOL grossweight.Theyhave nomeaningin amilitarysense, butareincluded
to provide
a measureof
performancefor comparison
withNASAguidelinesshownin thelast column.
4.2.2.2McDonnell Douglas
Theconcept studied
byMcDonnellDouglas(MCAIR)is a canard/wing
design
withswiveling
nozzlesforward
andaft of theaircraftcenterof gravity.Thefour-poster configuration,
MCAIR
Model 279-3,
is shownin
Figs.69and70;Fig.69depictstheverticalflight configuration, andthecruiseflight mode
is shownin
Fig.70. References 51and58givedetailsof this concept.
Configuration. Model 279-3 features a close-coupled canard and side-mounted half-axisymmetric inlets to
provide air to a single engine with modulated fan-stream augmentation. Four swiveling nozzles provide thrust
vectoring capability for vertical flight as well as for in-flight maneuvering. Fan air flows through the
forward nozzles and the engine core flow exits through the aft nozzles. Modulation of the fan stream and
engine speed provides the capability of trimming center of gravity travel associated with fuel burnoff and
store loading. This modulation can also provide a portion of the pitch maneuvering control or can be used as
a backup system. The location of the aft nozzles near the wing trailing edge offers the potential of enhanced
circulation, translating into increased maneuverability and STOL performance. Thrust vectoring can increase
the sustained load factor of Model 279-3 by 0.2 g and the instantaneous load factor by 2.0 g's at 0.6 Mach
number at an altitude of 3,048 m (10,000 ft).

As shown in Fig. 69, the main landing gear of Model 279-3 are located fore and aft on the fuselage in a
bicycle fashion with outriggers in pods on the wing.

Three views of the MCAIR concept are shown in Fig. 71, and a dimensional summary is given in Table 9.
The wing has an aspect ratio of 3.0, a leading-edge sweep of 45 ° , and 9° of anhedral. The close-coupled
canard is mounted high on the inlet sides and has 0 ° of dihedral, a leading-edge sweep of 50 °, and an aspect
ratio of 3.0. The exposed area of the canard is 20% of the wing reference area. The single vertical tail is
mounted on the aft fuselage.

The configuration has a vertical takeoff wing loading of 3.34 kN/m 2 (69.7 Ib/ft 2) and a tropical-day,
vertical-takeoff, thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.15 with full fan-stream burning.

Aerodynamic Surfaces. Pitch control is provided by the all-movable, close-coupled horizontal canard;
roll control by the differential ailerons; and directional control by the rudder. The wing leading and
trailing edge flaps and also the canard are deflected as a function of angle of attack and Mach number to
maximize maneuvering capability. The leading edge flaps also are used supersonically as decamber flaps to
reduce drag. The trailing edge flaps, which are plain flaps at small deflections, become single slotted flaps
at large deflections, for high-lift operation. These flaps, which are close to the aft nozzle, increase the
STOL lift. The location of the forward nozzle under the wing, rather than at the leading edge, also improves
lift during STOL.

The wing planform selection is based on a compromise between subsonic and supersonic performance. Sub-
sonic emphasis is on high sustained maneuverability requiring low drag due to lift. Supersonic emphasis is on
lower-lift-coefficient maneuvering conditions during which the minimum drag coefficient CDo is equally impor-
tant. The wing airfoil camber increases outboard on the wing. There is no twist at the wing-fuselage junc-
ture, but there is leading-edge-down twist at the wing tip.

Control System. The Model 279-3 has a digital fly-by-wire control system, which is necessary to augment
the subsonic longitudinal instability. This active control system also makes possible (1) engine/fan-stream
augmentation/reaction-control-system integration, (2) augmented thrust-vectoring control, and (3) coupled
flight/propulsion control.

A three-axis reaction control system (RCS), operating on engine bleed air, provides control moments inde-
pendent of dynamic pressure. During VTOL operation it provides the complete maneuvering control. The pitch
RCS is located in the aft fuselage and the forward lower mold line of the inlet, just forward of the nose gear.
The lateral RCS thrusts both up and down in opposite wing tips. The directional RCS, thrusting laterally in
either direction, is located in the aft tip of the fuselage.

During VTOL operation the thrust center is positioned by varying the engine speed and the fan-stream
augmentation, using the flight controller. Decreasing the forward nozzle thrust moves the thrust center aft,
with the level of thrust maintained by increasing the engine speed. This provides the static trim during
VTOL; transient control is provided by the pitch RCS.

Additional control is provided by the engine nozzle thrust-vectoring control (TVC). The fore and aft
nozzles are symmetrically deflected a small amount for rapid load-factor changes, with rapid turns plus
deceleration followed by acceleration. Differential deflection of the fore and aft nozzles is used for STOL
control to augment the canard deflection in controlling the high-lift flap pitching moment.

Propulsion System. A single, advanced Pratt and Whitney thrust-vectoring engine (STF 561-C2) with fan-
stream augmentation serves as the propulsion system. It has a twin-spool turbofan gas generator utilizing a
two-stage fan and a five-stage low-aspect-ratio high-through-flow axial compressor with a single-stage, high-
pressure turbine and a two-stage, low-pressure turbine. The bypass ratio is 1.16, the overall pressure ratio
is 25.0, and the fan pressure ratio is 3.50. Table 10 gives additional propulsion system characteristics.

The forward, side-mounted nozzles incorporate fan-stream burning augmentors. There is no engine-core
augmentation associated with the aft nozzles. The half-axisymmetric, side-mounted inlets have fixed 16.5°
half-conical spikes.

Structure. Composites are used extensively in the Model 279-3. The structural weight consists of 41%
graphite epoxy, 21% aluminum, 13% titanium, 8% steel, and 17% other materials. Graphite epoxy is distributed
as follows: wing 50%, canard 52%, vertical tail 65%, fuselage 46%, and the engine section 55%.
14
Mission Performance. MCAIR sized the configuration to the vertical-takeoff, supersonic, DLI mission
defined in Fig. 72. Weapons and ammunition are retained throughout the mission. To accomplish this mission
and remain within the guideline vertical takeoff gross weight of 13,606 kg (30,000 Ib), the aircraft has a
mission radius of 191 km (103 n.'mi.) and a vertical takeoff gross weight of 13,535 kg (29,840 Ib). With full
internal fuel [gross weight = 14,161 kg (31,220 Ib)] and a rolling takeoff of less than 15 m (50 ft), the
radius of the DLI mission is increased to 296 km (160 n. mi.) A weight summary for the vertical takeoff
supersonic DLI mission is given in Table 11.

Performance of the Model 279-3 and NASA guideline performance are shown in Table 12. As indicated, all
performance requirements are met or exceeded.

The STO characteristics of the Model 279-3 with full internal fuel have been determined by MCAIR for both
a flat deck and a 12 ° ski jump. For a 122-m (400-ft) flat-deck run'with zero wind over the deck, the
Model 279-3 has an STO gross weight of 18,960 kg (41,800 Ib) as shown in Table 12. With this same takeoff
run, the STO weight is increased 17%, to 22,135 kg (48,800 Ib) using the ski jump.

4.2.2.3 Rockwell International

The single-engine V/STOL fighter concept studied by Rockwell (Refs. 51 and 59), employs thrust-augmenting
ejectors for the vertical lift system. This propulsive lift concept is used in two tailless designs by
Rockwell. The baseline configuration has a double-delta wing planform. The alternative configuration has a
straight leading edge, clipped delta wing. The baseline design will be described first.

Baseline Confiquration. The baseline configuration is a tailless design with a double-delta clipped wing,
a top-mounted inlet system, fore and aft thrust-augmenting ejectors, and twin vertical tails mounted on the
aft fuselage (Fig. 73).

Rockwell selected the ejector concept for the propulsive lift system because of its low velocity and low-
temperature footprint compared with that of a direct-lift, deflected-thrust, or RALS concept. In the Rockwell
system, all of the mixed gas efflux (intermediate power) is diverted to the lifting system for vertical flight.
The lifting system is composed of fore and aft rectangular thrust-augmenting ejectors with end plates arranged
in a spanwise direction in each wing panel (Fig. 73). Each ejector unit consists of a pair of opposing Coanda
flaps with end plates and a fully deflectable centerbody (0° to 90°). Engine air is injected along the
shoulder of each flap and through the centerbody. The centerbody stows to form the upper mold line of the
wing and the forward Coanda flap retracts to form the lower mold line. For cruise flight, the thrust diverter
(upstream of the afterburner) is opened, allowing the engine efflux to flow through the conventional nozzle.
The sketches in Fig. 74 show the operation of the ejector system in various flight modes.

The long-chord, low-aspect-ratio wing contains the fore and aft ejectors in an aerodynamically thin sur-
face. Together with the highly swept leading edges, this delta shape should provide low wave drag. The highly
swept leading edges should also allow moderate leading edge radii to provide leading edge suction at subsonic
and supersonic speeds. Wing-trailing-edge elevons combined with moderate airframe instability provide increas-
ing camber to trim increasing lift. The long wing chord also shields the top inlet from body crossflow.

Three views of the baseline configuration are shown in Fig. 75, and lifting surface dimensional parameters
are given in Table 13. The wing has an aspect ratio of 1.83 and the leading edge sweeps are 48.1 ° inboard and
64.1 ° outboard. The wing thickness-to-chord ratio varies from about 0.037 inboard to 0.034 outboard. Twin
vertical tails with a leading edge sweep of 53.1 ° are mounted on the aft fuselage.

As shown in Fig. 75, the landing gear is a bicycle arrangement with the main fore and aft gear in the
fuselage. Outrigger gear are stowed in the end plates for the aft ejector.

The baseline configuration has a wing loading of about 2.11 kN/m 2 (44 Ib/ft 2) at vertical takeoff gross
weight. For this same weight, the maximum afterburning thrust-to-weight ratio is 1.41 (uninstalled, sea-level-
static, standard day).

Control. Control in the vertical flight mode is provided by differentially varying the fore and aft and
left and right ejector lift magnitude and direction. The ejector lift magnitude is reduced by moving the
trailing edges of the Coanda flaps closer together. This system is supplemented by a pitch-reaction-control
system for rapid pitch-control inputs.

Control and stability augmentation in conventional flight are provided by wing-trailing-edge elevons and
rudders. The control power and airframe instability are designed to permit operation at angles of attack from
0 to 90 °. Additional control power and further reduced trim drag can be provided by an all-movable canard on
the lower shoulder of the forward fuselage.

Forward flight is achieved by retracting all flaps in a conventional manner. Control during the transi-
tion from vertical to conventional flight is accomplished by gradually changing from thrust-magnitude and
direction control to elevon-type control (i.e., both Coanda flaps in an augmentor segment move in the same
direction) as the augmentor flaps are retracted through 60 ° deflection. The yaw control reverts from a differ-
ential aft augmentor thrust-vector control to differential thrust-magnitude control, and finally to rudder
control.

Propulsion System. A single, advanced Pratt and Whitney augmented turbofan parametric engine serves as
the propulsion system. The bypass ratio is 0.54, the overall pressure ratio is 30.0, and the fan pressure
ratio is 3.60. Tab]e 14 gives additional engine characteristics.

The intermediate-power-to-vertical-takeoff gross weight ratio is 0.86. The ejector system augments the
engine intermediate-power gross isentropic thrust about 50% for vertical takeoff and landing.
 15
Thetop-mounted
inlet system hasa simple fixed-rampandis designed for operation
to a maximum speed
of
Mach 2.0. Anauxiliaryinlet is providedto supply additionalair to theenginefor verticaltakeoffand
landing andfor conversion
flight operations.
Structure.Thewingstructurefeatures a largecentraltorque boxplusa "backporch."Thebackporch
is thesurface between
theaft augmentor andtheflap (Fig.75). Thecentraltorque boxandbackporch act
in differentialbending
to provide a strong,stiff supportfor thewingouterpanel.Composites areused
throughoutto minimize
weight.Theaugmentor ductsutilize titanium aluminides,
or fiber-or filament-
reinforcedtitanium
composites to accommodatethe642°C (1188°F)mixed gastemperature.
Mission Performance. The baseline aircraft was sized for a 278-km (150-n. mi.) radius vertical-takeoff,
DLI mission and for 556-km (300-n. mi.) radius short-takeoff DLI mission. The DLI mission is defined in
Fig. 76. Two AIAAM missiles are carried on the VTO mission and four are carried on the STO mission. No gun
is carried, and the missiles are excluded from the performance calculations. In order to meet these missions
and the guideline performance, the VTO gross weight is 10,866 kg (24,000 Ib), and the STO gross weight is
13,336 kg (29,400 Ib). Short takeoff distance is less than 122 m (400 ft). At 88% of the VTO gross weight,
the aircraft has a sustained load factor of 6.9 g at Mach 0.6 at an altitude of 3,048 m (10,000 ft). At
Mach 0.9 at an altitude of 3,048 m (10,000 ft) the PszG is 357 m/sec (1,170 ft/sec). The maximum speed
capability is in excess of M = 2.0. These performance characteristics are compared with the study guidelines
in Table 15. A summary of the baseline configuration weights is given in Table 16.

Alternative Configuration. The alternative configuration has a straight leading edge, clipped delta wing,
with the same top-mounted inlet, but with the forward augmentor oriented in a chordwise, rather than spanwise,
direction (Fig. 77). This configuration provides the same conventional flight benefits as the baseline con-
figuration and possesses the same key features. The major differences are the flexibility available for wing
planform design, the larger central wing structural torque box, and the increased capability for overload
external-store stations on the wing.

The aft spanwise augmentor is identical in concept and is very similar in size and shape to the baseline
configuration. The forward chordwise augmentor uses the side of the fuselage for its inboard Coanda flap and
a movable outboard Coanda flap to provide thrust-magnitude control and to fair out the wing root lower mold
line in conventional flight. A series of spanwise-oriented centerbodies swivel from 90 ° in vertical flight to
0° (stowed) in conventional flight as the aircraft transitions. In conventional flight the stowed center-
bodies form the upper mold line of the wing root.

Three views of the aircraft are shown in Fig. 78. Key lifting-surface dimensional parameters are pre-
sented in Table 17. The alternative wing has a straight leading edge of 60 ° sweep and a constant thickness-to-
chord ratio of 0.038. The aspect ratio and wing reference area are essentially equal to those of the baseline
configuration; the vertical tails are identical in both configurations.

The alternative configuration engine, avionics, weapons, and performance characteristics are essentially
the same as those of the baseline configuration. A weight summary of the alternative configuration is given
in Table 18.

4.2.2.4 Vought

The Vought single-engine V/STOL fighter, TF120, is a wing/canard design featuring Vought's series-flow,
tandem-fan propulsion concept. The tandem fan is a dual-mode, variable-cycle engine which will be described
later. Figure 79 shows an early version of the configuration and Fig. 80 is a later version in which the
canard has been mounted on the wing strakes. References 51 and 60 give details of this concept.

Configuration. Figure 81 shows three views of the Vought TF120 concept. The TF120 is a canard/delta-wing
configuration featuring extensive wing-body blending in both planform and cross section. Canard control sur-
faces are located on the wing strakes. Small booms extend aft from the wing to support twin outboard vertical
fins and ventrals. Both the fins and ventrals are canted inboard and both are all-movable surfaces. Two
small, variable-incidence control fins mounted on the lower corners of the inlets pivot from vertical to hori-
zontal depending on the flight regime.

The side-mounted inlets provide airflow to a single turbofan engine. A nozzle similar to the General
Electric ADEN is mounted aft and vectors the thrust from 0° to greater than go °. The landing gear is a con-
ventional tricycle design. The main wheels fold inboard and slightly forward into the blended-body section at
approximately the intersection of the strake and wing leading edge. The nose wheel retracts forward into the
nose just ahead of the cockpit.

Four AMRAAM missiles are mounted on the lower blended fuselage inboard of the wing root. A 20-mm Gatling
gun and 400-round ammunition drum are also located in the blended wing root area on the left side of the
aircraft.

Table 19 gives a summary of the geometry of the various aircraft surfaces. The wing has an aspect ratio
of 2.24, a leading-edge sweep of 50 °, and a thickness-to-chord ratio of 0.06 at the root and 0.05 at the tip.
The canard has a leading-edge sweep of 55 ° and a dihedral of 10 °. The total canard exposed area is about 12%
of the theoretical wing area. The twin vertical tails have a leading edge sweep of 45 °. Ventral fins on the
forward, lower inlet surface have a total exposed area that is about 2% that of the wing theoretical area.

Based on the maximum vertical takeoff gross weight, the TF120 has a vertical takeoff wing loading of
3.47 kN/m 2 (72.4 Ib/ft 2) and a vertical thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.16. For this same gross weight and the
maximum augmented thrust for the high-speed flight mode (series flow), the thrust-to-weight ratio is 1.73.

Control. The TF120 is a control-configured vehicle with movable surfaces that can be optimally phased
throughout the operating envelope. In addition to providing direct lift and direct side force, this system
can cope with battle damage or random failures with fewer channels of redundancy than usually postulated for
fly-by-wire systems because of the multiplicity of controls.
16
Theventralfins below theinletsareunitcontrolsurfaces withtwoaxesof travel. Inaddition to
pivotingto generate normal forces,thesesurfaces canbeadjusted to anydihedral anglebetween -15° to -75°.
Inthedown positiontheyhelpgenerate directsideforcesandaidin directional control.At supersonic
speedstheyfoldoutto reduce therearward shift in aerodynamic centerandaugment longitudinalandlateral
control.At a -45° settingthefinscanbeused astwo-axis controlsfor gustalleviationandprecision target
tracking.Theaft verticalfins andventralfins aremechanically independent, all-moving controls.There-
fore,a total of six controlsurfaces areavailable to generate sideforces.Thefourventralsprovide con-
trol effectiveness intothepost-stallregime to enhance combat agility.
Force controlsavailable for longitudinal
andlateralcontrolarewing-trailing-edge flaps(elevons),
canards, andtheinlet ventralfins. Atrailingedge flapattached to theADEN provides longitudinaltrimand
high-speed, thrust-vectoringcapability.
Withthecontrolsurface groupunder integrated software control,it is possible to compensateforwide-
ranging flight conditions, controlnonlinearities, andcomponent failuresto achieve a highlevelof system
performance. However,a high-qualityaerodynamic database will berequired to realizethis potential.
During verticaltakeoffandlanding andduringhover flight, theseries-flow tandem-fan conceptachieves
longitudinal controlbydifferentialmodulation of theforeandaft thrust. Thisis accomplished usingvari-
ableinlet guidevanes (VIGV) for boththeforward andaft fans. VIGV thrustmodulation deliversrapidpitch-
attituderesponse. Vanes in bothexhauststreams provide yawcontrolin hover.Rollcontrolis accomplished
bya demand bleed-reactionjet system.Aroll-controlvalveandanupward anda downward ejectorarelocated
in each wingtip. Theflowto thereaction-control jets is ducted through pipingin thewingleading edges.
Propulsion System. The propulsion system for the TF120 is the series-flow, tandem-fan, variable-cycle
engine. The system is composed of shaft-coupled forward and aft fan units driven by a turbofan engine, as
shown in Fig. 82. Both fans have VIGV for thrust modulation in the parallel-flow mode (vertical operation)
and for fan-matching in the series-flow mode (high-speed operation). The flow-diverter valve, a moderate
temperature burner for the forward fan, the forward fan ventral nozzle, and the rear fan inlet are located
between the two fan units.

In high-speed flight, the propulsion cycle is a conventional afterburning turbofan. For vertical opera-
tion, the front fan flow is separated from the aft-fan/core-engine flow by simultaneously closing the duct
splitter valve and opening the front fan exhaust nozzle and aft fan inlet. A unique "venetian blind" splitter
valve acts as a variable-porosity wall to minimize flow distortion during mode transition.

The forward fan uses low-temperature duct burning during vertical operation. The VIGVs provide the rapid
and precise thrust modulation needed for hover control.

The side inlets are fixed-geometry, vertical-ramp, bifurcated duct design with blow-in doors for improved
VTO performance. The aft vertical mode inlet is a flush design located on the upper fuselage.

The forward nozzle is a parallel-flow, tandem-fan V/STOL nozzle; it has a low-temperature burner incor-
porated into the system to augment thrust during VTO. An ADEN-type nozzle is used to vector the aft flow
stream. Full afterburning of the aft flow stream is possible anywhere in the flight envelope, but is not
required in the hover mode. The exhaust footprint is comparable to that of the Harrier.

Table 20 gives the tandem-fan baseline cycle characteristics for both the parallel-flow mode (vertical
operation) and the series-flow mode (high-speed operation). In the vertical-flight mode, the thrust split is
67% fore and 33% aft. The fan pressure ratios in the VTOL mode are 2.2 fore and 1.75 aft, and in the series-
flow (high-speed) mode the ratio is 3.44. The overall pressure ratio is 17.5 in the VTOL mode and 25.2 in
the high-speed mode.

Mission Performance. Vought determined the performance of the TF120 on three hypothetical design
missions: A supersonic intercept (SI), a fighter escort (FE), and an interdiction (INX) (Fig. 83). The first
two are vertical takeoff missions and the third requires a short takeoff. The payload for the SI mission is
four AMRAAMs and a 20-mm gun. The payload for the FE mission (which requires the two 370-gal fuel tanks) is
four AMRAAMs, two short-range missiles, and a gun. On the INX mission, which requires two 370-gal fuel tanks,
the payload is two short-range missiles and four bombs. On all three missions, all missiles and ammunition
are retained. The results of the mission studies are summarized in Table 21. The SI radius is 370 km
(200 n. mi.) for a Mach 1.6 dash. Increasing the dash speed to Mach 2.0 reduces the radius to 258 km
(139 n. mi.). With external fuel and an STO weight of 15,720 kg (34,664 Ib), the interdiction mission radius
is 960 km (519 n. mi.). Table 22 gives a weight summary for the SI mission.

A summary comparing the TF120 performance to the NASA guidelines is given in Table 23, which shows per-
formance for maximum afterburning power setting as well as the maximum Mach number and altitude for inter-
mediate power setting. At Mach 0.6 at an altitude of 3,048 m (10,000 ft), the TF120 has a sustained load
factor of 6.62. The aircraft has a PSI G of 526 m/sec (1725 ft/sec) at Mach 0.9 and an altitude of 3,048 m
(10,000 ft). The TF120 has a maximum Mach number of 2.4 at maximum power and also has supersonic capability
(M = 1.42) at intermediate power.

5. CONCLUDING REMARKS

This lecture has summarized V/STOL concepts in the United States, including some from the past and some
that may come in the future. Of the multitude of concepts that were studied in the past, only about 15 or so
that reached some form of flight evaluation have been described. Nearly all of these concepts suffered from
some weaknesses or problems. These problems included such things as (i) poor handling qualities, (2) the lack
of a SAS for hover and low-speed flight, (3) marginal aircraft performance envelopes which restricted opera-
tional evaluations, (4) little or no STO capability, (5) low payload/range performance, (6) compromised high-
speed performance due to features that provide VTOL capability, and (7) reingestion of hot gases. The lessons
 17
learned fromthesepastconcepts need
notberepeated, asthepasteffortshaveprovided a valuable
database
for presentandfuturedesigns.
Designchanges to a successfulV/STOL aircraft,theBritishAV-8A Harrier,have resultedin animproved
concept, theAV-8B HarrierII. Thisis theonlycurrentconcept consideredin thepaper.Anumber of sub-
sonic,multimission concepts proposed
byU.S.industry indicatethattherearestill many approachesto
V/STOL thathave notbeen flight-demonstrated. Amajorportionof thepaperhasbeen devotedto thefuture
V/STOL fighter,whichalsohasnotbeen flight-testedin theU.S.Anumber of differentpropulsivelift con-
ceptsproposed for thesefighterdesigns have beendescribedalong withtheconfiguration geometry,
control
concepts, andthemission performance.Many of theseconceptsappear to havebenefited fromthelessons of
earliereffortsandhave reasonablerange/payload,controlpower, andSTOL overload capability.In onecase,
a third generationof a successfulconcept, theHarrier,is under considerationasasupersonic V/STOL fighter.
From this chronologywemightsaythattheconcept of V/STOLaircrafthassurvived its "birthpains"andis
about to enterthegrowth stage.
6. REFERENCES
1. Anderson,
S.B., "HistoricalOverview
of S/TOL
AircraftTechnology,"
NASATM-81280,
March
1981.
2. Anderson,
S.B., "AnOverviewof V/STOL
AircraftDevelopment,"
AIAA
Paper83-2491,
Presented
at AIAA
AircraftDesign,
Systems
andTechnology
Meeting,FortWorth,
Texas,
October
17-19,
1983.
3, Bradfield, G. W., "Design Features of a Sea Based Multipurpose V/STOL, STOVL and STOL Aircraft in a
Support Role for the U.S. Navy." AIAA Paper 81-2650, AIAA/NASA Ames VSTOL Conference, Palm Alto,
California, December 7-9, 1981.

4. Kalemaris, S., and Buchmann, W. G., "Aero-Propulsion Development of a Twin-Fan V/STOL Aircraft." AIAA
Paper 77-595, June 1977.

5. Potonides, H. C., "Development of an Inlet for a Tilt Nacelle Subsonic V/STOL Aircraft." ASME-Gr-121,
April 1979.

6. Potonides, H. C., Cea, R. A., and Nelson, T. F., "Design and Experimental Studies of a Type A V/STOL
Inlet." AIAA Paper 78-956R, July 1978.

7. Burley, R. R., "Effect of Lip and Centerbody Geometry on Aerodynamic Performance of Inlets for Tilt
Nacelle VTOL Aircraft." AIM Paper 79-0381, 1979.

8. Johns, A. L., Williams, R. C., and Potonides, H. C., "Performance of a V/STOL Tilt Nacelle Inlet with
Blowing Boundary Layer Control." AI#_ Paper 79-1163, June 1979.

9. Kress, R. W., "An Affordable Means of Increasing Sea-Based Air Power.." SAE Paper 801241, October 1980.

10. Falarski, M. D., Dudley, M. R., Buchmann, W. G., and Pisano, A., "Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Large-
Scale Twin Tilt-Nacelle V/STOL Model." AIAA Paper 81-0150, January 1981.

11. Perera, M., "Hover and Transition Flight Performance of a Twin Tilt-Nacelle V/STOL Configuration." AIAA
Paper 83-1824, July 1983.

12. Lehman, C. L., and Crafa, V. J., "Nacelle Design for Grumman Design 698." SAE Paper 831492, October 1983.

13. Wilson, S. B. III, Donley, S., Valckenaere, W., Buchmann, W. G., and Blake M., "Handling Characteristics
of a Simulated Twin-Tilt Nacelle V/STOL Aircraft." SAE Paper 831549, October 1983.

14. Kalemaris, S. G., "V/STOL for Sea Control." AIAA Paper 83-2436, October 1983.

15. Kohn, J. S., "Aerodynamics, Propulsion and Longitudinal Control Requirements for a Tilt-Nacelle V/STOL
with Control Vanes Submerged in the Nacelle Slipstream." AIAA Paper 83-2513, October 1983.

16. Waller, J. D., and Yackle, A. Ro, "A Split Fan Concept for a Medium Speed V/STOL." SAE Technical
Paper 831548, October 1983.

17. Glasgow, E. R., Beck, W. E., and Carlson, J. G., "Cross-Ducted Propulsion Systems for Medium-Speed V/STOL
Applications." SAE Technical Paper 831493, October 1983.

18. Glasgow, E. R., and Skarshaug, R. E., "Type A V/STOL Propulsion System Development." AIAA
Paper 79-1287R, October 1980.

19. Glasgow, E. R., Beck, W. E., and Woollett, R. R., "Zero-Length Slotted-Lip Inlet for Subsonic Military
Aircraft." AIAA Paper 80-1245R, February 1982.

20. Priestley, R. T., Sr., and Yackle, A. R., "V/STOL, STOL, CTOL Comparisons." SAWE Paper 1499, May 1982.

21. Rosenberg, E. W., and Esker, D. W., "Development of the "D" Vented Thrust Deflecting _ozzle." AIAA
Paper 80-1856, August 1980.

22. Rosenberg, E. W., and Christiansen, R. S., "Ground Test of a Large Scale "D" Vented Thrust Deflecting
Nozzle." AI#_ Paper 81-2630, December 1981.

23. Rosenberg, E. W., "Test and Analysis of a Vented "D" Thrust Deflecting Nozzle on a Turbofan Engine,"
NASA CR 166279, March 1982.
18
24. Adelt,W.H.,"Type AV/STOL: One Aircraftfor All Support Missions?" AIAA Paper 81-2661R, J. of
Aircraft,Vol.20,No.6, June1983.
25. Beatty,T. D., andRiccius%
M.V., "Vought Ground EffectsandTransition Testsof aTandem FanMedium
SpeedV/STOLConfiguration."SAE Paper 831547, October1983.
26. Clingingsmith,
T. W.,"MediumSpeed V/STOLPropulsion InstallationLosses- Comparisonof Prediction and
ModelTestData."SAE Paper831494, October 1983.
27. Rhoades,W.W.,andYbarra, A.H.,"Low SpeedTestof theAft Inlet Designed for a TandemFanV/STOL
Nacelle."NASA CR-159752,
February 1980.
28. Ybarra,
A. H., "Additional
Testing of theInletsDesigned for'TandemFanV/STOL Nacelles."NASA
CR-165310,June1981.
29. Williams,R.C.,andYbarra, A.H.,"Low Speed Testingof theInletsDesigned for Tandem FanV/STOL
Nacelles."NASA TM82728(AIAA 81-2627),December 1981.
30. Limage,
C.R.,"Development of Low PressureRatioVectoring Nozzlesfor V/STOL Aircraft."SAE
Paper770988,November1977.
31. Burstadt,P.L., andJohns,A. L., "Experimental Resultsof a Deflected ThrustV/STOL Nozzle Research
Program."AIAA Paper83-0170,January 1983.
32. Pennington,D.F., "Tandem
FanModel - FrontFanNozzle TestApplicable to a Type AV/STOL Aircraft."
NASACR-168024,July1983.
33. Louthan,J. D.,"TheImpactof PropulsionPerformance Parameters on V/STOL Design and Sizing."
AIAA Paper 80-1875, August 1980.

34. Nelms, W. P., "Studies of Aerodynamic Technology for VSTOL Fighter/Attack Aircraft." AIAA Paper 78-1511,
August 1978.

35. Lummus, J. R., "Study of Aerodynamic Technology for VSTOL Fighter/Attack Aircraft." NASA CR-152128,
1978.

36. Burhans, W. R., Crafa, V. J., Dannenhoffer, N. F., Dellamura, F. A., and Krepski, R. E., "Study of Aero-
dynamic Technology for VSTOL Fighter/Attack Aircraft." NASA CR-152129, 1978.

37. Brown, S. H., "Study of Aerodynamic Technology for VSTOL Fighter/Attack Aircraft - Horizontal Attitude
Concept." NASA CR-152130, 1978.

38. Gerhardt, H. A., and Chen, W. S., "Study of Aerodynamic Technology for VSTOL Fighter/Attack Aircraft-
Vertical Attitude Concept." NASA CR-152131, 1978.

39. Driggers, H. H., "Study of Aerodynamic Technology for VSTOL Fighter/Attack Aircraft." NASA CR-152132,
1978.

40. Nelms, W. P., and Durston, D. A., "Preliminary Aerodynamic Characteristics of Several Advanced VSTOL
Fighter/Attack Aircraft Concepts." SAE Paper 801178, October 1980.

41. Nelms, W. P., Durston, D. A., and Lummus, Jo R., "Experimental Aerodynamics Characteristics of Two VSTOL
Fighter/Attack Aircraft Configurations at Mach Numbers from 0.4 to 1.4." NASA TM-81234, December 1980.

42. Lummus, J. R., Joyce, G. T., and O'Malley, C. D., "Analysis of Wind Tunnel Tests Results for a
9.39-Percent Scale Model of a VSTOL Fighter/Attack Aircraft." NASA CR-152391, Vols. 1-4, January 1981.

43. Lummus, J. R., "Aerodynamic Characteristics of a VSTOL Fighter Configuration." AI#_A Paper 81-1292, 1981.

44. Nelms, W. P., Durston, D. A., and Lummus, J. R., "Experimental Aerodynamic Characteristics of Two VSTOL
Fighter/Attack Aircraft Configurations at Mach Numbers from 1.6 to 2.0." NASA TM-81286, May 1981.

45. Durston, D. A., and Smith, S. C., "Lift Enhancing Surfaces on Several Advanced VSTOL Fighter/Attack
Concepts." AIAA Paper 81-1675, August 1981.

46. Moore, W. A., "Wind Tunnel Data Analysis of the Northrop Horizontal Attitude VSTOL Fighter Configuration
for Mach Numbers from 0.4 to 1.4." NASA CR-166277, 1982.

47. Moore, W. A., "Wind Tunnel Data Analysis of the Northrop Vertical Attitude VSTOL Fighter Configuration
for Mach Numbers from 0.4 to 1.4." NASA CR-166278, 1982.

48. Durston, D. A., and Smeltzer, D. B., "Inlet and Airframe Compatibility for a VSTOL Fighter/Attack Aircraft
With Top-Mounted Inlets." ICAS Paper 82-4.2.2, August 1982.

49. Durston, D. A., and Smeltzer, D. B., "Inlet and Airframe Compatibility for a V/STOL Fighter/Attack Air-
craft With Top-Mounted Inlets." NASA TM-84252, June 1982.

50. Durston, D. A., and Schreiner, J. A., "High Angle of Attack Aerodynamics of a Strake-Canard-Wing V/STOL
Fighter Configuration." AIAA Paper 83-2510, October 1983.

51. Nelms, W. P., and Durston, D. A., "Concept Definition and Aerodynamic Technology Studies for Single Engine
VSTOL Fighter/Attack Aircraft." AIM Paper 81-2647, December 1981.
 19
52. Foley,W.H.,Sheridan, A. E.,andSmith,C.W.,"Study of AerodynamicTechnology
for Single-Cruise-
EngineVSTOLFighter/Attack
Aircraft." NASACR-166268,1982.
53. Foley,W.H.,"AnIntegrated Aerodynamic/Propulsive
Design for a STOVLFighter/Attack
Aircraft."
ICAS-82-1.6.2,
1982.
54. Garland,D.B., "StaticTestsof theJ-97Powered,External AugmentorV/STOL
Wind TunnelModel."
deHavillandReport DHC-DND
77-4,February1978.
55. Garland,D.B., "Phase1Wind TunnelTestsof theJ-97Powered, External
AugmentorV/STOLModel."
deHavillandReport DHC-DND
79-4,September1979.
56. Garland,D.B., andHarris,J. L., "Phase
2 and3 WindTunnel Testsof theJ-97Powered, External Augmen-
tor V/STOLModel."deHavilland ReportDHC-DND80-1,March 1980.
57. Gilbertson,F.L., andGarland,D.B., "StaticTestsof theJ-97Powered ExternalAug_entorV/STOL Model
at theDesResearch Center."deHavillandReportDHC-DND 80-2(DraftCopy,1980).
58. Hess,J. R.,andBear,R.L., "Study of Aerodynamic
Technology for Single-Cruise-Engir_e
VSTOL Fighter/
AttackAircraft." NASACR-166269,1982.
59. Mark,L., "Studyof Aerodynamic
Technology
for Single-Cruise-Engine
VSTOLFighter/Attack
Aircraft."
NASA CR-166270,
1982.
60. Driggers,H.H.,"Studyof AerodynamicTechnology
for Single-Cruise-Engine
VSTOLFighter/AttackAircraft."
NASA CR-166271,
1982.
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Theauthors wishto acknowledge
theinputsto this lectureprovided
bythemany
member-s
of theU.S.
industry,particularly
thosecontributing
to the"Medium-SpeedConcept"
section/
20
TABLE
I. GENERAL
DYNAMICS
HATOL
CONFIGURATION
CHARACTERISTICS
Weight summary (DLI mission)

Wing kg Ib

Area 35.7m(384ft 2) Structure 5138 (11327)

Aspect ratio 3.62 Propulsion 3876 (8545)
Taper ratio 0.19 Fixed equipment 1601 (3530)
Rootchord 5.28 m (17.31 ft) Payload 865 ( 1907)
Tipchord 1.00 m (3.29 ft) Fuel 4390 (9678)
t/c (root/tip) 0.04/0.04
Leading-edge sweep 40 ° VTO gross weight 15870 (34987)

Canard General (DLI mission)

Area(exposed) 7.14 m (76.9 ft 2) W/S (VTO gross weight

Aspect ratio 2.16 4.36 kN/m 2 (911b/ft 2)
Taper ratio 0.37
Rootchord 2.65 m (8.71 ft) T/W (SLS, uninstalled, max A/B)
Tipchord 0.98 m (3.22 ft) 1.30
t/c (root/tip) 0.05/0.03
Leading-edge sweep 45 °

Verticaltail
Area 4.41 m2 (47.5 ft 2)
Aspect ratio 1.27
Taper ratio 0.43
Rootchord 2.61 m (8.55 ft)
Tipchord 1.12 m (3.68 ft)
t/c (root/tip) 0.053/0.04
Leading-edge sweep 47.5 °

TABLE 2. GRUMMAN HATOL CONFIGURATION CHARACTERISTICS

Weight summary (DLI mission)

Wing kg Ib

Area 35.3 m (380 ft 2) Structure 5047 (11126)

Aspect ratio 3.75 Propulsion 3617 (7974)
Taper ratio 0.30 Fixed equipment 2339 (5156)
Root chord 4.72 m (15.5 ft) Payload 1204 (2654)
Tip chord 1.41 m (4.64 ft) Fuel 4906
t/c (root/tip) 0.06/0.06
35 ° VTO gross weight 17113 (37726)
Leading-edge sweep

Canard General (DLI mission)

W/S (VTO gross weight)

Area (exposed) 7.90 m2 (85 ft 2)
Aspect ratio 1.56 4.74 kN/m 2 (99 ]b/ft 2)
Taper ratio 0.37
Root chord T/W (SLS, uninstalled, max A/B)
2.32 m (7.61 ft)
Tip chord 0.86 m (2.82 ft) 1.47
t/c (root/tip) 0.06/0.06
Leading-edge sweep 37.5 °

Vertical tail (per panel)

Area 3.90 m 2 (42 ft 2)

Aspect ratio 1.37
Taper ratio 0.37
Root chord 2.48 m (8.13 ft)
Tip chord 0.91 m (3.00 ft)
t/c (root/tip) 0.05/0.05
Leading-edge sweep 47.5 °
 21
TABLE
3. NORTHROP
HATOL
CONFIGURATION
CHARACTERISTICS
Wing Vertical tail (per panel)

Area 46.5m(500ft 2) Area 2.42 m2 (26.0 ft 2)

Aspect ratio 2.12 Aspect ratio 1.31

Taper ratio O.18 Taper ratio 0.31

Rootchord 7.92m(26.0ft) Root chord 2.08 m (6.83 ft)
Tipchord 1.43m(4.68ft) Tip chord 0.63 m (2.08 ft)
t/c (root/tip) O.04/0.04 t/c (root/tip) O. 04/0.04
Leading-edge sweep 50° Leading-edge sweep 42.5 °

Canard General (DLI mission)

Area(exposed) 4.23 m2 (45.5 ft 2) VTO gross weight

Aspect ratio I. 53 13,608 kg (30,000 Ib)
Taper ratio 0.27
Rootchord 2.62 m (8.58 ft)
W/S (VTO gross weight_
2.87 kN/m" (60 Ib/ft _)
Tipchord 0.71 m (2.33 ft)
t/c (root/tip) 0.04/0.04 T/W (SLS, installed, intermediate power)
Leading-edge sweep 60 ° 1.20

TABLE 4. NORTHROP VATOL CONFIGURATION CHARACTERISTICS

Wing General (DLI mission)

Area 46.5 m2 (500 ft s) VTO gross weight

Aspect ratio 2.12 13,608 kg (30,000 Ib)
Taper ratio 0.18
W/S (VTO gross weight}
Root chord 7.92 m (26.0 ft) 2.87 kN/m _ (60 Ib/ft 2)
Tip chord 1.43 rn (4.68 ft)
t/c (root/tip) O. 04/0. O4 T/W (SLS, uninstalled, intermediate power)
Leading-edge sweep 50 ° 1.29

Vertical tail

Area 2.51 ms (27.0 ft 2)

Aspect ratio 1.10
Taper ratio 0.34
Root chord 2.26 m (7.42 ft)
Tip chord 0.76 m (2.50 ft)
t/c (root/tip) O. 04/0.04
Leading-edge sweep 50 °

TABLE 5. VOUGHT VATOL CONFIGURATION CHARACTERISTICS

Wing Weight summary (DLI mission)

kg Ib
Area 32.9 m2 (354 ft _)
Aspect ratio 2.30
Taper ratio 0.15 Structure 2328 (5133)
Root chord 6.61 m (21.7 ft) Propulsion 1985 (4375)
Tip chord 0.99 m (3.25 ft) Fixed equipment 1461 ( 3221)
t/c (root/tip) 0.05/0.05 Payload 1101 (2427)
Leading-edge sweep 50 ° Fuel 3728

VTO gross weight 10603 (23375)

Canard
General (DLI mission)
Area (exposed) 4.89 m s (52.6 ft 2)
Aspect ratio 0.80
W/S (VTO gross weight}
Taper ratio 0.25
3.16 kN/m _ (66 Ib/ft 2)
Root chord 2.80 m (9.17 ft)
Tip chord 0.70 m (2.29 ft) T/W (SLS, uninstalled, max A/B)
t/c (root/tip) 0.0510.04 1.45
Leading-edge sweep 60 °

Vertical tail

Area 5.57 m2 (60.0 ft s)

Aspect ratio 1.00
Taper ratio 0.30
Root chord 3.63 m (11.92 ft)
Tip chord 1.09 m (3.58 ft)
t/c (root/tip) 0.05/0.04
Leading-edge sweep 53 °
22
TABLE 6. GENERAL DYNAMICSE7CONFIGURATION
DIMENSIONAL
DATA
Parameter Wing Verticaltail
Reference area,m2 (ft 2) 58.58(630.6) 5.09(54.8)
Aspect ratio 1.665 1.294
Taper ratio 0.115 0.437
Span, m(ft) 9.88(32.40) 2.57(8.42)
Rootchord,m(ft) 10.64(34.90) 2.77(9.10)
Tipchord,m(ft) 1.22(4.00) 1.21(3.96)
MAC, m(ft) 7.18(23.56)
Leading-edge sweep,deg 60 47.5
Trailing-edge sweep,deg -10
t/c root 0.04 0.053
t/c tip 0.04 0.030
Airfoil NACA64A004 Biconvex

TABLE7. GENERAL
DYNAMICS
E7
CONFIGURATION
WEIGHT
SUMMARY
Item Weight,
kg(Ib)
Structure 3848(B494)
Propulsion 2573(5672)
SystemsandEquipment 1813(3996)
Weightempty 8239(18162)
Operational
weight 8612(18986)
Payload* 449( 990)
Zerofuelweight 9061(19976)
Fuel 5578(12297)
Takeoffgrossweight 14640(32273)
*TwoAIM-9LandtwoAMR_u_M.

TABLE 8. GENERALDYNN(ICSCONFIGURATION
E7POINTPERFORMANCE
Note1 Note2 Note3
Pointperformanceweight 11461
(25267)12402(27341)8722(19228)
Escortmission
Fuel,kg(Ib) 4380(9657) 5568(12275)
TOGW, kg(Ib) 13667(30130)14629(32251)
Radius,
km(NM) 741(400) 1143 (617)
Interdiction
mission
Fuel,kg(Ib) 5568(12275)
TOGW, kg(Ib) 16112(35522)
Radius,km(NM) 1020(551)
Maximum
Mach
35KFT, maximum thrust 1.73 1.73 1.73
10KFT,int. thrust 1.02 1.02 1.02
Turnloadfactor
M0.60,10KFT 6.9
M0.65,10KFT 5.5 5.3 7.6
PS@1g, M0.9,10KFT, m/sec(ft/sec) 237(777) 228(747) 323(1059)
Notes:(1) Pt. perf.@60% escortfuelweight.
(2) Pt. perf.@60%full fuelweight.
(3) Pt. perf.@88%VTOL weight.
 23

TABLE 9. MCAIRCONFIGURATION
DIMENSIONAL DATA
Canard
Parameter Wing (exposed) Verticaltail
Reference area, m 2 (ft _) 39.80 (428.4) 7.95 (85.6) 6.00(65.0)
Aspect ratio 3.0 3.0 1.2
Taper ratio 0.25 0.25 0.35
Span, m (ft) 10.92 (35.84) 4.88 (16.02) 2.69(8.83)
Semispan, m (in.) 5.46 (215.00) 2.44 (96.14) 2.69(105.98)
Root chord, m (in.) 5.83 (229.44) 2.61 (102.59) 3.32 (130.84)
Tip chord, m (in.) 1.46 (57.36) 0.65 (25.64) 1.16 (45.80)
Mean aero. chord, m (in.) 4.08 (160.52) 1.82 (71.81) 2.42 (95.14)
Leading-edge sweep, deg 45 50 45
0
Incidence, deg 0 at fuselage 0
Dihedral, deg -9 0
Twist, deg -4 at tip 0
Airfoil, root 64AXO6MOD 64A005 64A005
Airfoil, tip 64AX00MOO 64A003 64A003

TABLE 10. MCAIR CONFIGURATION PROPULSION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

Engine: P&WA STF-561-C2

FN total: 152,638 N (34,316 Ib) installed (FN VTO at 90°F, T/W = 1.15)
Thrust split: fwd 61%, aft 39%

Inlet: Fixed half conical spike, 16.5 o cone

AC = 1.13 m 2 (12.17 ft 2)

BPR = 1.16, FPR = 3.50, OPR = 25.0

Maximum air flow: 167 kg/sec (369 Ib/sec)

CE-TMAX : 1760°C (3200°F), TpCBvTO = 1866oc (3390°F)

TpCBIcaj(= 1949°C (35400F) at M = 2.0 and 7,620 m (25,000 ft)

TABLE 11. MCAIR CONFIGURATION WEIGHT

SUIO4ARY

Item Weight, kg (Ib)

Structure 4351 (9592)

Propulsion 2003 ( 4415)
Fixed equipment 2186 (4820)
Weight empty 8540 (18827)
Operating weight empty 8985 (19808)
Payload* 665 (1466)
VTO usable fuel 3885 (8566)
STO usable fuel 4513 (9950)
VTO gross weight* 13535 (29840)
STO gross weight* 14161 (31220)

*Includes two AMRAAI( and two AIM-9

missiles and 25-mm gun with 400 rounds
of ammunition.
24
TABLE 12. MCAIR CONFIGURATION
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
Item NASA guideline Model 279-3
Sustained
loadfactorat Mach 0.6, 6.2 6.2
3,048m(10,000 ft), 88%VTOGW
PSIGat Mach 0.9,3,048 m(10,000ft), 274(900) 317(1,040)
88%VTOGW,m/sec (ft/sec)
DLImissionradius,VTOGW = 13,535kg --- 191(103)
(29,840Ib), km(n.mi.)
Sustained
Mach number 1.6 2.0

STOsea-basedgrossweight, kg(Ib) 17,164-18,071 16,960"

(37,840-39,840) (41,800)*

Note: Two AMR#AM, two AIM-g, and 25-mm gun with 400 rounds of
ammunition.
*Flat deck run of 122 m (400 ft) at O-knot wind over deck (WOD) or
61 m (200 ft) at 20-knots WOD.

TABLE 13. ROCKWELL BASELINE CONFIGURATION

DIMENSIONAL DATA

Wing (total)
Area, m_ (ft 2) 50.26 (541.0)
Aspect ratio 1.8
Span, m (ft) 9.60 (31.5)
Root chord, m (ft) 8.36 (27.43)
Tip chord, m (ft) 0.98 (3.2)
MAC, m (ft) 6.14 (20.13)
Leading-edge sweep, inboard, deg 48.0
Leading-edge sweep, outboard, deg 64.0
Airfoil 65-005 MOD
t/c, inboard 0.038
t/c, outboard 0.034

Vertical (per panel)

Area, m 2 (ft 2) 3.40 (36.7)
Aspect ratio 1.41
Root chord, m (ft) 2.35 (7.68)
Tip chord, m (ft) 0.78 (2.55)
Taper ratio 0.33
Leading-edge sweep, deg 41.6
MAC, m (ft) 1.69 (5.54)
Span, m (ft) 2.20 (7.2)
Cant angle, deg 30
Airfoil NASA 65-00

TABLE 14. ROCKWELL CONFIGURATION ENGINE CHARACTERISTICS

Thrust (sea level, standard day, uninstalled)

Max A/B, N (]b) 150,699 (33,880)
Intermediate, N (Ib) 91,629 (20,600)
Bypass ratio (BPR) 0.51
Fan pressure ratio (FPR) 3.6
Overall pressure ratio (OPR) 30.0
Combustor exit temperature, °C (°F) 1,538 (2,800)
 25
TABLE15. ROCKWELL BASELINE
CONFIGURATION
PERFORMANCE
SUMMARY
Rockwell
NASA baseline
Item guidelineconfiguration
Sustained
loadfactorat Mach 0.6, 6.2 6.3
3,048m(10,000 ft), 88%VTOGW
PSzGat Mach 0.9,3,048 m(10,000ft), 274(900) 357(1,170)
B8% VTOGW,m/sec (ft/sec)
DLImissionradius,VTOGW =10,886 kg --- 278(150)
(24,000Ib), km(n.mi.)
Sustained
Mach nunV_er 1.6 1.9

TABLE16. ROCKWELL
BASELINE
CONFIGURATION
WEIGHT
SUMMARY
Item Weight,kg(Ib)
Structure 4143(9133)
Propulsion 2437(5373)
Fixed
equipment 1462 (3223)
Weight
empty 8042(17729)
Operating
weightempty 8248(18184)
Payload 544(1200)
Fuel 2559 (5641)
VTO gross weight 11351 (25025)

TABLE 17. ROCKWELL ALTERNATIVE

CONFIGURATION DIMENSIONAL DATA

Wing (total)
Area, m2 (ft2) 50.96 (548.5)
Aspect ratio 1.809
Span, m (ft) 9.60 (31.5)
Root chord, m (ft) 9.46 (31.03)
Tip chord, m (ft) 1.16 (3.79)
Taper ratio 0.122
MAC, m (ft) 6.39 (20.96)
Leading-edge sweep, deg 60
Airfoil 65-005 MOD
t/c, inboard 0.038
t/c, outboard 0.034

Vertical (per panel)

Area, m 2 (ft 2) 3.40 (36.7)
Aspect ratio 1.41
Root chord, m (ft) 2.35 (7.68)
Tip chord, m (ft) 0.78 (2.55)
Taper ratio 0.33
Leading-edge sweep 41.6
MAC, m (ft) 1.69 (5.54)
Span, m (ft) 2.20 (7.2)
Cant angle, deg 30
Airfoil NASA 65-00
26
TABLE 18. ROCKWELL
ALTERNATIVE
CONFIG-
URATIONWEIGHT
SUMMARY
Item Weight,kg(Ib)
Structure 3916(8633)
Propulsion 2475(5456)
Fixedequipment 1454(3206)
Weightempty 7845(17295)
Operatingweightempty 8052(17750)
Payload 544(1200)
Fuel 2427 (5350)

VTO gross weight 11023 (24300)

TABLE 19. VOUGHT CONFIGURATION DIMENSIONAL DATA

Canard Vertical fin Aft ventral Forward ventral

Wing (total) (each) (each) (each) (each)

Area, m2 (ft 2) 32.52 (350.0) 1.93 (20.8) 2.43 (26.2) 0.79 (8.5) 0.33 (3.6)
Aspect ratio 2.24 1.20 1.30 0.58 1.12
Taper ratio 0.15 0.28 0.35 0.0 0.30
Span, m (ft) 8.53 (28.00) 1.52 (5.00) 1.77 (5.84) 0.67 (2.21) 0.61 (2.00)
Root chord, m (ft) 6.63 (21.74) 1.98 (6.51) 2.03 (6.65) 2.03 (6.67) 0.84 (2.75)
Tip chord, m (ft) 0.99 (3.26) 0.55 (1.82) 0.71 (2.33) 0.0 (0.0) 0.25 (0.83)
Mean geometric chord, m (ft) 4.50 (14.78) 1.40 (4.60) 1.47 (4.84) 1.55 (5.10) 0.59 (1.97)
Leading edge sweep, deg 50.0 55.0 45.0 45.0 45.0
t/c, root/tip 0.06/0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04
Airfoil, root/tip 65AOO6/65AO05 65A004 65A004 65A003 65A004
Dihedral, deg 0 10 ....... 15 to -75
Fin cant, deg ...... 15 15 ---
Definition Idealized Root chord From wing From wing Exposed
no strake or at strake reference reference area
trailing-edge plane plane
extension

TABLE 20. VOUGHT TANDEM-FAN BASELINE CYCLE CHARACTERISTICS

Parallel flow Series flow

(VTOL) (high speed)

Fan pressure ratio 2.2/1.75 3.44

Bypass ratio 3.43 1.00
Compressor PR 10.0 7.33
Overall PR 17.5 25.2
Combustor temperature, °C (°F) 1,538 (2,800) 1,479 (2,695)
Exhaust temperature, °C (°F) 510/510 (950/950) 1,871 (3,400)
Thrust, augmented, N (Ib) 130,264 (29,286) 195,023 (43,845)
SFC, augmented 0.977 2.024
Thrust, unaugmented, N (Ib) 111,200 (25,000) 117,810 (26,486)
SFC 0.541 0.665
Corrected airflow, kg/sec (Ib/sec) 196/115 (433/254) 196 (433)
Core corrected airflow, kg/sec (Ib/sec) 44 (97) 35 (78)
Actual airflow, kg/sec (Ib/sec) 181/106 (400/234) 187 (412)
Core actual airflow, kg/sec (Ib/sec) 65 (143) 93 (206)

TABLE 21. VOUGHT TF120 MISSION CAPABILITY

Plus two
Parameter Internal fuel 370-gal tanks

VTO weight, kg (Ib) 11312 (24940)

STO weight, kg (Ib) 15723 (34664)
Fuel, kg (Ib) 3846 (8480) 6129 (13512)
Supersonic intercept radius
M = 1.6, 15240 m (50000 ft), km (n. mi.) 371 (200)
M = 2.0, 18288 m (60000 ft), km (n. mi.) 258(139)
Fighter escort radius, n. mi. 1003 (541) 1553 (838)
Interdiction radius, n. mi. 962 (519)
 27

TABLE22. VOUGHT
TF120WEIGHTSUMMARY
Item Weight,kg(Ib)
Structure 2442(5384)
Propulsion 2553(5629)
Fixed
equipment 1469 ( 3240)
Weight
empty 6464(14253)
Operating
weightempty 6711(14798)
Payload* 754(1662)
Usable
fuel 3846 (8480)

VTO gross weight 11310 (24940)

*Four AMRAAM and 20-mm gun with

400 rounds of ammunition.

TABLE 23. VOUGHT TF120 PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

Vought TF120
NASA
Item guideline
Max A/B Intermedi ate

Sustained load factor at Mach 0.6, 6.2 6.62

3,048 m (10,000 ft), 88% VTOGW

PSIG at Mach 0.9, 3,048 m (10,000 ft), 274 (900) 526 (1,725)
88% VTOGW, m/sec (ft/sec)
Acceleration from M = 0.8 to M = 1.6 --- 34
at 10,973 m (36,000 ft), sec
Maximum Mach number at 10,973 m 1.6 2.40 1.42
(36,000 ft)
Ceiling, m (ft) --- 20,379 (66,860) 16,331 (53,580)
28

Figurei. Lockheed
XFV-I. Figure
2. Convair
XFY-1Pogo.

Figure
3. Ryan
X-13Vertijet. Figure
4. BellAir TestVehicle
(ATV).
 29

Figure
5. BellX-14. 6. BellXV-3
Figure Tilt Rotor.

Figure
7. Ryan
VZ3-RY. Figure
8. Boeing-Vertol
VZ-2.

Figure
9. Doak
VZ-4
Ducted
Fan. Figure10. Lockheed
XV-4A
H_dmmingbird.
3O
i

Figure 11, Ryan XV-5B. Figure 12. LTV XC-142 Tilt Wing.

Figure 13. Curtiss Wright X-19A Tilt Prop. Figure 14. Bell X-22A Ducted Fan.

Figure 15. Bell XV-15 Tilt Rotor,

 31

Figure 16. AV-8B Harrier 11,

m. _

3.6 m
(11.6 ft)

9.2m_
(30.3 ft)/ (46.3 ft)

Figure 17. AV-SB Harrier II. Figure 18. AV-SB Harrier 11.
32

Figure
19. Changes
to theAV-8A
todevelop
theAV-SB
HarrierII.

POSITIVE CIRCULATION FLAP

• INCREASED STOL CAPABILITY (6,717 LB)
SUPERCRITICAL AIRFOIL

RAISED COCKPIT • REDUCED TRANSONIC DRAG

• IMPROVED MANEUVERING
• IMPROVED VISIBILITY
• COMPOSITE STRUCTURE
• REDUCED WEIGHT (56 LB) COMPOSITE RUDDER
AND HORIZONTAL TAIL
LEADING EDGE ROOT • REDUCED WEIGHT
EXTENSIONS (LERX)
(50 LB}
• INCREASED
MANEUVER-
ABILITY

ANGLE RATE
BOMBING SYSTEM

INTAKE LIFT IMPROVEMENT

DEVICES
• INCREASED RECOVERY (1%)
• BETTER CRUISE EFFICIENCY • VTO LIFT INCREASED
• MORE VTO THRUST (600 LB) (1,200 LB)

Figure 20. Advanced technologies incorporated into the AV-8B.

 33

Figure 21. Boeing tilt-nacelle medium-speed Figure 22. Boeing blown-flap medium-speed concept.
concept.

HORIZONTAL FLIGHT

TRANSITION & STOL

HOVER & VTOL

Figure 23. General Dynamics ABLE medium-speed Figure 24. General Dynamics medium-speed concept.
propulsive-lift concept.

7:

i
6.6m

(54.8
16.7 m
_) __ 14.3
(47.0 m ___
ft)

Figure 25. Three views of the General Dynamics Figure 26. Folding capability of the General
medium-speed concept. Dynamics medium-speed concept.

z
34

BACKUP CROSS-SHAFT

W,NG
ARRAYS IN - _-_ \ _'_"_. FOLDED
N

STRAKES FOR NACELLES NO HI-LIFT

POSITIVE WITH CONTROL DEVICES
GROUND EFFECT VANES

Figure
27. Grumman
tilt-nacellemedium-speed Figure 28. Features of Grumman Design 698.
concept
(Design
698).
NACELLE PIVOT LINE

BL 0

CARRY THROUGH {"-'_ :"[ VANE SUPPORT

STRUCTURE _/ I ' BOOM

TF-34-GE-100 HORIZONTAL
TURBOFAN VANE AND FLAP

TOP VIEW

NACELLE PIVOT

VERTICAL
BULLET & _ VANE : _IILH v
suPPORT
_ _l
=r_ t IC RM
LHV DHV

YAWING DHV
MOMENT
VANES_

1
SIDE VIEW Z-AXIS

Figure 29. Design 698 tilting nacelle. Figure 30. Differential horizontal vane deflection
for yaw.

ROLLING
MOMENT

LABLE

DVV DVV

Figure 31. Vertical vane deflection and

differential thrust for roll.
 35

CROSS DUCT/PLENUM

_AREA FWD NOZZLE

't r_ v/7_, . M IXE_D_-F_LOW

F,___ (59.9
18.3 ft)--_
m

Figure 34. Lockheed twin engine, split-fan,

medium-speed concept.

Figure 32. Lockheed split-fan propulsive-lift

concept.

6.2 m
(20.2 ft)

_____._ 16.5 m _p__.__ 15.2 m

(54.0 ft) "_ (49.8 _)--_

Figure 35. Lockheed four engine, split-fan,

medium-speed concept.
ROLLCONTROL

LATERAL FLOW
DISTRIBUTION VIA
VARIABLE NOZZLE
AREA AND
CROSS-DUCT

DIFFERENTIAL

THRUST VECTORING ____2_

_CONTROL

Figure 33. Lockheed split-fan hover-control Figure 36. MCAIR gas-driven fan Model 260 medium-
concept.
speed concept.
36

LIFT/CRUISE
REMOTE
VECTORING
GEARBOX

TRAN_
_ _|
OVERRUNNING_OZZL i
_ ENERGY . CLUTCHES _ v \
REMOTEENGINE --_._w,,,_\ GENERATOR \

CROSS SHAFT f_ "_/_'N OS E FAN \

& DIFFERENTIALLY

_ORED THRU_

ENERG _
_''_'_. = A = =_ v LIFT/CRUISE/ / _ \PTO
TRANSFER YAWl=_ TRANSFER
PITCH
_: .... O,A._OX
/ i _:T_s, (BOTH

Figure 37. Gas-driven Model 260 propulsion/control

system.
GUIDEVANES OVERRUNNING
CLUTCH

CRUISE Figure 40. Mechanically driven Model 260

"D'" SHAPED
propulsion/control system.
. CRUISE EXIT

AREA

"HINGED YAW VANE

CLOSURE DOORS
(CLOSED POSITION)

VTOL ROTATING

i_;
_¸¸¸_¸ i

VENTING LIP
SPLIT YAW
VANE

Figure 38. Vented "D" nozzle characteristics.

Figure 41. MCAIR vectored-thrust Model 276

medium-speed concept.

!
TR ANSF E R-/"_ _

Figure 39. MCAIR mechanically driven three-fan Figure 42. Vectored-thrust Model 276 propulsion/
Model 260 medium-speed concept, control system,
 37

Figure 43. Rockwell ejector-in-wing medium-speed Figure 44. Three views of Rockwell ejector-in-wing
concept. medium-speed concept.

_. ARRANGEMENT

4-POSTER

Figure 45. Vought tandem-fan medium-speed concept Figure 46. Vought tandem-fan propulsion concept.
(V-530).

VARIABLE INLET GUIOE VANES OVERRUNNING CLUTCH

FAN GEAR BOX FAN ENGINE NOZZLE

Figure 47, Vought tandem-fan drive system

arrangement.

E
38

PITCH ROLL YAW

FAN THRUST MODULATION FAN THRUST MODULATION DIFFERENTIAL DEFLECTION

OF OF OF
FWD AND AFT FANS LEFT AND RIGHT FANS LEFT AND RIGHT NOZZLES

Figure 48. Vought tandem-fan hover-control concepts.

DECK LAUNCH 2 M=
min 1.0
A/8
INTERCEPT
(DLI) VL_J 278km I (10,000
3048m ft)

!.VTO (150 n. mi.)

FIGHTER ESCORT 2 M-1.6

min A/B
12192 m

VL_"VTO RADIUS _ (40,000 ft) _.7m

54 ft)
BCAV 5 rain INT

SURFACE STRIKE
(20,000 ft)
V.__L__ 6096M'0"Sm

STO I" "1 6096

(20,000
m
ft)
L--
r
11.4 m
(37.3 ft)-_-_ J' 16.3m
(53.3 ft)
I,
Figure 49. Example mission profiles for twin- Figure 50. General Dynamics HATOL ejector-diffuser
engine VSTOL fighter/attack aircraft. concept,

\ i"

REMOTE
AUGMENTOR VTOL BUCKET

I ! 'TR,MTAB
_ _STOWED MODE

\
REMOTE VTOL BUCKET
GIMBALLING DEFLECTED MODE
NOZZLE

Figure 51. Ejector-diffuser bays open and closed Figure 52, Remote Augmented Lift System (RALS),
on the General Dynamics concept.
 39

!-

__zic__ 3.5 m
,-==Z'-.. i (11.5ft)

I __l
(?io;,, ° ,,,mo j I --L-
[ (48.8 ft) "-I

Figure 53. General Dynamics HATOL RALS concept. Figure 54. Grumman HATOL concept.

SECONDARY FLAP

PRIMARY FLAP /

/ DEFLECTOR

I __...._ _" (STOWED)

VENTRAL FLAP
TRANSITION

SECTION

Figure 55. Grumman MATOL concept. Figure 56. Schematic of ADEN.

!:

m _7,: -

4.1m

(13.6 ft)

Z
__ 9.9m ._=J
(32.6 ft) I-
I_ (62.5
16.0 ft)
m "=I

Figure 57. Northrop HATOL concept. Figure 58. Artist rendering of the Northrop HATOL
concept.
40

_4.0 m

(13.3 ft)

9.9m __
(32.6_) ___ 15.8 m
(51.7 ft)--_

Figure 59. Northrop VATOL concept. Figure 60. Artist rendering of the Northrop VATOL
concept.

4.3 m
(14.2 ft)

8.7mft) --i
(28,5 145.3 ft)

Figure 61. Vought VAT_L concept. Figure 62. Artist rendering of the Vought VATOL
concept in a STOVL configuration.

Figure 63. General Dynamics E7 configuration in Figure 64. General Dynamics E7 configuration in
hover flight, cruise flight
 = ]

41

FAN AIR DUCT

TH ROTTLING
SHUTTLE VALVE / VALVE

_c2 _,
r....
TO FAN
AIR AFT
NOZZLE
I
TO EJECTORS i
/

INLET AIR _ / t L....=J__CORE TOVECTORABLE NOZZLE 5.18m

(17.0 ft)
............ TJ
FAN AIR COLLECTOR

Figure 65. General Dynamics E7 configuration

propulsive system schematic.

_ 9,88 rn 15.06
(49,42 m
ft)

Figure 67. General Dynamics E7 configuration.

M.88 OPT CRUISE

15,000
50,000 [

FAN
TO EJECTORS
AIR

ADEN
CORE
THROUGH
AIR

NOZZLE
E
u'lO,
Q

m
O00

5000
40,0001

ft 30'0001
I • M=0.9 .
2O.0O0 I IRT CLIMB • 3048 m (10,000 ft)'_
ID

(a) Hover configuration. lO.OOOi

o 100 200 300 400

n.mi,
I I i I

200 400 600 800

COMBAT RADIUS, km

Z
Figure 68. Naval escort mission u_ed in the
General Dynamics studies.

_IAL FAN

PARTIAL FAN _ AIR T_ AFT

AIR TO EJECTORS CORE AIR NOZZLES

VECTORED =

(b) ST0 and transition configuration.

: i

i
; i

FAN
A,R,
CORE AiR, AFTE RBURNED

AFTERBURNED AS REQUIRED
AS REQUIRED

(c) Up-and-away configuration.

Figure 66. Three modes of operation of E7 Figure 69. MCAIR configuration in hover flight,
propulsion system. = _

L _
42

5.29 m
(17.34 ft)

1092m--H
(35.84 ft)
I_
i-
17.07
(56.00
m
ft)
._1
I

Figure 70. MCAIR configuration in cruise flight. Figure 71. MCAIR 279-3 configuration.

® ®

RADIUS >I

STORE LOADING: (2) SRM + (2) AMRAAM

(_ WARM-UP, VTO, ACCELERATION 2 rain, IRT; 0.5 min MAXIMUM POWER

(_ CLIMB TO DASH CONDITION: MAXIMUM POWER

® DASH MACH 1.6 @ 12,192 m (40,000 ft)

® COMBAT 2 min, MAXIMUM POWER AT DASH CONDITION

(_) DECELERATE-CLIMB TO BCAV

_) CRUISE BCAV

(_ DESCENT TO SEA LEVEL

NO FUEL OR DISTANCE CREDIT

(_) LANDING ALLOWANCE

LOITER 10 min, AT SEA LEVEL, MINIMUM FUEL
LANDING 45 r,ec AT LANDING POWER

RESERVE 5% TOTAL FUEL

SERVICE TOLERANCE
5% FUEL FLOW

Figure 72. Vertical-takeoff supersonic deck-launched intercept (DLI) mission used in the MCAIR studies.
 43

MISSION PROFILE

7 6
)(

1. WARMUP TAKEOFF AND ACCEL. TO CLIMB

SPEED 4 rain IDLE PLUS 1.25 rain INTERMEDIATE

2. CLIMB TO 12,192 m (40,000 ft) MAX A/B

3. ACCEL. TO 1.6 MACH NUMBER @ 12,192 m

(40,000 It)
4. CLIMB @ 1.6 MACH TO 15,240 m (50,000 ft)

5. CRUISE @ 1.6 MACH @ 15,240 m (50,000 ft)

6, COMBAT 2 rain @ 1.6 MACH @ MAX A/B

Figure 73. Rockwell baseline configuration in
cruise flight. 7. CRUISE BACK TO BASE @ BEST CRUISE ALTITUDE
AND VELOCITY (BCAV)

8, LANDING RESERVE (5% INITIAL FUEL + 10 min

LOITER AT SEA LEVEL)

Figure 76. Deck-launched intercept (E)L,I) mission

used in the Rockwell studies.

CRUISE

SITION/STOL

Figure 74. Rockwell configuration in various

flight modes.

Figure 77. Rockwell alternative configuration in

cruise flight.

J
/

_'- . j 4.36m
4.36 m
(14.30 ft)
(14.30 ft)

T
_J 158Sm__
(31-50ft) - I k -(52"00ft) -I

Figure 75. Rockwell baseline configuration. Figure 78. Rockwell alternative configuration.
44

Figure 79. Early Vought configuration in cruise Figure 80. Vought configuration in cruise flight.
flight.

SERIES FLOW MODE - HIGH SPEED

3.56 m
(11.67 ft)

o
(28.00 ft) (46.00 ft) PARALLEL FLOW MODE - V/STOL

Figure 81. Vought configuration. Figure 82. Schematic of Vought tandem-fan concept.

SUPERSONICINTERCEPT _ BCAV
(si)
.A.RAAM
LO,TER
I
,0_,oSLv,+>
"_ ......... "-,m,.,,R
M = 1.6, 12,192 m
VTO + I (40,000h)
200 n. mi. _1

(FE)FIGHTER ESCORT
4 AMRAAM LOITER
÷2 SRAAM 10 rain. SL V L _----_ "___ 2 min A/B
M " 1.0, 9144 m
+2 TANKS VTO'_,_ RADIUS _ I30.000 ft)

(INx)INTERDICTION

4 LGB LOITER "=_ °_-_-v-_'_-_"_-'-"_LMDAsH, SL

+2 SRAAM 10 rain, SL _/ _ 5 min INT

+2 TAN KS STO [._ RADIUS _ MDASH, SL

DROP BOMBS

MDASH - 0.85 FOR DASH - 185 km (100 n, mi.)

Figure 83. Vought notional design missions.

 1. Report N_. 2. Governmemt Ac'cmi_ No. 3. Recipicmt't Catalog No.

NASA TM-85938
4. Tille and _btitle 5. Report Date

V/STOL CONCEPTS IN THE UNITED STATES- PAST, April 1984

6. Performing Orgmnization Code
PRESENT, AND FUTURE

7. Aurar(s) 8. Performing Orpnization Report No.

W. P. Nelms and S. B. Anderson A-9695

10. Work Unit No.

9. _forming Or_nization Name and Addrm T3288Y

Ames Research Center 11, Contract or Grant No.

Moffett Field, CA 94035

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

12 S_nsoring A_ncv Name and Addr_s Technical Memorandum

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14 Sponsoring Agency Code

Washington, DC 20546 505-43-01

15 Supplementary Notes

Point of contact: W. P. Nelms, Ames Research Center, MS 227-2, Moffett

Field, CA 94035 (415) 965-5879 or FTS 448-5879

16 Abstract

This paper summarizes V/STOL aircraft developed in the United States

and describes concepts considered for future applications. The discussion
is limited to non-helicopter types of vehicles. In particular, past V/STOL
aircraft are reviewed, and some lessons learned from a selected number of
concepts are highlighted. The only current concept described is the AV-8B,
which was developed by modifications to the British Harrier. Configurations
recently proposed for the future subsonic, multimission aircraft and the
future supersonic fighter/attack aircraft are described. Emphasis in the
paper is on these supersonic concepts.

17. Key Wor_ (Sugge_t_ by Author($)) 18. Oistribution Statement

V/STOL aircraft, Powered lift, Unlimited

V/STOL aerodynamics, V/STOL propulsion
systems, V/STOL fighters
Subject Category - 02

22. Price"
19. Security Qa=if. (of this rearS) 20. Security Cla=if. (of this page)

Unclassified Unclassified A03

"For sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161