Lost Crusader from El Segundo: the Douglas D-652

In 1952, the US Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics issued a requirement for a jet fighter capable of transonic speeds at 35,000 feet (15,850 meters) and Mach 1.2 in afterburner mode, with armament comprising both guns and/or collision course rockets. The El Segundo division of the Douglas company leveraged its experience with design of the F4D Skyray and the D-591 project to undertake work on a supersonic jet fighter derived from the Skyray in response to the OS-130 requirement, designated D-652 by the company.

Three view drawings of the Douglas D-652 sans suffixe (left) and D-652-1 (right)

Four D-652 designs were worked out by Douglas in early 1953. The baseline design, the D-652 sans suffixe, retained the Skyray's powerplant but differed from the Skyray in having a longer fuselage and thin wings to reduce transonic drag, and it was armed with two 20 mm cannons in the lower lip of each air intake and either two 37-shot fold-fin rocket packages below the outer underwing pylons or one 19-shot rocket package and a Sparrow-air-to-air missile below all the underwing pylons. The D-652A was a scaled-down version powered by one 13,800 lb (61.3 kN) thrust Rolls-Royce Avon RA.14 turbojet and measuring 46 feet 4 in (14.12 meters) long with a wingspan of 27 feet 6 in (8.38 meters) and a gross weight of 18,500 lb (8,392 kg). The D-652-1 design utilized the Skyray wing outboard of the fillet and existing associated features such as the main landing gear, and the cockpit was moved forward to allow more space for fuel in the fuselage, The D-652-2 had the existing airframe of the F4D but differed in electronics and provisions for 300 gallon (1,136 lit) external fuel tanks to achieve the required combat radius. Both the D-652-1 and D-652-2 proposals would have used either the J57 or Avon, and they also had a shorter nose than the baseline D-652 design, but were heavier than the D-652A.  

In May 1953, the Vought V-383 was declared the winner of the OS-130 competition and became the F8U Crusader, making its first flight on March 25, 1955. In the meantime, Douglas would apply some expertise in the design of the D-652 project to development of the F5D Skylancer.

References:

Buttler, T., 2013. Early US Jet Fighters: Proposals, Projects, and Prototypes. Manchester, UK: Hikoki Publications. 

Missile-armed hunter from El Segundo: Douglas F6D Missileer

The El Segundo division of Douglas made its only genuine forays into developing and building carrier-based jet fighters for operations in the daytime in the 1950s with the F4D Skyray and F5D Skylancer, both of which were quite revolutionary among US Navy jet fighters in their wing planform. However, the end of the F5D program and the completion of production of the F4D did not entirely spell the end of the flirtation by Douglas' El Segundo division with air-to-air combat aircraft designs, despite the company’s preoccupation with production of airliners, attack aircraft, and military transports. Towards the end of the 1950s, Douglas toyed with the idea of a long-range  interceptor designed to defend the US Navy’s aircraft carriers from Mach 2 capable aircraft, taking the world of long-range aerial interception into the realm of naval aviation. However, the concept of a subsonic fleet defense fighter by Douglas would end up being killed by a combination of both politics and the changing threat environment emanating from the Soviet Union.

An artist's concept of the Douglas F6D Missileer (D-766) in flight

In 1957, the US Navy published detailed assessments indicating that the new F4H Phantom II supersonic jet fighter might not be capable of protecting aircraft carriers from enemy aircraft capable of Mach 2 and that a purpose-built subsonic interceptor would be needed to prevent attacks on large carriers by Mach 2 aircraft. To begin addressing this demand, a new long-range air-to-air missile, the XAAM-N-10 Eagle, was envisaged with mid-course and terminal homing guidance systems and the capability to shoot down enemy aircraft 130 miles (209 km) away, and Bendix and Douglas submitted proposals for the airframe of the Eagle missile, the latter submission designated D-742 by Douglas. In December 1958, Bendix was selected by the Navy to build the Eagle, which relied on a solid-fuel rocket booster with folding fins to reach Mach 3.5, and Grumman became the sub-contractor for development of the XAAM-N-10. By late November 1959, the US Navy announced the TS-151 requirement for a long-range fleet defense jet fighter armed with the Eagle missile and equipped with a Westinghouse AN/APG-81 pulse-doppler radar while flying at a loiter time of six hours over a distance of 150 miles (241 km). In response, Boeing, Douglas, Grumman, North American, McDonnell, and Vought submitted bids for the TS-151 competition, with the Douglas proposals being designated D-765, D-766, and D-767 by the company and the North American design featuring straight shoulder-mounted wings and two jet engines slung under the wings. Douglas had previously worked on a subsonic long-range interceptor project in May 1958 under the internal designation D-746, the weapon system based on the carriage of the losing Douglas bid for the XAAM-N-10 airframe contract having been designated D-745. The D-766 design had straight shoulder-mounted wings and horizontal stabilizers and two Pratt & Whitney TF30 turbofans in the wing roots, and it was 53 feet (16.15 meters) long with a wingspan of 70 feet (21.3 meters), a height of 10 feet 1 in (3.07 meters), a wing area of 630 square feet (59 m²), a gross weight of 50,000 lb (22,680 kg), a maximum takeoff weight of 60,000 lb (27,216 kg), and a top speed of 546 mph (879 km/h). The wings of the D-766 would have underwing pylons for six Eagle air-to-air missiles, three per wing, and the tricycle landing gear had twin wheels on each leg, all folding into the fuselage.

On July 21, 1960, the US Navy declared the Douglas D-766 the winner of the TS-151 competition, with the Vought V-434 submission achieving second place, and the D-766 was officially designated XF6D-1 and christened Missileer, with two prototypes ordered. The biggest complexity of the F6D Missileer was the fact that its pulse-doppler radar and air-to-air weaponry had to work in concert with the newly deployed Grumman W2F Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft (redesignated E-2 in 1962), given that the AEW system of the Hawkeye was capable of detecting threats at ranges beyond 230 miles (370 km) to assist the F6D in intercepting enemy aircraft and the pulse-doppler radar could cover areas over distances of 137 miles (220 km). Therefore, although development of the F6D was seen as likely to be low-cost and successful, the system as a whole was very risky and expensive. Additionally, some Navy officials had doubts about the need for a subsonic fleet defense interceptor, arguing that once the F6D Missileer fired its missiles, it would be completely unable to defend itself and would have to return to an aircraft carrier as quickly as possible to re-arm. By December 1960 outgoing Secretary of Defense Thomas Gates removed funding for the F6D from the FY 1962 defense budget, and even though Douglas in February 1961 made a last-minute plea to keep the Missileer project alive, newly sworn-in Defense Secretary Robert McNamara formally canceled the F6D program in favor having the Navy and US Air Force forge a joint requirement for a new fighter-bomber that became the TFX program, which led to the F-111 Aardvark. The Eagle AAM that would have armed the F6D also was cancelled without ever having reached the hardware phase, but some of its technologies would later find their way into the AIM-54 Phoenix air-to-air missile carried by the F-14 Tomcat. In any case, the fact that the USSR did not put much serious effort into developing supersonic aircraft that could attack the carriers from which the F6D would have operated further poured cold water on the idea of a long-range fleet defense interceptor.

References:

Buttler, T., 2007. American Secret Projects: Fighters and Interceptors 1945 to 1978. Hinckley, UK: Midland Publishing.

Thomason, T.H., 2008. U.S. Naval Air Superiority: Development of Shipborne Jet Fighters, 1943–1962. North Branch, MN: Specialty Press.

Wagner, R., 2004. American Combat Planes of the 20th Century: A Comprehensive Reference. Reno, Nevada: Jack Bacon & Co. ISBN 0-930083-17-2.

A2J encore: The North American D-190

The North American A2J "Super Savage" is one of the lesser-known US Navy combat aircraft types built in the early Cold War, having constituted an endeavor by North American to adapt the AJ Savage design to use gas turbine engines but whose turboprop engines were beset by teething troubles. Even before the A2J flew, however, North American Aviation conjured up the idea of adapting the A2J design for a wide array of both attack and non-combat missions, including close air support. 

In October 1950, the US Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics issued a specification for a general-purpose attack bomber capable of operating from modernized Essex-class aircraft carriers and small airfields, dubbed XVA(GP) by BuAer. This notional aircraft was also to be used by the US Marine Corps for close air support, and minimum requirements called for a payload of four 20 mm guns, three bombs, and twenty unguided rockets, an endurance of at least four hours on close air support missions (of which at least two hours would be on station at altitudes of 5,000 to 25,000 feet [1,524 to 7,620 meters]), and cruising speed, altitude, and service ceiling compatible with those of escorting general-purpose fighters. In addition to attack, the notional XVA(GP) aircraft would also be optimized for ECM, target towing, reconnaissance, airborne early warning, and photographic reconnaissance.

A manufacturer's model of the North American D-190 general-purpose attack aircraft.

In the fall of 1951 North American Aviation envisaged a proposal for a derivative of the XA2J to fulfill the parameters specified in the XVA(GP) requirement. Internally designated D-190, it was powered by two Allison T40-A-8 turboprops driving two contra-rotating propellers each measuring 14 feet (4.27 meters in diameter) and differed from the XA2J in having longer engine nacelles, a more blended upper fuselage, horizontal stabilizers with increased wingspan and surface area, and a wing thickness/chord ratio of 12 percent. It was 54 feet 11 in (16.74 meters) long and had a wingspan of 65 feet 9 in (20.04 meters) with tip tanks (61 feet 10 in [18.85 meters] without tip tanks), a height of 21 feet 1.92 in (6.45 meters), and a wing area of 766.87 ft2 (71.32 m2); the wings of the D-190 spanned 37 feet 2 in (11.33 meters) when folded. Gross weight without the tip tanks was to be 58,280 lb (26,436 kg), and maximum carrier takeoff would be 61,300 lb (27,806 kg), while top speed was 576 mph (927 km/h) at 24,000 feet (7,315 meters). A number of sources quote A2J-2 for the D-190, but this is not borne out by official documents, which indicate that XA2J-2 was applied to a proposed XA2J-1 with slightly increased gross weight.

The D-190 had four 20 mm cannons or alternately twelve 0.5 in (12.7 mm) machine guns in the lower nose, and offensive armament consisted of 6,000 lb (2,721 kg) or 12,000 lb (5,443 kg) of bombs along with mines, unguided air-to-ground rockets, and napalm tanks. When configured for nuclear strike missions, the D-190 was to carry a single Mk. 5 nuclear bomb and operate from modified Essex-class carriers as well as the Midway- and Oriskany-class carriers. As a land-based close support machine, it would have a gross weight of 67,899 lb (30,798 lb) and loiter over an enemy target for three hours at a range of about 345 miles (556 km), and North American also envisioned the D-190 as a photographic reconnaissance aircraft.

As it turned out, most of the design estimates for the D-190 did not meet the performance parameters outlined in the BuAer's XVA(GP) requirement, including range. Therefore, the D-190 project went no further than the drawing board. 

References:

Buttler, T., 2010. American Secret Projects: Bombers, Attack, and Anti-Submarine Aircraft 1945 to 1974. Hinckley, UK: Midland Publishing.

Buttler, T., 2021. American Secret Projects 4: Bombers, Attack, and Anti-Submarine Aircraft 1945 to 1974. Manchester, UK: Crécy Publishing.

Friedmann, N., 2022. U.S. Navy Attack Aircraft 1920-2020. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.

Ginter, S., 1992. North American AJ-1 Savage (Naval Fighters No. 2). Simi Valley, CA: Ginter Books.

The CL-1170: Lockheed's tailless patrol aircraft concepts

In 1968 the US Navy's Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) began considering potential future requirements for a maritime patrol aircraft to replace the versatile Lockheed P-3 Orion and enter service in the 1975-1985 timeframe. Under contract from the Navy, Lockheed undertook a six-month study of concepts for a P-3 successor, and the company designation CL-1170 was applied to those studies. A total of six configurations ranging from conventional designs to tailless concepts were worked out.

The initial design studies under the CL-1170 designation took the form of conventional two- and four-engine designs configured to meet two different gross weight requirements of 150,000 lb (68,038 kg) and 500,000 lb (226,796 kg). The smaller aircraft would have a fuselage similar to that of the P-3 Orion, making it close in size to the Boeing 737, while the larger aircraft would be similar in size to the Boeing 747. A parallel series of CL-1170 studies looked at two different sizes of tailless aircraft designed for the same gross weight requirements, and those concepts utilized laminar flow control and future advances in high-bypass turbofan engines that would enable long, fuel-efficient loitering. To save weight, composite materials and aluminum alloys would be utilized for the CL-1170. All CL-1170 concepts investigated by Lockheed were to use multiple wheel, tricycle landing gear, and they would be capable of in-flight refueling.

Three-view drawing of the four-engine Lockheed CL-1170-6-2 concept

Two tailless CL-1170 concepts were worked out by Lockheed. The CL-1170-4-1 had two high-bypass turbofans situated below the trailing edge of the wing (two advanced turboprops were also considered), and it spanned 131 feet (40 meters) with a length of 97 feet (29.5 meters), a height of 27 feet (8 meters), a wing area of 1,890 ft2 (175 m2), a weight of 150,000 lb (68,038 kg), and a crew of ten. Armament for the CL-1170-4-1 comprised Mk 46 or Mk 50 torpedoes, mines, depth chargers, free-fall bombs, AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and AGM-65F Maverick air-to-surface missiles. The CL-1170-4-1 had a single vertical stabilizer and also utilized outrigger landing gear to ensure stability. The bigger design, the CL-1170-6-2, had a wingspan of 224 feet (68 meters), a wing area of 5,000 ft2 (464.5 m2), a length of 95 feet 6 in (29 meters), a height of 36 feet 9 in (11 meters), and a gross weight of 500,000 lb (226,796 kg). It was powered by four advanced high-bypass turbofans, two situated below the wing's trailing edge and two mounted above the aft fuselage (a combination of two turbofans and two turboprops was investigated as an alternate powerplant for the CL-1170-6-2), and it would have an endurance of 90 hours over a combat radius of 3,452 miles (5,556 km). Details of armament are lacking, but the CL-1170-6-2's weapons load was probably similar to that of the CL-1170-4-1.

In the end, NAVAIR made no preference for a select CL-1170 design, and the CL-1170 project was not proceeded with.

References:

Lowther, S., 2007. "Blended Wing Bodies". Aerospace Projects Review 1(3): 30-64. Link available at  http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/ev1n3.htm.

Rose, B., 2010. Secret Projects: Flying Wings & Tailless Aircraft. Hinckley, UK: Midland Publishing.

The F3D-3/D-601: the swept-wing Skynight that never was

In December 1949 the Douglas company's El Segundo Division envisaged a design for a derivative of the company's F3D Skynight night fighter designed to use backswept wings. Designated D-601 by the company, it was similar to the initial F3D-2 design in being intended to use two Westinghouse J46 turbojets in enlarged nacelles below the wing roots, and it also had the horizontal and vertical stabilizers backswept. The D-601 was 50 feet (15.2 meters) long with a wingspan of 51 feet (15.5 meters) (32 feet 9 inches [9.98 meters] when folded) and a height of 15 feet 2 in (4.62 meters), and it had a gross weight of 25,550 lb (11,589 kg) with normal internal fuel or 26,735 lb (12,127 kg) with full internal fuel (increased to 28,885 lb (13,102 kg) when fitted with external fuel tanks). Four 20 mm cannons were housed in a recess below the nose, and 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) of bombs and unguided 5 inch rockets were carried below two underwing pylons. With normal internal fuel, the D-601 would have a climb rate of 4,670 ft/min (1,423 m/s) and a service ceiling of 43,300 feet (13,198 meters), reaching 30,000 feet (9.144 meters) in 9.6 minutes; with full internal fuel, the D-601's climb rate and service ceiling became 4,430 ft/min (1,350 m/s) and 42,400 feet (12,924 meters) respectively. When the J46 turbojet ran into developmental problems, Douglas substituted the Westinghouse J34 for the J46 as the D-601's chief powerplant.

A desktop model of the D-601/F3D-3.

In 1951 the US Navy seemed interested enough in the D-601 design to place production orders for a total of 287 D-601s (BuNos 125883/125892 and 130463/130739), and the designation F3D-3 was allocated to the D-601. However, calculated performance of the F3D-3 with the J34 turbojet yielded only marginal improvement over the F3D-2, and in February 1952 the F3D-3 production contract was canceled and all work on D-601/F3D-3 shelved. In sum, what seemed like a bold move by Douglas to emulate Grumman in terms of fitting backswept wings to an existing straight-wing carrier-based aircraft design was denied a chance to materialize.

References:

Buttler, T., 2007. American Secret Projects: Fighters and Interceptors 1945 to 1978. Hinckley, UK: Midland Publishing.

Ginter, S., 1982. Douglas F3D Skyknight (Naval Fighters No. 4). Simi Valley, CA: Ginter Books.

Lockheed's VTOL flat-rising jet fighter designs of the late '50s and early '60s

In the late 1950s, the US Air Force and Navy abandoned the tail-sitter concept as unfeasible and instead looked to the concept of lift jets and lift fans being pioneered in the United Kingdom by Rolls-Royce in the 1950s as the most suitable method of VTOL for a combat jet. With the lift jets (or lift fans) situated in the center fuselage, the pilot would easily land his plane on an airfield or any unpaved surfaces. In addition to lift jets/lift fans, the US aircraft industry looked at equipping VTOL jet fighters with jet engines housed in nacelles that could swivel upwards in VTOL mode but tilt longitudinally in forward flight. The Bell Aircraft Corporation of Buffalo, New York, was the chief leader in developing flat-rising VTOL jet aircraft in the US during the late 1950s, as exemplified by the Model 65 experimental tilt-jet and the X-14 vectored thrust technology demonstrator, before turning to the design of the D-139, D-188, and D-188A VTOL combat jets, the latter whose design philosophy influenced West Germany's EWR VJ 101C prototype VTOL jet fighter. Bell, however wasn't the only US company to undertake design studies for flat-rising VTOL combat jets. Lockheed decided to work out flat-rising VTOL jet fighter designs of its own after becoming aware of the impracticality of the tail-sitter idea, and the resulting panoply of proposals for flat-risers from Lockheed in the late 1950s would range from designs with lift jets/lift fans to aircraft with swiveling jet engines.

Top: Lockheed CL-346-1 (left) and CL-346-31 (right) designs
Bottom: Artist's conception of the CL-407 heavy fighter/light bomber

Around the time that design studies for the CL-295 and CL-349 tail-sitter projects concluded, Lockheed proposed a tilt-jet VTOL interceptor/tactical strike aircraft under the designation CL-346-1. This design retained the airframe of the F-104 Starfighter but differed in eliminating the fuselage engine and instead having two General Electric J79 turbojets in wingtip nacelles, and the horizontal stabilizer was situated on a ventral fin below the tail empennage. The J79s would tilt upwards for vertical take-off and when the CL-346-1 transitioned to forward flight, the engines would tilt horizontally so the aircraft could cruise to Mach 2 at 60,000 feet (18,288 meters). The CL-346-1 would have carried four Sidewinder air-to-air missiles below the wings in its role as an interceptor or a single nuclear bomb below the fuselage in tactical strike role. Another CL-346 design study, the CL-346-31, was an F-104 airframe with the entire propulsion housed in the inner wing section, with swiveling units and four additional lift jets in the fuselage, and the tail empennage had a tailwheel and long front undercarriage struts to provide good exhaust clearance during vertical take-off. A series of VTOL heavy fighter/light bomber designs were worked out by Lockheed under the designation CL-407, including the canard delta wing CL-407-37/40 with two jet engines in the rear fuselage that could swivel for VTOL and three lift jets situated behind the cockpit, and the canard delta wing CL-407-47-2 with two jet engines that could swivel backwards for VTOL and wingtips that could fold downwards. The CL-407 would have had a top speed of Mach 3 and an altitude of 70,000 feet (21,336 meters).

Three-view drawing of the CL-704

Beginning in 1958, Lockheed envisaged a VTOL derivative of the F-104G, the CL-521-1. which was similar to the F-104G but differed in having two large wingtip pods, each containing four Rolls-Royce RB.108 turbojets. The fuel in the wingtip pods was optionally transferred to the fuselage for use in the General Electric J79 and the engine pods could easily be removed, returning the aircraft to non-VTOL form and allowing the carriage of wingtip fuel tanks or missiles. The CL-521-1 would have a combat radius of 287 miles (460 km) and a top speed of Mach 1.4 when carrying the engine pods, although its range/payload could be increased if VTOL wasn't required, and armament comprised the 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannon and 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) of Sidewinder missiles, air-to-ground rocket, free-fall bombs, and tactical nuclear weapons. The CL-704 was a reconnaissance version of the CL-521-1 designed to conduct reconnaissance missions from NATO bases in Europe, with a secondary strike capability, and it was similar to the RF-104G in housing three KS-67A spy cameras. A total of 34 design variations of the CL-704 were probably worked out, even though documentation is lacking. 

CL-802-12 VTOL jet fighter design

From January 1962 to May 1963, Lockheed undertook design studies for a single-seat carrier-based multi-role VTOL combat jet, the CL-706, of which one proposal, the CL-706-13, was powered by two General Electric X-84 turbofans and ten 4,000 lb (17.79 kN) thrust Continental Model 365 lift jets, of which six were housed in the wingtip pods and four were situated in the forward fuselage section. Armament for the CL-706-13 consisted of a rotary 30 mm cannon, free-fall bombs, rockets, and air-to-surface missiles. A series of additional flat-rising VTOL supersonic jet fighter designs was devised under the company designation CL-802. The CL-802-12 was an F-104 Starfighter with the General Electric J79 turbojet moved further back and twelve 4,000 lb (17.79 kN) thrust Continental Model 365 lift jets, of which eight were housed in the wingtip pods and four were situated behind the cockpit, and it could be used for close air support, cargo transport, and light observation. The performance of the CL-802-12 would have been only Mach 1 or less, slower than other VTOL Starfighter design studies. The CL-802-7 was a two-seat Mach 2 fighter design with a single tail fin, two afterburning turbofans, and eight lift fans in the center fuselage section, and it would have carried four underwing munitions plus a variety of weapons in an internal weapons bay. On the other hand, the CL-802-14-3 proposal featured a two-seat Mach 2 VTOL jet fighter with two General Electric J79 turbojets in nacelles on the rear fuselage and ten Continental Model 365 lift jets (four behind the cockpit, four behind the wing's trailing edge, and two towards the tail). Armament for the CL-802-14-3 would have comprised a rotary cannon, underwing air-to-air or air-to-surface missiles, and a tactical nuclear weapon in the internal weapons bay.

Lockheed CL-757 VTOL test rig

To test the flight behavior of its VTOL jet fighter designs, Lockheed built an experimental VTOL test rig, the CL-757, which had an open cockpit for the pilot and observer and measured 23 feet (7 meters) long and 32 feet (9.75 meters) wide, with a gross weight of 7,920 lb (3,592 kg). Power came from six upright General Electric turbojets on each side of the craft, and those engines were supplied and fitted by US Air Force technicians. A total of 19 test flights of the CL-757 were carried out at Edwards Air Force Base in mid-1963, of which the initial ones were tethered. Although the Lockheed flat-rising VTOL jet fighter designs envisaged in the late 1950s and early 1960s looked good on paper and offered operational advantages over the earlier Lockheed tail-sitter designs in terms of landing characteristics, not a single one of Lockheed's flat-rising VTOL jet fighter projects progressed beyond the drawing board, largely because the US Air Force had lost interest in VTOL jet fighter technology and Lockheed itself was over-committed to other projects, including the A-12/SR-71 Blackbird and L-2000 supersonic airliner. Nonetheless, the VTOL propulsion systems utilized by Lockheed for its design studies for flat-rising VTOL combat jets would find their way into the EWR VJ 101C, Hawker Siddeley (later British Aerospace) Harrier, and Hawker Siddeley P.1154 combat aircraft.

References:

Buttler, T., 2007. American Secret Projects: Fighters and Interceptors 1945 to 1978. Hinckley, UK: Midland Publishing.

Rose, B., 2013. Vertical Take-off Fighter Aircraft. Hersham, UK: Ian Allan Publishing. 

Last VTOL tailsitter day fighter designs from southern California

In early 1954 the Ryan Aeronautical Company was asked by the US Air Force to study the notion of a tail-sitting supersonic VTOL jet fighter. Drawing upon experience in designing the Model 38 and X-13 Vertijet, it proposed the Model 84 hook-suspended jet fighter, of which 14 different single- and twin-engine configurations were worked out. I was initially proposed to power the Model 84 with one Pratt & Whitney J75 turbojet, but Ryan later felt that two side-by-side General Electric J79 turbojets were essential to give the Model 84 a better combat radius. One Model 84 iteration, the Model 84F-7, had two 20,000 lb (89 kN) thrust General Electric X-301 afterburning turbofans, a top speed of Mach 2.5, and armament comprising 20 mm cannons and air-to-air missiles or one free-fall nuclear weapon. The Model 84 design resembled the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger and Dassault Mirage IIIA in having engine inlets on the sides of the forward fuselage, a delta wing, and a single vertical stabilizer. A hook would be fitted below the forward fuselage, and the pressurized cockpit was fitted with a swiveling ejector.

 

3-view drawing of the Ryan Model 115C tail-sitting supersonic VTOL jet fighter

In 1955 Ryan submitted the Model 84 design to the Wright Air Development Center, and after this proposal was well-received, it began work in 1955 on an improved supersonic VTOL tail-sitting fighter design, the Model 112, which had two General Electric J79s. The Model 112 design study continued into 1956, and Ryan offered two versions of the Model 112 to the US Navy, the Model 113 and Model 114. Meanwhile, the Air Force decided to continue funding Ryan's supersonic VTOL tail-sitter studies, and thus Ryan proposed the Model 115, which was similar to the Model 112 but had a longer fuselage to accommodate a larger bay housing a single tactical nuclear weapon or four air-to-air missiles. The final version, the Model 115C, envisaged in 1957, had a slightly stretched fuselage, greater operating range, circular inlets for the J79s, and greater range, and the airframe would be made from stainless steel. Alternative methods of boosting take-off performance were considered, including water injection and use of exotic fuels, and the Model 115C also was to used a tricycle landing gear. Despite promising lower operating costs, none of the Ryan designs for supersonic VTOL tail-sitter designs progressed to the hardware phase.

Top: Convair Configuration IVa
Bottom: North American design study for a supersonic tailsitter day fighter

Even before testing of the Convair XFY, Convair investigated design studies for supersonic VTOL tail-sitting jet fighters, which like the turboprop-powered XFV hewed to the delta wing design philosophies for the F-102 Delta Dagger. Under a six-month USAF contract to study a lightweight supersonic tail-sitter issued in December 1953, Convair devised several proposals for supersonic VTOL tail-sitters, all of which shared a delta wing. One of the first supersonic VTOL tail-sitter design studies to emerge had a fuselage containing a jet engine fed by air flowing through a nose intake and unguided rockets carried in retracted forward-located packs. The aircraft stood on four dampened struts in wing nacelles and two vertical stabilizers, and the cockpit was housed in a large pod on the vertical stabilizer, with the pilot lying in a prone position. A revised design had the cockpit at the front of the aircraft, surrounded by the engine inlet. The Convair Configuration IVa had a fairly typical cockpit canopy design, an air inlet for the turbofan below the cockpit, and a ventral pod housing one M61 Vulcan 20 mm cannon and the landing strut. Wind tunnel tests of this design at NACA Langley in 1954 showed this proposal to be aerodynamically sound, but concerns about directional stability prompted Convair to devise a new Configuration IV design with delta-shaped canards on the nose and the ventral fin eliminated. North American is also known to have worked on a design for tail-sitting VTOL supersonic fighter, which stood upright on three vertical stabilizers and had three jet engines in the rear fuselage for vertical takeoff and four more in pairs in wingtip-mounted nacelles for forward flight, but this proposal is known only from drawings and no technical data is available at the moment. 

Selected Lockheed CL-295 design studies, clockwise from top to bottom: CL-295-1, CL-295-3, CL-295-4, and CL-295-2. The CL-295-2 was also offered to the Navy as the CL-349-17.

In the meantime, Lockheed in 1954 investigated several designs for tail-sitting VTOL supersonic jet fighter under the company designation CL-295. The first two proposals, the CL-295-1 and CL-295-3, were based on the F-104 Starfighter and featured a retractable hook below the nose similar to that of the Ryan supersonic VTOL tail-sitters, as well as an exhaust flow control system, reaction jets, and a secondary stabilizing horizontal stabilizer for VTOL. The CL-295-1 was powered by one Wright TJC32C4 turbojet whereas the CL-295-3 used one General Electric X-84 turbofan and had a slightly shorter fuselage and wingspan in addition to being lighter, and both proposals would be armed with one 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannon and reach a speed of Mach 2. The next CL-295 design, the CL-295-4, was powered by two General Electric X-84 turbofans and stood on two vertical stabilizers and two wingtip nacelles when standing upright for VTOL, while featuring a canards on the nose. Successful test runs of the General Electric J79 turbojet prompted Lockheed to propose a J79-powered derivative of the CL-295-4 with twin dorsal vertical stabilizers, the CL-295-2. A version of the CL-295-2 was also offered to the US Navy as the CL-349-17 in response to the Navy's TS-140 specification for a VTOL jet fighter. The CL-295-68 was similar to the F-104 in having fuel tanks at the wingtips but had rear-mounted backswept wings, a cruciform tail empennage similar of that of the earlier XFV, and one Wright J67 turbojet with low-speed vane control in the exhaust flow, fed by air flowing through a ventral engine intake. The final design for the CL-295, the CL-295-77, had nose canards as in the CL-295-2/4 and CL-349-17 but had rear-mounted backswept wings with two General Electric X-84 turbofans at the wingtips. Armament for the CL-295-77 comprised Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, and the CL-295-77 used vanes in the exhaust flow and compressed air nozzles in the wingtips for low-speed vertical control, with normal control surfaces for horizontal flight.

By the late 1950s, the US Air Force and US Navy had come to the conclusion that the tail-sitter idea was conceptually a dead end when it came to operational practicality, and after hearing the new of flight tests of the Rolls-Royce Thrust-Measuring Rig (nicknamed the Flying Bedstead) realized that the best way for jet fighter to achieve vertical take-off and landing was to use swiveling jet engines, lift jets, and lift fans. In other word, by allowing a jet fighter to rise vertically above the ground through means of downward air, lift fans, swiveling jet engines, and separate jets could give the pilot visibility during the process of landing his/her plane vertically. Thanks to the British, the US armed forces and the aircraft industry in southern California could now look in this new approach to vertical take-off and landing for jet fighters.

References:

Bradley, R., 2013. Convair Advanced Designs II: Secret Fighters, Attack Aircraft, and Unique Concepts 1929-1973. Manchester, UK: Crécy Publishing.  

Buttler, T., 2007. American Secret Projects: Fighters and Interceptors 1945 to 1978. Hinckley, UK: Midland Publishing.

Rose, B., 2013. Vertical Take-off Fighter Aircraft. Hersham, UK: Ian Allan Publishing.