Tony Chong

2016-06-21T20:36:00.000-07:00

I'm pleased to announce that my new book from Specialty Press, "Flying Wings & Radical Things: Northrop's Secret Aerospace Projects and Concepts 1939-1994," is now available from Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/Flying-Wings-Radical-Things-Northrops/dp/1580072291/ref=pd_rhf_pe_p_img_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=FTVZX96GTED41J6Z22CP). You can also get a limited edition signed copy, as long as it lasts, direct from Specialty Press (http://www.specialtypress.com/flying-wings-and-radical-things-limited-signed-edition.html). Thanks!

Sierra Madre Art Fair Reminder

2015-05-01T22:32:00.000-07:00

Hi all,

Just a reminder that Tina and I will be at the Sierra Madre Art Fair this weekend, Saturday, May 2 from 9:30 am to 6:00 pm and Sunday, May 3 from 9:30 am to 5:30 pm.

Located at Sierra Madre Memorial Park, 222 w. Sierra Madre Blvd., we are mid-way down the East side of the park at Booth 50.

Two of our works are below, a watercolor called "Clearing Storm" and a black and white print I shot called "Forest Sentinel."

Come out for some good food, good live music, and great art! Hope to see you there!

2015-04-14T13:31:00.002-07:00

Sierra Madre Art Fair 2015

Hi all,

Tina and I will be showing our art once again at the Sierra Madre Art Fair, which will be held on May 2-3, 2015.

Here are a couple of samples of new work what we will be selling:

"Leaf Reflections" sepia print by Tony Chong.

"California Oaks" watercolor and pastel by Tina Chong.

The event will be located in:
Memorial Park
At Sierra Madre Blvd & Hermosa Avenue
(222 W. Sierra Madre Blvd)
Sierra Madre, CA 91024

Saturday 9:30 am to 6:00 pm
Sunday 9:30 am to 5:00 pm

Come join us for some good food, good music and great art!
Hope to see you there.

Sierra Madre Art Fair 2014 Reminder

2014-04-30T14:36:00.001-07:00

Hi All,

Just a reminder that Tina and I will be at the 52nd Annual Sierra Madre Art Fair on
May 3-4, 2014. We are at booth #50.

Here are a couple of other examples of what we will have available:

“Mists Over The Merced” B&W print, Tony Chong

"McWay Falls" - oil, Tina Chong

The event will be located in:
Memorial Park
At Sierra Madre Blvd & Hermosa Avenue
(222 W. Sierra Madre Blvd)
Sierra Madre, CA 91024

Saturday 9:30 am to 6:00 pm
Sunday 9:30 am to 5:00 pm

Come join us for some good food, good music and great art!
Hope to see you there.

Sierra Madre Art Fair 2014

2014-04-13T23:08:00.000-07:00

We will be selling our art at the 52^nd Annual Sierra Madre Art Fair on May 3-4, 2014. Here are a couple examples of what we will have available:

“Along Vineyard Drive” – oil, Tina Chong

“Road to the Book Cliffs” B&W print, Tony Chong

The event will be located in:

Memorial Park

At Sierra Madre Blvd & Hermosa Avenue

(222 W. Sierra Madre Blvd)

Sierra Madre, CA 91024

Saturday 9:30 am to 6:00 pm

Sunday 9:30 am to 5:00 pm

You are cordially invited to join us for good food, good music and great art!

Hope to see you there.

Green Dreams – The U.S. Army Evaluates the N-156F

2014-03-15T00:02:00.002-07:00

My early articles did not feature footnotes because I was still expanding the envelope of what I could do in the space allotted to me, which was initially 500 words. I soon surpassed that, but it would be several months later before I would hit my stride. What helped was the shift to a purely digital format with Engineering's Airspace on-line magazine.

Unfortunately this piece was written for VelocitE, the name of the magazine that preceded Airspace. VelocitE was a duel track publication with both a digital and a hard copy issue. The hard copy feature meant there were limitations to what I could do.

I remember being very disappointed that not all of the photos I picked for this article (and the Apollo 13 article before it) could be included in the physical issue. Fortunately they were all in the digital issue, which was important because none of the black and white photos featured had been seen before to the best of my knowledge. Even more important to me were the color photos, most of which have not been seen before except as black and white images.

In short this article started me on the path of doing more independent research into Northrop Grumman programs and proposals and into discovering the history behind them. It's been quite a journey and a satisfying one at that. I hope to continue on that path in retirement.

This article originally appeared in the Northrop Grumman Engineering Department's in-house magazine VelocitE, Volumn 2, Number 10, July 2010. It is posted here with permission and has Approved for Public Release number 12-1492.

Green Dreams – The U.S. Army Evaluates the N-156F

By Tony Chong

The early years of the N-156F were ones of uncertainty. The single-seat, light-weight fighter variant of the successful design that produced the two-seat T-38A Talon trainer was not backed by the U.S. Air Force. While built with an eye towards the proposed foreign military sales program under development by the Department of Defense, the use of the N-156F for that purpose was not a foregone conclusion.

Despite its lukewarm reception to the small fighter concept, the Air Force was tasked with initial flight tests of the N-156F, which occurred concurrently with the T-38A in 1959 and 1960. Three prototypes were ordered, but only two were completed. The Air Force suspended construction of the third aircraft as it decided two were sufficient for the test program.

At the conclusion of the tests the Air Force declined to pursue the design any further. Northrop was left with two flyable aircraft and one partially-built vehicle in storage, but no customers. However, an opportunity arose in 1961 from an unlikely source: the U.S. Army.

Since the formation of the Air Force and the division of responsibilities outlined in the document “Functions of the Armed Forces and the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” also known as the Key West Agreement, the Army was forbidden to operate jet-powered fixed wing combat aircraft. While the Air Force saw the roles as clearly defined, the Army chafed at the restrictions. Close Air Support (CAS) was vital to the service’s successful land operations and the Army lacked confidence that the Air Force would make supporting the Army a high priority. As such they cast about for ways around the agreement.

Rebuffed in an earlier attempt to purchase Cessna T-37 Tweetybirds as an operational forward-based aircraft, the Army decided in 1961 that it needed to acquire a light jet for the Forward Air Controller/Tactical Reconnaissance role. Artillery fire support is an Army function, so they reasoned the ability to accurately direct those fires must be in their purview as well.

Three aircraft were chosen for evaluation. Among them was the foreign-made Fiat G-91R light tactical fighter/reconnaissance aircraft. Another competitor was the Douglas A4D-2N Skyhawk light attack jet (re-designated as A-4C in 1962). The N-156F Freedom Fighter was also selected and became the only twin-engine competitor in the trials.

Both N-156s participated in the tests, with the number two aircraft (59-4988) outfitted for unimproved field operations. This eventually consisted of larger tires for the main gear and a twin-tire arrangement for the nose gear.

Sod field operations were conducted at NAS Jacksonville and NAS Pensacola, FL in June and July of 1961 with the other two modified competitors. Initial results were very favorable for all aircraft, with the N-156F receiving high marks for its easy field maintenance and load-carrying capabilities.

The number one N-156F (59-4987) later acquired U.S. Army markings for some additional tests and publicity functions. These were carried out in September of 1961 and provided a unique appearance for the Freedom Fighter.

Despite the promising results, the Air Force made its objections known and the Army backed down. The competition was cancelled. The remaining G-91R returned to Europe, the other one having crashed during the evaluation, killing its Italian Air Force test pilot Riccardo Bignamini. The two A4Ds were brought back to standard configuration and returned to the U.S. Navy.

Its hopes dashed, Northrop renewed the hunt for customers. Its faith in the N-156F was borne out in 1962 when the aircraft was chosen to be the U.S. export fighter of choice under the new Military Assistance Program. The newly designated F-5A would be the progenitor of a line of successful fighters. A total of 2,603 were built of all variants.

The Army would make one more attempt at acquiring a jet-powered, fixed-wing combat aircraft before finally ceding the role to the Air Force in exchange for control over rotary-winged aircraft in an accord known as the Johnson-McConnell Agreement of 1966.

My thanks to Kristi Harding of Records Management for her help in this article.

For a short history on the development of the U.S. Unified Command Structure go to:

http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/UCS.html

For a pdf of the Functions of the Armed Forces and the Joint Chiefs of Staff document click on number 17 at this site:

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm4/results.php?CISOOP1=any&CISOFIELD1=CISOSEARCHALL&CISOROOT=/p4013coll11&CISOBOX1=D.

For a synopsis of the Johnson-McConnell Agreement go to this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-McConnell_agreement_of_1966

For a color photo of the Fiat G-91R in U.S. Army markings see this site:

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=128614

Photo Captions

N-156F #2 during initial sod field tests at NAS Jacksonville (later NAS Cecil Field) FL. Note the large single-tire nose gear with mud guard. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman

2.

Close up of the large, single-tire nose gear and the trench it dug during the test. The mud guard is quite apparent. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman

3.

A view of the ramp at NAS Jacksonville, FL, with all three competitors. The N-156F is 59-4987, the number 1 Freedom Fighter. It was not modified with the special tires. The two Douglas A4D-2Ns directly behind the N-156F are modified with duel-tire main gear. The Italian-built G-91R-1 (serial # 0042) on the right also has larger tires for unimproved field operations. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman

4.

Duel-tire nose gear and large main gear tires were outfitted to N-156F 59-4988 at NAS Jacksonville. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman

5.

A close up of the main gear tires on N-156F #2. The tires appear to have minimal tread. By this time sod field tests were moved to NAS Pensacola, FL. Note the partial USAF markings on the main gear door. 59-4988 carried standard USAF markings throughout the evaluation. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman

6.

The duel-tires on the nose gear of the N-156F were substantial. Subsequent tests showed the arrangement worked quite well. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman

7.

The West German-built Fiat G-91R-3 (serial # 0065) sits in front of the Italian-built G-91R-1 (serial # 0042). The G-91Rs flew in U.S. Army markings throughout the tests, but wore standard German and Italian color schemes. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman

8.

Douglas A4D-2N, Bureau Number (BuNo) 148483, sit on the sod field with BuNo 148490 in the background. The A4Ds retained their standard markings and colors for most of the tests. International Orange panels were added to denote them as test aircraft and at some point the BuNos were temporarily removed. Note the duel-tire main gear and the sleek, wheeled power cart. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman

9.

Later in September 1961 the first N-156F (59-4987) appeared in U.S. Army markings at NAS Pensacola, FL. Nearly all published photos of this aircraft are in black and white. The full color image is quite striking. Note the yellow tail markings and the white Army (minus U.S.) on the nose. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman

10.

A close up view of N-156F #1 with “ARMY” prominently displayed on the nose. The man in the cockpit is possibly Northrop test pilot Hank Chouteau who was attached to the evaluation program. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman

11.

A right rear quarter view of N-156F #1 at NAS Pensacola. Pensacola Bay is in the background. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman

Approved for Public Release: Northrop Grumman case # 12-1492, 9/4/2012

Northrop's N-196 - The Passed-Over Hound Dog

2014-02-05T15:05:00.000-08:00

The number of missile and rocket proposals developed by the various aerospace companies during the 1950s and early 1960s was truly staggering. Northrop was among them with at least a dozen different types under study, not including the Radioplane division's efforts. The N-196 was one of them. It was Northrop's submission to the Hound Dog air-to-surface missile competition.

This article originally appeared in the Northrop Grumman Engineering Department's in-house, on-line magazine Airspace, Volume 3, number 23, October 2012. It is posted here with permission and has approved for public release number 12-2189.

Northrop’s N-196 – The Passed-Over Hound Dog

By Tony Chong

As noted in “Northrop’s N-191 Proposal and Its Design Evolution,” (airspace. Aug., 2012), things are not always what they seem. The silver model in that article is a case in point.

While it was discovered stored with two legitimate model versions of the N-191 and was very close in configuration to the middle of the three designs, as noted it did not conform entirely to the illustrated and described shape. At the time it was suspected it may have been an earlier variant, but further research has uncovered an even more fascinating truth. The model was of an entirely different and earlier proposal known as the N-196.¹

N-196 was the heritage Northrop Aircraft, Inc. bid on the U.S. Air Force’s urgently requested Weapon System-131B (WS-131B), which was to provide an air-to-surface missile that could be carried by the new Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, thus giving the increasingly vulnerable manned bomber force the ability to strike heavily protected targets at a survivable stand-off range.

WS-131B was the result of a March 1956 General Operations Requirement (GOR 148) that officially recognized the need for such a weapon and formalized the request to the industry. The requirements also included Mach 2 or greater speed at 55,000 feet with a range of 350 nautical miles. It was to be armed with a nuclear warhead.

Northrop’s bid was a missile made of conventional aluminum sheet metal for ease of assembly. Length was to be 38’9” long with a span of 15’. The design featured a moderately swept high-wing arrangement with a similarly-shaped tail with an all-moving ventral vertical fin. The vehicle had a dorsal inlet with boundary layer gutters between the inlet and fuselage body.

Power was to be provided by a General Electric J85 afterburning turbojet with a Fairchild J83 turbojet as an alternative engine. Solid-propellant rocket-powered engines were also considered by the Northrop design team but rejected as it was felt it would push the vehicle beyond currently established “state-of-the-art” speeds, delaying a rapid introduction into the operational inventory.²

Performance was projected to meet the Mach 2 speed and 350 nautical mile range requirement with a 60,000’ ceiling instead of the 55,000’ requested. Weight was to be 6,850 lbs. with a 1,800 lb. warhead. Projected accuracy of the operational missile, or Circular Error Probable (CEP), was to be 3,560 feet.

Interestingly, the N-196 featured a bomb bay located at the missile’s center of gravity instead of a nose-mounted integral warhead. Northrop’s vision was to allow the vehicle to perform a free-fall warhead drop which would keep the missile flying. After delivery it could then provide immediate bomb damage assessment reconnaissance and operate as a post-strike decoy for additional B-52 survivability.

In addition, alternative payloads would allow multiple target strike options. If the target area was low-threat, the bomb drop could be accomplished with the N-196 still attached to the B-52 wing pylon. Reusable missile launch training could also be accomplished by attaching a parachute recovery system to the vehicle to keep costs down.

Using a 10,000 lb. bomb load for the Stratofortress, Northrop estimated the increased stand-off strike radius using a single N-196 to be 192 nm for a B-52D model and 224 nm for the G model. If two N-196s were carried, the strike radius became 34 nm for the D and 98 nm for the G.³

The N-196 was to be the joint effort of the Northrop Aircraft Inc.’s Aircraft Division, Radioplane Division and Anaheim Division, with program lead by Aircraft Division. By this time (July 1957), William F. Ballhaus had succeeded Edgar Schmued as engineering V.P. while retaining the Chief Engineer title. Welko Gasich continued as Preliminary Design Chief (see airspace. Sept. 2012).

WS-131B was won by North America Aviation. Deployed in 1959, the resulting missile was known as the GAM-77 Hound Dog. Post-1962 it was known as the AGM-28A/B. By then the Air Force viewed the Hound Dog as an interim weapon until the Douglas GAM-87 (AGM-48) Skybolt air-launched ballistic missile became operational. Skybolt was cancelled in 1962, so the Hound Dog soldiered on, finally being retired in 1976.

As for the N-196, it would be logical to assume there might be a link between it and the PD-0806 N-191 design. But according to retired Northrop Grumman engineer Jerry Huben, who drew up both vehicles, there was no “relativity” between the two.⁴

As the N-191 version was nearly three times the size of the N-196, that is probably so. Yet it does illustrate that the design options for a given set of parameters (e.g. Mach 2+ speed with dorsal inlet) often produce strikingly similar results; much to the chagrin of future historians trying to piece together the past from out-of-context information and artifacts.

But then again, the thrill of the hunt and the excitement of discovery are part of the allure of historical research.

Tony Chong is a historian, photographer and a contributing editor to Airspace. He leads activities in the Aerospace Systems Display Model Shop and works in El Segundo.

Footnotes

1. Northrop N-numbers show a lot of non-chronological assignments in that period, as if some batches of projects were numbered out of sequence at a later date. It is not positively known whether this was a deliberate act of disinformation or merely the result of internal bureaucracy, but the author suspects the latter.

2. Report No. NAI-57-790 Management Proposal for Weapon System 131-B (Northrop Model N-196) July 1957, Northrop Corp., Hawthorne, CA, July 1957, 2, declassified per DOD DIR 5200.10. July 1967.

3. Ibid, 5

4. Email from Jerry Huben to author, 16 October 2012.

References

1. Report No. NAI-57-790 Management Proposal for Weapon System 131-B (Northrop Model N-196) July 1957, Northrop Corp., Hawthorne, CA, July 1957, declassified per DOD DIR 5200.10. July 1967.

2. The Evolution of the Cruise Missile, by Kenneth P. Werrell, Air University Press, Maxwell AFB, 1985. It can be found in pdf. format here: http://aupress.au.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/werrell_cruise.pdf

Photo Captions

This artist’s concept appears a lot rougher in finish than a lot of the other Northrop art of the period, but it is not totally out of the norm as a stylistic approach to product representation. The N-196 shows its ventral tail quite well in this piece. Unfortunately the artist’s name is not visible. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection

This 3-view drawing details the general arrangement and some scrap views of the N-196 design, including B-52 pylon and wing. Note the bomb bay in the missile body. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection

Compare this drawing of the PD-0806 to the previous 3-view. While strikingly similar, there are differences in the configuration, mostly in the cruciform tail and short body length aft of the horizontals of the N-191 versus the two horizontals with ventral fin and extended body aft of the tail surfaces of the N-196. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection

This upper left front quarter shot of the model shows the dorsal inlet in good detail. Photo credit: Tony Chong

5.

A look at the upper right rear quarter shot of the model shows the smooth finish on the dorsal tail area. As noted in the N-191 article, the quality of the finish indicated that the either the repair was spectacularly well done or that the vehicle only had three tail surfaces to begin with, meaning it was an earlier variant or a different vehicle. The answer seems pretty conclusive now. Photo credit: Tony Chong

6.

This top view shows the wing leading and trailing edge shapes and the corresponding similar tail surface shape. Again, note the length of the aft body with exhaust nozzle. Photo credit: Tony Chong

7.

A shot of the belly of the model reveals the broken ventral tail fin. Unfortunately no control surface lines or bomb bay doors were draw onto the model. Photo credit: Tony Chong

8.

A North American Aviation GAM-77/AGM-28 Hound Dog in flight shows off the missile’s configuration. The large belly pod housed the Pratt & Whitney J52-P-3 turbojet engine. Photo credit: U.S. Air Force

9.

This photo shows a Boeing B-52F Stratofortress taking off with two GAM-77/AGM-28 Hound Dogs, one under each wing. N-196 carriage would have been similar. Note the amount of smoke produced by the eight Pratt & Whitney J57-P-43W turbojet engines. B-52 minimum interval take-offs (MITOs) were quite spectacular to see in large part because of the smoke. Photo credit: U.S. government

Approved for Public Release: Northrop Grumman Case 12-2189, 12/18/12

Northrop's N-191 Proposal and Its Design Evolution

2014-01-31T13:52:00.001-08:00

One of the drawbacks of writing a monthly column on the side while working full-time (or more) at a my real job at Northrop Grumman was the eternal deadline pressure.

Initially these articles were to be no more than 500 words long, but as I got more into the history of the various projects that interested me, 500 words soon became inadequate for much of what I was doing. Working on multiple long stories at once became the norm, which led to multiple research tracks as I tried to find accurate information and learn it well enough to write about the subject at hand, all while feeding the deadline beast.

My ever-present fear was of getting something substantively wrong beyond the usual spelling errors that always seem to slip by and other minor irritations.This article was one of those times when I did get something wrong. Fortunately I was able to correct that mistake in the next month's column.

I am presenting this as it was published without corrections because it was the article that was cleared by PROCS, Northrop Grumman's public release process. By the rules, if I change a sentence or even a couple of words, I need to resubmit the whole article for approval.

Having had more than my fill of the process I am loath to enter any more articles to PROCS than necessary. Since I have the follow-on article approved, too, I will post that in a couple of days. Hopefully this issue will be moot in the future when I retire in a few months.

As I mentioned in the article models and drawings out of context can confuse researchers, especially ones with deadlines. The silver model with the dorsal inlet was the one that tripped me up as it was wrapped together with the other two models when they were rediscovered in 2000. They were originally part of the old Northrop Heritage Hall which was closed in 1989 and had lost their labels.

As a result, the cursory examination of Jerry Huben's drawing led me to believe I had examples of all three versions. I did note a discrepancy, but did not think it was because the model was of an entirely different program, which it turned out to be, but of a variant that wasn't recorded in Jerry's drawing. Knowing Jerry I should've known better. Alas, I went with my first impression and was proven wrong.

The model turned out to be of the Northrop N-196, the company's proposal on what turned into the Hound Dog missile program. As I mentioned, I will post that in a couple of days.

One final note, since this was published in August 2012 I've had the opportunity to visit Jerry in his retirement. About six months ago he asked if I'd be interested in a couple of Northrop related items that he had. Of course I said yes. One of the items turned out to be the original vellum of the N-191 drawings. It felt like the passing of the torch and I was honored and humbled.

I would love to frame and hang the vellum, but I'm afraid it will fade if exposed. Anyone have any suggestions?

This article originally appeared in the Northrop Grumman Engineering Department's in-house, on-line magazine Airspace, Vol. 3, no. 21, August 2012. It is posted here with permission and has approved for public release number 12-1630.

Northrop’s N-191 Proposal and Its Design Evolution

By Tony Chong

One of the more interesting aspects of aviation history, especially on the technological side, is the tracing of aircraft designs from their initial concept to final proposal. Then, if the program succeeds, it’s on through the prototype and into the production phase with all of its potential variants. The changes are fascinating and help illustrate a company’s engineering philosophy during that particular timeframe as they developed solutions to specific mission requirements.

Unsuccessful proposals are, by their nature, more difficult to study: They are ephemeral projects that may produce many versions but no hardware results. They are quickly forgotten and easily misinterpreted decades after the fact as data is lost or destroyed.

The heritage Northrop N-191 is one such example. The project spawned three distinct variants with scale models being built to showcase each of the designs. Over the passing decades, the models acquired different labels so the relationship between them was lost and the impression was fostered that they were unrelated proposals.

Fortunately, Jerry Huben, a retired heritage Northrop engineer with over 68 years of service in the company, saved a series of line drawings that he made in 1958 on the N-191 which cleared the confusion that surrounded the models.¹

The N-191 was to be a turbojet-powered Mach 3 intercontinental cruise missile. According to Huben’s notes the start date on the new project was March 7, 1957. This was six years after the cancellation of Northrop’s earlier Mach 2 cruise missile proposal, the MX-775B Boojum .²

Design requirements included a desired range of 4,250 nautical miles. The vehicle would use a zero-launch system incorporating solid propellant boosters like those utilized on the company’s N-69/SM-62 Snark. Take-off weight was to be 100,000 lbs.

The missile was to carry a 6,450 lb. warhead located at the vehicle’s center of gravity (C.G.). Alternative warheads ranging from 1,500 lbs. to 9,000 lbs. were possible, also carried at the C.G. Extra fuel tanks or a reconnaissance payload could be carried in the bomb bay if required.

Additionally the entire system was to be transportable by air via a U.S. Air Force/Douglas C-133 Cargomaster, with initial operational capability targeted for mid-1962.

The first design featured in Huben’s drawing was dated April 17, 1957. The proposal must have been promising enough that the company created a brochure around the concept (NAI-57-543). It was to be powered by two Allison 640-G2 (J89) turbojets mounted near the tips of the wings similar to the Boojum.

The vehicle would have been 98 feet long with a span of 61 feet. Instead of the delta wing of Boojum the N-191 featured a large trapezoidal wing with a cruciform tail structure. The drawing was given Preliminary Design number PD-0773.

Alternative engine studies followed using the same twin-engine layout, but on September 11, 1957 the first single-engine study appeared with a raised dorsal inlet (PD-0806). This sleek-looking design was to be powered by a Pratt & Whitney J91. The fuselage was lengthened to 112 feet while the trapezoidal wing shrank to a span of 50 feet. The cruciform tail remained as a feature of the vehicle.

Again more alternative engine studies commenced, but on March 6, 1958, the cruise speed design requirement was upped to Mach 3.5. Engine selection was narrowed to the Pratt & Whitney J58 and the General Electric J93. Operational introduction was pushed to 1963.

March 22, 1958 saw the first annular nose inlet design for the N-191 (PD-0842). As Huben remarked in his drawing notes, this inlet was, “chosen for greater reliability & efficiency.” The length was now 101 feet and the trapezoidal wing was reduced further to 47 feet. The cruciform tail was retained.

The final design was PD-0844 and was a variant of the annular nose inlet type. Length was now 97 feet and span 45 feet. The trapezoidal wing now featured ailerons due to the fact that the cruciform tail was eliminated and replaced by a larger dorsal vertical with rudder and two smaller anhedral horizontals. Speed of the J58-powered vehicle was projected at Mach 3.5 with a take-off weight of 81,000 lbs.

Finished on April 10, 1958, PD-0844 “Super Snark” was submitted to the Air Force’s Wright Field Labs for review. Unfortunately the results of that review are not currently known. What is known is that the successful first flight of the Atlas intercontinental ballistic missile in June 1957 negated the need for an intercontinental cruise missile system. The N-191 essentially ended in April 1958. The subsonic Snark followed shortly, being withdrawn from operational service in June 1961, a scant four months after unit activation.

As has been mentioned before, the 1950s were an incredible period of emerging technologies and design advances. In that environment the value of a project like the N-191, even in failure, was immense, for it helped hone the company’s engineering talent and sharpen their problem solving skills, which were critical for effective competition in future programs.

That holds true for today. What could be more critical than the preservation of project documentation for the edification of current and future engineers, allowing them to understand the lessons and context of the programs that did or did not win?

Footnotes

1. The series of drawings were actually part of a larger overall drawing designated PD-0845 and completed on April 10, 1958, along with the final design variant PD-0844.

2. For further details of this vehicle, read “For the Snark was a Boojum, you see” by Tony Chong, Airspace, volume 2 number 11, September 2011.

Tony Chong is a historian, photographer and a contributing editor to Airspace. He leads activities in the Aerospace Systems Display Model Shop and works in El Segundo.

References and Notes

A useful book for understanding the history of the cruise missile and the developmental hurdles faced by the various contractors in the turbulent 1950s is: The Evolution of the Cruise Missile, by Kenneth P. Werrell, Air University Press, Maxwell AFB, 1985. It can be found in pdf. format here:

http://aupress.au.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0006_werrell_evolution_cruise_missile.pdf

A brief description in French on one of the N-191 twin-engine variants, including a silhouette 3-view, can be found in this interesting book: Les Avions et Engins Northrop, by Alain Pelletier, MiniDocavia #21, Guides Larivière, Editions Larivière, 2006, France, 98-99.

If anyone has the N-191 brochure NAI-57-543 in their possession, or the Engineering Report NAI-57-800, the author would like to borrow and scan them for future reference.

The author is indebted to Jerry Huben for providing him with a copy of Huben’s PD-0845 drawing back in 2002. It drove home the point that not everything we see is what we think it is – especially when it is out of context.

Photo Captions

Placed here as a refresher for the reader is this three-view of the MX-775B Boojum, the earlier Northrop proposal for a supersonic intercontinental cruise missile. Despite being cancelled in 1951 the Boojum undoubtedly provided its generalized configuration as a starting point for the N-191. Since Boojum’s earlier N-25B designation was now assigned to a Snark decoy variant, it is possible the old design was given the new N-217 allocation as a means of keeping track of the correct vehicle in the system. Picture Credit: Tony Chong collection.

The basic layout of Boojum has been refined in the initial N-191 design to incorporate a large trapezoidal wing and cruciform tail. It has also grown in size. The Allison 640-G2 afterburning turbojet was that company’s internal designation for the military J89. Picture credit: Tony Chong collection

An alternative engine layout using the General Electric X279F, an advanced version of their J79 engine that eventually evolved into the J93, was considered along with the Pratt & Whitney J58 and J91 turbojets. Overall dimensions remain the same on the vehicle. Picture credit: Tony Chong collection.

PD-0806 marks the first appearance of a single-engine variant five months after proposal start. In this configuration the vehicle was only capable of Mach 2.5 speed while take-off weight soared to 118,000 lbs. Huben’s note indicates the J91 proved too large for this mission. Picture credit: Tony Chong collection.

A version with dry (non-afterburning) P&W J58s was also considered as a R&D schedule and cost reduction proposal. The afterburning J58 would gain fame as the engine for the Lockheed A-12/YF-12/SR-71 Blackbird series of Mach 3 aircraft. Note the addition of landing gear for training purposes. Picture credit: Tony Chong collection.

PD-0813 marks the first growth variant of the twin-engine design. Length is now 104 feet. Note that initial engines are P&W J58s dry with a Mach 2.5 speed, but the vehicle could be updated to Mach 3.5. This is likely the version shown in Pelletier’s book. Landing gear is now a permanent feature for all missions. Picture credit: Tony Chong collection.

PD-0815 marks the last twin-engine variant in Huben’s series of drawings. No engines are defined but the Mach 2.5 speed suggests P&W J58 dry turbojets were the option considered. Picture credit: Tony Chong collection.

PD-0838 marked a return to the single-engine proposal. As noted by Huben, inlet improvements made the design more feasible. Note the shock cone in the inlet, a feature absent in the first single-engine iteration. Length and span are reduced as well. Mach 2.5 is still the top speed of this version, powered by a wet P&W J58. Picture credit: Tony Chong collection.

Oddly this version, with a date two days later than the previous image, also carries a PD-0838 number. Whether it was a transcription error or they actually carried the same PD number is not known at this point. Note that the vehicle is larger in length but shorter in span. It is also the last version to have the P&W J91 as an option as the engine was cancelled. Also note that all subsequent drawings will be without gaps in the sequence. Picture credit: Tony Chong collection.

10.

PD-0839 featured a decrease in length and an increase in span. Speed is holding steady at Mach 2.5 with a G.E. X279J turbojet in this instance. Picture credit: Tony Chong collection.

11.

PD-0840 was the last version before the decision was made on March 6, 1958 to set Mach 3.5 as the speed requirement. Note Huben’s comments about performance compromises with the P&W J58 dry option. Also note the reduction in span to 35 feet. Picture credit: Tony Chong collection.

12.

The last single-engine dorsal inlet version considered was PD-0841. Speed is now Mach 3.5 with a P&W J58 wet turbojet. Span is back to 47 feet while length is now 104 feet. Picture credit: Tony Chong collection.

13.

One year after proposal start PD-0842 would mark the introduction of the last significant configuration change, namely the annular nose inlet. All remaining PD numbers will feature this style of inlet. Although it is difficult to see, the fuselage transitions into an oval cross-section past the nose. Note Huben’s remarks about greater reliability and efficiency with the nose inlet, suggesting the dorsal inlet would suffer impeded airflow at its cruising angle of attack. Picture credit: Tony Chong collection.

14.

The beginning of April saw the basic dimensions being set at 97 feet long with a 45 foot span. Fuselage cross-section is still oval. The P&W wet J58 became the engine of choice in PD-0843. Picture credit: Tony Chong collection.

15.

PD-0844 became the final configuration for the N-191 and the version submitted to Wright Field Labs in April 1958, 13 months after proposal start. Dimensions are the same as PD-0843, but the fuselage is now circular throughout its length. According to Huben’s notes the change was made to optimize volume/surface ratio and to facilitate production. The other major change was the elimination of the cruciform tail in favor of an enlarge vertical with rudder and anhedral horizontals like on the F4H-1 (Northrop was a subcontractor to McDonnell on the Phantom II, project number N-154). Ailerons were added to the wings as well. Also note the G.E. J93 was offered as an alternative engine. Picture credit: Tony Chong collection.

16.

The twin-engine variant was the only model to visibly carry the N-191 designation (see base of dorsal vertical fin). The discoloration on the nose is where the representation of a Pitot tube or probe broke off the model. Based on the shape this is likely the initial PD-0773 proposal, which also formed the baseline design for the brochure. The model is currently on display in the ASDC Lobby 10, Building 202 in El Segundo. Photo credit: Tony Chong.

17.

The dorsal inlet version did not come with any N-191 identifiers. Based on the lack of shock cone this is likely the initial version of this variant, PD-0806. While it looks like there are no vertical fins to the tail, there was a ventral fin which was broken off the model. Curiously the model does not appear at first glance to have had a dorsal fin as the area is smooth and painted. Either it was repaired at a later date or there is a variant not noted in Huben’s drawings. The model is currently on display in the ASDC Lobby 10, Building 202 in El Segundo. Photo credit: Tony Chong.

18.

This model of the annular nose inlet version likely follows the practice of the previous two models and is of the initial design for that configuration (PD-0842). Note the distinct slab-sided look to the fuselage indicating the oval cross-section. Photo credit: Tony Chong.

19.

A side view of the annular nose inlet model showing the ventral fin of the cruciform tail. “Super Snark” is emblazoned on the forward fuselage as well. Ironically, the N-69/SM-62 Snark was originally named “Super Snark” to differentiate it from the earlier N-25 Snark (Also known as N-25A). Photo credit: Tony Chong.

Northrop Grumman approved for public release case number 12-1630

Courting Mortality and Other Unintended Consequences

2014-01-27T11:50:00.001-08:00

As usual, the fall and early winter months are extremely busy for me at work. That is why I historically post very little during this period.

This year offered a new twist - a five day stay in Intensive Care battling a severe infection with fever that no one can figure out how I got or where it came from. Needless to say it was not the average January for me.

I am out of the hospital now and recovering slowly at home, but the memories and impressions of those days compel me to log them here, both as a means of getting it out of my system, but also as a way of telling people what happened without me having to repeat the story another forty-seven times. I think we'll all be happier in the long run.

The official diagnosis is "Cellulitis of the face, with Sepsis." It actually started January 6 as a severe rash in my right groin that literally seemed to spring up over night. Unfortunately, the 6th was my first day back at work after the holiday break, so taking the day off seemed ill-advised.

While I was coping with that issue, Tina came down with a high fever and infections in both ears, leaving her essentially deaf for most of that week and the next (she is only at about 40% hearing even now). The sore throat I had also developed seemed minor compared to her problems, so I pressed on. In retrospect that was a big mistake.

By Tuesday the 14th the sore throat was gone, but the rash was weeping. When I got a low fever that night I decided to call in sick the next day. I also got a small swelling in my neck. I was due to see the doctor anyway on Friday, so I decided to wait. That was mistake number two.

The next day the swelling in my neck was much larger. I decided to see our Chiropractor for the pain in my arm that I had since early December. It turns out I had the radius of my right arm out of place. He put it back in place and then proceeded to work my abdominal, chest and face muscles. He is a pressure-point Chiro, not a bone-cracker Chiro. While that was all well and good, it was mistake number three as I was going to need those muscles in short order and now they were bruised and sore. It was turning into the perfect storm.

Thursday I woke up and had difficulty swallowing. I forced plenty of fluids that day, but my fever kept rising. It hit 105 that evening and we soaked my feet in ice water, which brought the temp down to about 102. That night it hit 105 again and another cold soak followed.

Friday morning I could barely swallow. We staggered to the doctor's office, not sure of what I had or if it was contagious. The Doc took one look at me and said I was going to the hospital right away. Fortunately Providence St. Joseph is right across the street. I was admitted and in a room within an hour.

The initial evaluation did not go well. The floor nurses had to bring in an ICU nurse to install the IV. Further scrutiny by the staff followed and I was brought to ICU as fast as they could push me there.

By then I knew I was in terrible condition and resigned myself to whatever was to come. Oddly enough I wasn't scared. Concerned, yes, the cold, hard reality that I might not survive was present in my brain, along with the fact that the next few days would be long and miserable. But I wasn't scared. In fact, I was more fascinated by the technology and the teamwork displayed by the docs, nurses and technical staff than anything else. That helped calm me in the long run.

My doc is an Internist. He quickly called in reinforcements. Soon I had an Ear/Nose/Throat doc, an Infectious Diseases doc, a Cardio doc and a Pulmonary doc. I have a natural irregular heartbeat that I call palpitations. That scared the boo out of them. Unfortunately I also developed a stress arrhythmia, so I started a drip for that.

By this time they had installed a central Venus catheter for dispensing IV fluids into my body more efficiently, as well as a Foley catheter for removing fluids from my bladder. They also installed various pads on my torso and legs for EKG readings and the like. I was pretty well wired up. Tina said a one point I had five or six bags dripping into my body, plus oxygen via a thin flexible tube attached to my nose.

My temp was climbing again and hit 105. I was quickly covered in damp towels with ice cubes liberally sprinkled across them and had a fan blowing on me all night. I did not feel cold at all.

The big status board soon became my focal point and refuge. I could monitor my vitals and see how the battle was progressing. The first night was just holding my own.

One of the things that did go right was my CPAP machine. As most of you may know I have sleep apnea. I just got a new machine in early December, with the pressure set twice as high as my old machine. The first three weeks were horrible as I tried to adjust to the new full-face mask, machine and pressure. At times I didn't think I would, but fortunately I did. That new machine would save me as I was able to get real sleep during this whole ordeal.

The first night in the ICU produced a bizarre set of dreams. I visualized data streams, but not like the binary code of the Matrix. No, mine was, as befitting a historian, files, folders and sub-folders. They streamed past me and I could dip into any one of them and see the data converted to visual imagery. Most of it was fanciful, and I knew that, but it was an interesting way to dream. It seemed very logical.

The morning brought more tests as the fever continued to rage. They did an ultrasound of my heart and I could watch it beating in real time. A day later they would ultrasound my throat looking for clots, and that was fascinating to watch as well.

The team of docs continued to winnow down the possible diagnoses until they came up with Cellulitis. They ruled out the mumps, mono, an abscessed gland, and other probabilities, but never could figure out how I had gotten this infection on my neck. They even did a swab of my groin and found it full of Staph infection, but still no method of transmission. My primary doc started calling me the "mystery man."

Saturday night was shaping up to be another rough one. It was nearly worse. Because my CPAP does not have the capability of attaching an oxygen line they wanted me to use one of their CPAPs that could. This was the most disappointing piece of equipment I had seen at St. Jo's. The machine was on its own cart, like a hot dog vendor, and sounded like a Stanley Steamer when they fired it up. Moreover, the vent on the hose sounded like a blow-hole. The mask fit horribly and leaked. After an hour I objected and rejected their machine. They asked how I was going to get oxygen into my mask and I said I would figure out a way. It turned out to be relatively simple: I just strapped my mask over the small oxygen tube and it sealed fine. I was able to sleep in quiet and without leaks.

They tried a new tactic that night. Along with the cold towels and fan, they started a cold infusion drip, essentially cooling me from the inside. I like to think of it as running ice water in my veins, but that's a bit simplistic I suppose.

Around midnight I had a strange sensation. As I looked up I could see colored particles floating in the air in the shape of my upper body and head. The particles descended and mingled with my body. Another, differently colored set of particles then formed and descended as well. After about five or six of these waves my body started to tingle.

I was afraid I might be having an allergic reaction to something. They had started an anti-fungal drip along with all the antibiotics I was already getting. I checked the status board and everything looked normal, aside from the temp which was holding steady at about 102.4.

I continued to watch the board and then noticed the temp go down a notch. And then I felt sweat. The fever had broken at last.

Once I knew that had happened I went back to sleep. My data dreams were replaced by purely visual data streams, sort of like looking at a double stripe of photos on a Coolris presentation. I could dip into and out of any image and would find myself in the most vibrant and colorful dreams I can ever remember having. I've not had anything that brilliant for decades! Unfortunately, I haven't repeated that since.

My temp in the morning was holding at 99.9. I knew there would be at least one more night of fever as the monster within would try to come back, so I settled down for another long day, this time sweating like a pig.

They started me on respiratory therapy as well, including inhaling atomized particles of Xanthine (I think that's what the therapist said). Regardless, it was like smoking the world's biggest hookah or peace pipe with little puffs of this mist coming out. You could sort of taste it after awhile.

That led to probably the most fanciful of dream sequences that night. I began to imagine a series of Victorian-style black and white line art moving pictures depicting the adventures/misadventures of a plucky hero against the evil professor Xanthine and his menacing dust. For instance our hero's quaint airship would have its tail fins set ablaze by the evil professor and spiral down to impact in the Amazonian jungle in a cloud of smoke, debris and Xanthine dust. Or the steering wheel of his car would mysteriously come off and our hero would spin around in a cloud of Xanthine dust. Well, you get the picture.

The rest of the stay in ICU was to stabilize my vitals. I was still on medication for my arrhythmia, plus my blood pressure was too low, so they had to boost that. Eventually, on Tuesday the 21st, I was moved to the general floor. I would eventually come home Thursday, but not before there was concern that my blood pressure was too high.

Recovery is slow. I'm on home IV treatment until at least the 29th. I have a lot of fluid retention as they pumped me so full I looked like the Micheline Man. That is slowly going down with the help of a diuretic.

In short, I'm still a mess, but a much better mess than I was last Friday. I am actually fortunate to be around.

In retrospect I should have seen the doctor a lot earlier than I did. The harsh reality is that listening to your body is a lot easier said than done. People get busy, have obligations not just to themselves but to co-workers, employers, customers and family. It is so easy to delude yourself into thinking you are not as bad as you really are. The next thing you know you are caught up in a crisis and stuck in ICU with your life in the balance.

I hope I will learn from this. I certainly don't want to repeat the experience if I can help it. Perhaps this narrative will help some of you as well. I can only hope some good comes out of it.

I will return to historical articles in the very near future. Thanks for reading.

"The Last 300,000 Miles Are On Us"

2013-07-24T22:45:00.000-07:00

I was born and raised in the South Bay area of Los Angeles, CA, which put me in one of the major epicenters of the Lunar landing program. To say that interest in that effort was high around here in those days was putting it mildly. The triumph of Apollo 11 was sweet validation to the people in this region, as I'm sure it was to the folks on Long Island, NY, where the Lunar Module was built in Grumman's Bethpage facility.

But the flight of Apollo 13 was unique on many levels, and as powerful and dramatic as that episode was, it was the aftermath of their journey that would provide my personal link to the Lunar program, one that has resurfaced time and again since that fateful voyage.

I originally wrote this piece for the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 13 mission. As we have just commemorated the 44th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Lunar landing last weekend (July 20), and with the passing a few months ago of Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the Moon, I thought it appropriate to post this now in remembrance of those amazing times. I hope you enjoy it.

This article originally appeared in the Northrop Grumman Engineering Department's in-house magazine VelocitE, vol. 2, number 7, April 2010. It is posted here with permission and has approved for public release case number 12-1506.

One note of correction: In the caption on the Lunar Excursion Module Descent Engine, I say there is a model of the engine in the lobby of the E-2 Building at Northrop Grumman's Space Park facility. It is more than that. It is actually a full-size engineering mockup of the LEMDE.

“The Last 300,000 Miles Are On Us”

By Tony Chong

Forty years ago, in April of 1970, Apollo 13 and its crew were en-route to the Moon, intent on making the third successful American manned landing on the lunar surface in less than a year. The target site was the highlands around the Fra Mauro crater, near the center of the visible face of the full Moon. The initial stage of the voyage seemed “routine;” so much so that the major television networks did not carry the astronauts’ live broadcast beamed back to Earth from the spacecraft.

But that all changed in an instant, as that routine, un-newsworthy transit turned into a desperate fight for survival that gripped the world’s attention as the collective skill and ingenuity of the crew, mission control and the engineers of both NASA and its contractors were tested to the limit. What could have resulted in the catastrophic loss of three astronauts in deep space became instead what many consider to be NASA’s finest hour.

On April 13, 1970, a wiring short-circuit started a fire inside the number 2 oxygen tank in Bay Four of Apollo 13’s Service Module. The tank ruptured, blowing off the bay’s exterior panel and damaging the high-gain antenna. The number 1 oxygen tank in Bay Four sustained damage as well and slowly vented it contents into space.

Vacating the crippled Command Module, aptly named Odyssey, Commander James Lovell, Command Module Pilot Jack Swigert and Lunar Module Pilot Fred Haise occupied the hastily powered-up Lunar Module, turning the two-man lander into a three-man lifeboat.

Ungainly looking and too frail to operate in Earth’s gravity, the LM is still the only manned vehicle to land on another planetary body. Built by heritage-Grumman in Bethpage, NY, the Lunar Module, named Aquarius by the crew, sustained the three men for 86+ hours, over double the designated mission plan of 36 hours for two men.

Pressed into a situation that was only remotely perceived as ever becoming necessary, Aquarius performed its new role magnificently. Even so, the crew faced numerous hardships and obstacles on their long voyage home.

Running on minimal power and life support to preserve precious energy and consumables, the lander became a cold, dark and barely hospitable refuge. Survival was possible only by the crew’s steady performance in the emergency and by the hard work and desperate innovation displayed by flight operations, astronauts and engineers on the ground. In one memorable example they modified the Odyssey’s square carbon dioxide scrubbers, using available materials on hand in the spacecraft, so those scrubbers could be used in Aquarius once that vehicle’s round cartridges became saturated.

But in such a time-critical event, a lifeboat is no good without a motor. Fearing damage to the Service Module’s main engine – a fear confirmed once Odyssey separated for re-entry – the direct abort option was closed. The free return trajectory was not an option either due to the altered path taken for the Fra Mauro landing site. The LM needed to use its landing motor to get Apollo 13 back on the proper return track for home.

Once again, the product of another Northrop Grumman-heritage company came to the rescue with a flawless performance. The TRW-built Lunar Excursion Module Descent Engine (LEMDE), with a maximum thrust of about 9,900 lbs, executed two mid-course bursts and a 4.5 minute burn on the far side of the Moon that corrected Apollo 13’s trajectory and boosted its velocity, shaving off a critical half-day’s time in transit. An impressed and thankful crew told an assembly of TRW employees after the mission that they should change the company’s LEMDE advertising slogan from “the last 10 miles are on us” to “the last 300,000 miles are on us.”

In retrospect it was fortunate the explosion occurred two days into the outward bound portion of the journey. If it happened after Aquarius landed on the Moon, or after it was jettisoned prior to the journey home, the Lunar Module would not have been available for use. In a mission gone horribly wrong it was one of the few things that stayed right. Combined with the perseverance of the crew and the dedication of all on the ground, Apollo 13’s successful conclusion became a symbol for the triumph of the human spirit.

Sidebar

When Jim Lovell, Jack Swigert and Fred Haise addressed that TRW audience on May 6, 1970, three weeks after their Pacific splash-down, employees and the media weren’t the only people in attendance that day. The Aviation High School Falcon Orchestra Band, whose campus was then adjacent to the TRW Space Park facility, was there providing musical entertainment before and after the appearance of the astronauts.

This writer was a sophomore trumpet player in that band, and while the memory of what was said or played that day has disappeared in the mists of the past, the impressions and energy of the event remain vivid. The sense of relief and thankfulness felt by everyone there was palpable, but so was the employee exhilaration and pride in the performance of the LEMDE, noticeable even to a young teenage boy.

A child of the space age – one of my strongest memories is of my mother waking me up early in the morning to watch John Glenn’s “Friendship 7” launch when he became the first American to orbit the Earth – the awe of seeing real live astronauts in person, especially the Apollo 13 crew, made a definite impression on me.

But what impressed me the most about that crew was their graciousness and kindness toward one of our band members. In the middle of a hectic and tiring whirlwind tour that would take them around the world, they stopped to say a few private words to our blind cymbal player when asked to by our director, Richard Power. It was a thrill for her and for the rest of us.

No other astronauts, save John Glenn and the Apollo 11 crew, have generated that same level of response from the American public or the world. The epic voyage of Apollo 13 connected with the average person on a visceral, primal level beyond simple description. As they struggled and endured and overcame impossible odds to survive, their strength and character in the midst of disaster endeared them to all. It made them heroes in the purest sense of the word.

Addendums:

In conjunction with the 1995 Hawthorne Air Faire, Eugene Kranz was awarded the City of Hawthorne Chamber of Commerce “Cradle of Aviation” Award. The award was made in the Northrop Grumman Display Model Shop, where I had just become lead.

Kranz was the White Team Lead Flight Director on Apollo 13. Fred Haise attended the event in support of Kranz. Haise retired from NASA in 1979 and joined heritage-Grumman that year. He retired from Northrop Grumman in 1996.

I also attended that award banquet and had the chance to meet and briefly chat with Fred Haise and Gene Kranz, making the Apollo 13 saga even more personal than it was before.

In 2005 the circle became complete when I found a picture in the official TRW 100 year history book of the astronauts’ visit to Space Park. A query to the photo department at Space Park yielded several shots of the event with me clearly visible in the band. These were the first photos I had ever seen of that day.

My thanks to: Suzanne Fuentes, Karen Holmbeck, Paul Morgan and all the other good folks who were in the Space Park photo department in 2005.

Photo Captions:

1. The Apollo 13 crew: Jim Lovell (left), Jack Swigert (center) and Fred Haise (right). Swigert and Haize were civilian astronauts. Lovell was a US Navy Captain. Ken Mattingly, a US Navy Lt Commander, was the original Command Module Pilot, but was scrubbed at the last minute due to exposure to the measles. Photo credit: NASA

2. A view of the damaged Service Module after separation prior to re-entry. Aquarius is still attached to Odyssey. The service panel on Bay Four is gone and extensive debris is seen hanging out of the interior. Damage to the bell nozzle on the SM main engine was confirmed by the crew after visual inspection. Fortunately the heat shield on Odyssey was not damaged. Photo credit: NASA (Apollo 13 crew)

3. A view of Aquarius after separation prior to re-entry. Odyssey was re-activated at the last minute as battery power in the CM was low, especially for the parachutes. One of the three batteries was projected to fail at main chute release. Photo credit: NASA (Apollo 13 crew)

4. Odyssey splashes down in the Pacific Ocean. A third Northrop Grumman-heritage company product – Northrop Ventura Division (ex-Radioplane) – designed and produced the three-parachute recovery system. Photo credit: NASA

5. A photo of the square-shaped CM carbon dioxide scrubbers attached to the round fitting on Aquarius. Duct tape was involved, validating all men’s affinity for the product. The crew called the jury-rigged arrangement the “mail box.” Photo credit: NASA (Apollo 13 crew)

6. A staged photo showing engineers and technicians hoisting a Lunar Excursion Module Descent Engine. A full-size model of the LEMDE is in the lobby of the E-2 building, AS Sector Headquarters, in Space Park, Redondo Beach. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman (legacy TRW)

7. A shot of the famous TRW ad that Jim Lovell modified in his tribute to TRW employees. As a side note, Grumman sent North America Rockwell, the builders of the Command Module, a gag bill for $312,421.24 for “towing charges.” Photo credit: Northrop Grumman (legacy TRW)

8. Apollo 13 astronauts address TRW employees on 6 May, 1970. Standing at the podium is Jim Lovell. Jack Swigert is to the audience’s left; Fred Haise is to the right. The Aviation High School band is to the left of the stage. The Apollo 13 mission badge, seen on the podium, was retrieved by us after the event and mounted in a place of honor in the band room. It was still there when I graduated in 1972; I assume it was still there when the high school was closed and torn down in 1982. I have no idea what happened to it after that. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman (legacy TRW)

9. Richard Power (back to photo) directs the Falcon Orchestra Band. I am in the white circle near the back row. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman (legacy TRW)

10. Jim Lovell stops to talk to senior Jeanette Galbreath. Totally blind at an early age she was determined to do everything sighted kids could. She became a cymbalist in the marching and orchestra bands and, with a classmate guiding her by the elbow, did all the marching and halftime routines like everyone else. She never missed a cue and was one of the nicest, bravest and most competent people I’ve ever known. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman (legacy TRW)

Northrop Grumman approved for public release case number 12-1506

The Airborne Laser Uncoiled

2013-06-09T16:29:00.002-07:00

This was perhaps the most frustrating program to try and write an article about, even for an in-house publication. Two or three times over the past six years Diane, my editor, and I tried to see about doing a piece on this system without success. The problem was more the multiple jurisdictions involved than anything else. While it was a Northrop Grumman laser, it was a Boeing aircraft with a large Lockheed Martin contribution, all done for the Air Force via the Missile Defense Agency on a very sensitive subject. As a result, getting all the responsible parties to agree on a special press junket for our limited-reach publication proved impossible. Ironically it took cancellation of the program to open the door to an article.

When we found out the aircraft was going to be displayed at the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base open house in 2012, with the possibility of it being cut up shortly thereafter, we knew we had to act fast if we wanted to do anything on the vehicle. The result was Diane successfully sponsored Craig Kaston and me into the official media contingent and we got to see the ABL up-close and personal for the first time. Hopefully it will not the last time.

The additional bonuses to the trip were two additional articles I wrote on the Balad walls and on a Thunderbird pilot. I will post those later as they were quite interesting and fun to write about. Plus, it was a nice, unexpected vacation for me (PTO is wonderful). I got to play with airplanes and photography - what could be better?

Sometimes the stars are in alignment and things work out. This trip was definitely one of those times.

One note: a couple of the links cited below no longer work a year after the article was written. Specifically the Missile Defense Agency site no longer carries ABL/ABLT information about the program. The Northrop Grumman link does not work, either, but this address should work for ABL/ABLT company-approved information: http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/ChemicalHighEnergyLaser/AirborneLaserTestbed.

This article was originally published in Northrop Grumman Engineering Department's in-house, on-line magazine Airspace, Vol. 3, number 17, April 2012. It is reposted here with permission and has approved for public release case number 12-1705.

The Airborne Laser Uncoiled

By Tony Chong

The decades-long quest to field a directed-energy weapons system saw one avenue close when the YAL-1A Airborne Laser Test Bed (ALTB), formerly known as the Airborne Laser (ABL), made its retirement flight from Edwards AFB, Calif. to the boneyard at Davis-Monthan AFB, Ariz. on Valentine’s Day 2012.

A multi-contractor effort, the ALTB was a modified Boeing 747-400F freighter that carried a Boeing-built battle management system, a Lockheed Martin nose-turret and fire-control system and a heritage TRW, now Northrop Grumman, six-module megawatt-class, high-energy Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL).

The COIL is an infrared laser created by mixing together gaseous chlorine, molecular iodine, and an aqueous mixture of hydrogen peroxide and potassium hydroxide. The aqueous mixture reacts to the chlorine creating heat, potassium chloride and excited-state oxygen known as singlet delta oxygen. When molecular iodine is injected into the gas stream the energy in the oxygen is transferred to the iodine which produces a stimulated emission that lases.

Building on the successful tests of the Boeing NKC-135A Airborne Laser Laboratory (ALL) in the 1980s with its gas-dynamic high-energy laser, the Air Force initiated the ABL Program Definition and Risk Reduction (PDRR) phase in 1996. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) took over management of the program in 2001 and began the acquisition and integration of hardware for the next phase shortly thereafter.

The first of a proposed fleet of nine ABL aircraft (two prototypes and seven operational vehicles), designated the YAL-1A by the Air Force, rolled off the line at the Boeing Wichita, KS modification center in 2002. First flight of the aircraft was on July 18 of that same year.

The YAL-1A was flown to Edwards AFB for instrumentation check-out. At the same time the COIL began initial tests in a ground based Simulation Integration Lab (SIL) located at the Birk Flight Test Center on Edward’s South Base complex.

The next few years saw the integration and testing of the various targeting and tracking components, including the solid-state Track Illuminator Laser (TILL) and Beam Illuminator Laser (BILL), and the firing of a Surrogate High Energy Laser (SHEL) to validate the onboard systems leading up to the COIL installation in the YAL-1A in 2008.

“First Light” of the COIL during ground tests occurred in September 2008. “First Light in Flight” followed in August of 2009.

Finally, after years of delays and cost overruns, the ABL intercepted and destroyed a solid-fuel ballistic missile target in boost phase on February 3, 2010. This was followed a week later by the destruction of an in-flight liquid-fueled ballistic missile on February 11.

But while a successful validation of the concept and technology, the program was already in demise. In April 2009 then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates declared the ABL a costly, operationally unviable system and all follow-on aircraft were subsequently cancelled. The YAL-1A was no longer viewed as a prototype for a production system, but as a flying test bed. In an era of fiscal constraint and dwindling budgets, the ALTB was on borrowed time.

With reality looming, the program pressed on. Kill range expansion tests were conducted throughout 2011 with several intercepts of missile targets achieved. However, no further targets were engaged long enough to be destroyed. The ALTB flew its last test mission on October 11, 2011.

Prior to its arrival at Davis-Monthan the YAL-1A had never before been shown in an open public event. Ironically that would change upon retirement. Col. Patrick Kumashiro, commander of the 309^th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG) decided to place the ALTB on display during the base’s 2012 Open House.

Despite the fact that the aircraft has undergone initial preparation for desert storage and final disposition, it is still an impressive sight. While this maybe the only official Air Force-sponsored opportunity to see the airplane, negotiations are underway with the adjacent Pima Air and Space Museum to add the YAL-1A to their extensive collection. If talks are unproductive then the airframe will likely be cut up and scrapped at some point in the not too distant future.

Regardless of its fate, the accomplishments of the ALTB are historic. As the first aircraft to shoot down ballistic missiles in flight, it has paved the way for future developments in directed energy systems, whether in the air, in space, on land or at sea. The technical and operational challenges are still huge, but they are less so because of this program.

Craig Kaston and Airman 1^st Class Michael Washburn contributed to this article.

References

An excellent book covering the early NKC-135A ALL program is: Airborne LASER: Bullets of Light by Robert W. Duffner, Plenum Press, 1997.

The MDA maintains a website for its programs, including the ALTB that features a recent timeline of milestone events. It can be found here: http://www.mda.mil/system/altb.html

This pdf. file has some interesting information on the YAL-1A, including cut-away drawings and internal arrangement views. It can be found here: http://www.0x4d.net/files/AF1/R11%20Segment%2010.pdf

Northrop Grumman’s public-accessible website offers downloadable pdf. files describing the program, the aircraft, its components and the COIL. A video of one of the successful intercepts is there as well: http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/abl/index.html

Additional photos of the ABLT’s departure from Edwards AFB and arrival at Davis-Monthan AFB can be found here: http://www.edwards.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=2532

http://www.dm.af.mil/photos/media_search.asp?q=airborne+laser+arrival

Tony Chong is a historian, photographer and a contributing editor to airspace. He leads activities in the Aerospace Systems Display Model Shop and works in El Segundo.

Photo Captions

1) The YAL-1A banks over Rogers Dry Lake as it initiates a low pass over Edwards AFB at the start of its last flight on February 14, 2012. Photo Credit: U.S. Air Force / Bobbi Zapka.

2) In a somewhat fitting and surreal-looking end, the YAL-1A prepares to touchdown on a rain-slickened Davis-Monthan runway upon completion of its ferry-flight to the boneyard and retirement. Photo Credit: U.S. Air Force / Airman 1^st Class Michael Washburn.

3) One of the last overall shots of the airplane before processing. Note the badges on the fuselage just aft of the canopy. They are the badges for, from left to right, Air Combat Command, Air Material Command and the Missile Defense Agency. Photo Credit: U.S. Air Force / Airman 1^st Class Michael Washburn.

4) This nose-on shot shows the rotating beam control ball turret in the travel position with the shielded conformal window facing up. The green and red stripes correlate with the starboard and port sides of the aircraft. Photo Credit: U.S. Air Force / Airman 1^st Class Michael Washburn.

5) The YAL-1A as it appeared to the media the day before the 2012 Open House. Processing for final disposition has occurred, with all openings sealed against the environment, including engine inlets and exhaust, gear wells and ball turret. Photo Credit: Tony Chong, 2012.

6) This right front-quarter view shows more clearly the sealed inlets and cocooned ball turret. The white box at the top of the nose gear is the structure sealing off the gear well. Photo Credit: Tony Chong, 2012.

7) More details of the exhaust cocooning are revealed in this left rear-quarter view. The protruding belly panel aft of the wing-to-body fairing and forward of the red markings is the PRS Exhaust Fairing. The non-standard blue in the Star & Bar national marking is of interest as well. Photo Credit: Tony Chong, 2012.

8) Close-up shot of the Pressure Recovery System (PRS) Exhaust Fairing which is comprised of six units of six exhausts each, corresponding to the six COIL modules inside the fuselage. The PRS removes the laser exhaust from the aircraft. Photo Credit: Tony Chong, 2012.

9) A close-up of one of two emergency chemical dump masts flanking the PRS Exhaust Fairing at its forward end. Note the relief valve extending aft from the end of the mast. Photo Credit: Tony Chong, 2012.

10) The port view of the Boeing-made Active Ranging System atop the forward fuselage. The ARS utilizes a modified LANTIRN pod with a high-power CO₂laser. The ARS acquires the target from the IRST sensor in the chin pod and uses the CO₂laser to find the range to the target. Photo Credit: Tony Chong, 2012.

11) A close-up of the cocooned nose turret. The chin pod protrudes below. Photo Credit: Tony Chong, 2012

12) The chin pod consists of a forward-looking Infrared Search and Track (IRST) sensor (lower, red covered ball and cylinder), and a weather radar (gray, upper ball housing). The rear-looking IRST is in the very tip of the aft fuselage. Photo Credit: Tony Chong, 2012.

13) The YAL-1A sports seven successfully targeted (but not destroyed) missile markings, plus two actual kill missile markings under the cockpit on the port side. The cockpit windows have sun reflectors installed on the inside as part of the boneyard processing. Photo Credit: Tony Chong, 2012

Public Release Case Number 12-1705

Sierra Madre Art Fair

2013-05-04T22:12:00.002-07:00

Our booth at the Sierra Madre Art Fair was up and running for the first day of the show today. We will be there again tomorrow. Hope to see you there, at the Memorial Park, 222 W. Sierra Madre Blvd., Sierra Madre, CA. We are in booth 50, from 9:30 AM to 5:00 PM.

Lily Pads on a Black Pond - Huntington Library and Gardens

2013-04-30T22:18:00.000-07:00

Just a reminder that the Sierra Madre Art Fair is this Saturday and Sunday (link). Here is one of my new images that I will have available this weekend. It was shot a the Huntington Library and Gardens at their lily pond near the cactus garden.

The Huntington is a truly magical place, especially at twilight. Members have certain evenings during the summer that they are allowed in between 5:00 and 8:00. We go when we can as there are usually great photo opportunities.

I especially love how the water goes black in this image. It's like the lily pads are floating in space. There was just enough light left to add texture and interest to several of the pads and flowers. I hope you like it as much as I do.

If you are in the area come see us in booth 50.

The Mysterious Ryan Model 147S-2

2013-04-13T21:52:00.001-07:00

This article was a particular challenge for me. It also had a very long gestation. I first saw a model of the S-2 back in 2001 and it intrigued me greatly. Once I decided to write about it in late 2010, It took me another two years to unearth enough material to even begin to understand what it was I found. And then it really got interesting.

Fortunately, I had a lot of help. The information and data provided by Doug Fronius, Norm Sakamoto and John Dale proved invaluable, as did the photo archives uncovered at the San Diego Air and Space Museum (SDASM) by Craig Kaston and myself. The two books by William Wagner (noted in the article) gave added details and backdrop to the program, which were also very helpful. In the end, it proved to be a very illuminating and satisfying experience.

It would prove to be a bittersweet one as well. Shortly after this was posted in Airspace, my editor informed me that the magazine was cancelled. Apparently the leadership team felt it had outlived its value to the department.

Oh, well...it was a nice gig while it lasted.

But this won't be the last article you see. I have several that have been cleared that I have yet to post on this blog. I will do so in the coming months. I also plan to write new articles down the road for this and other venues if possible. The ultimate goal is to generate enough material to write a new book on the history of Northrop and Northrop Grumman. An ambitions goal, I know, but one that I think is both worthwhile and attainable - at least I hope so. We'll see.

This article was originally published in the Northrop Grumman Engineering Department's in-house, on-line magazine Airspace, Vol. 3, number 24, November/December 2012. It is reposted here with permission and has approved for public release case number 12-2367.

The Mysterious Ryan Model 147S-2

By Tony Chong

The 1960s and early 1970s were not only a turbulent period in American history, but they were also a tumultuous time for the heritage Ryan Aeronautical Company. Great changes occurred in the company’s fortunes during that decade and a half, yet Ryan remained highly innovative and on the leading edge of remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) technology throughout that span. Even more impressive was its forays into the growing field of Low-Observables, or stealth, as seen by its elusive and mysterious Model 147S-2 concept.

The model 147 line began with the 1962 pairing of Ryan with the U.S. Air Force’s 645^th Aeronautical Systems Group, a rapid procurement/rapid deployment unit known as “Big Safari.” Tasked with developing special reconnaissance platforms since 1952, Big Safari found an extremely willing and resourceful collaborator in Ryan.¹

Using the existing Model 124 Firebee target as a starting point, the team designed, custom-built and fielded around thirty variants and sub-variants of drones known collectively as Model 147 Fireflies and Lightning Bugs. Nearly 3,500 combat sorties were flown by these vehicles during the Vietnam War by the 100^th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing (SRW). ²

But success created its own consequences. The company, which was living from one contract to another during the early days of its Big Safari collaboration, saw its fortunes rise by the late 1960s. Unmanned vehicles of all types, from targets to “Special Purpose Aircraft,” grew from 20% of the company’s total revenue in 1962 to over 90% in each year from 1967 to 1971.³

Flush with success, Ryan sought to expand its lead in RPVs through acquisition, but became a target for acquisition itself.⁴ In 1968 Teledyne, Inc. bought out founder T. Claude Ryan’s holdings and on January 2, 1969, a new subsidiary of Teledyne called Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical (TRA) was born.⁵

Its Air Force relationships changed, too. By late 1965 it became clear that Ryan had moved beyond merely modifying existing vehicles into the production of new aircraft. At that point Air Force Systems Command reasserted its authority over such activities. By 1969 the bulk of TRA’s work had transitioned from the free-wheeling, can-do realm of Big Safari and Air Force Logistics Command to the normal, more bureaucratic and competition-driven procurement channels within Systems Command.⁶

Despite the internal and external shake-ups, the moves created new opportunities beyond the original reconnaissance efforts. More importantly it saw the development of low-observable technology as a new field to investigate. The 1966 contract for the Ryan Model 154 Compass Arrow was one of the company’s initial stealth forays (see 2 April 2013 entry)⁷.

A multi-mission RPV study in 1971 written by TRA and RCA featured a trio of advanced drone concepts; one for interdiction/strike, one for air-superiority and one for advanced reconnaissance. Of the three versions the Model 147S-2 reconnaissance drone was the one design that delved further into LO.⁸

The S-2 was to be a day-or-night low-altitude penetrator that was smaller, faster, longer legged and with a lower Radar Cross Section (RCS) than its S-series predecessors.⁹ Several variations on the basic design were considered, but the two primary concepts that emerged featured a semi-tailless vehicle with cranked arrow delta wings. Canted vertical stabilizers midway out on the span protruded from the upper and lower surfaces of the wings.

The blended compound curvature over the fuselage and wings accomplished more than just lower RCS. It also allowed for greater fuel storage within the shorter length of the drone. In any event, it made for a very streamlined and futuristic-looking vehicle that was just over 21 feet long with a 12.5 foot span for the Configuration 4 S-2 version.¹⁰

Propulsion was to be provided by a single Teledyne CAE (Continental) J69-T-406 turbojet with 1,920 lbs. thrust, the same engine as used on Ryan’s supersonic BQM-34E/Model 166 Firebee II. While the engine was capable of supersonic performance, the S-2 was only envisioned to go Mach 0.95 maximum. This was to be done at 2,500 feet above ground level (AGL) during its high-speed “scoring” pass (photo pass) over the target. Ingress or penetration speed was to be Mach 0.65 at 1,000 feet AGL. The vehicle was to pop up to over 40,000 feet for egress at 420 knots cruising speed for maximum range.¹¹

Range was a factor of speed and duration at penetration and scoring altitudes. The more time spent down low would reduce range, but in either case, high or low, it was about double that of the original S-series.

The S-2 nose could be configured to carry different scorer (camera) systems individually or multiple scorer systems at the same time. These could be photo, such as the F-695 or CA-120 cameras or the KA-60 panoramic camera, various laser line-scanner cameras or infrared types like the RS-330R. In addition the vehicle could be optimized for various types of intelligence gathering including electronic or signals (ELINT/SIGINT) data. Electronic counter-measures (ECM) could be carried on-board as well. A real-time data link could be provided on some packages.¹²

As with the rest of the Model 147 series, the S-2 was to be primarily air-launched from an aircraft, but a zero-ground launch capability with rocket-assist take-off boosters was to be available, too. Retrieval on one version was to be via parachute and the standard Mid-Air Retrieval System (MARS), which was perfected on earlier Model 147 types. However, Configuration 4 appeared to feature retractable landing skids as the parachute housing was removed on that variant.¹³

The S-2 evoked enough customer interest that Ryan began extensive wind-tunnel testing of its various configurations. Artist’s illustrations showed the vehicle in formation with other operational products as if it had become operational itself.¹⁴ The company even produced several display models for presentation.

Unfortunately no prototype or production contract ever materialized. The concept became nothing more than a mysterious design tantalizing the viewer in a painting or a model cabinet already full of other intriguing vehicles.

The end of the American involvement in the Vietnam War was probably the big reason the S-2 did not progress much farther than it did. With no immediate tactical need at hand the Air Force’s attention soon shifted to other areas. The highly classified nature of the reconnaissance RPVs contributed to the lack of awareness by the mainstream military and political leadership, thus stifling any support such a program could have garnered had it been more widely known.¹⁵

In 1976 all strategic and tactical drone assets were consolidated under one operational entity: Tactical Air Command.¹⁶ Unfortunately TAC was wracked with factious in-fighting over its post-Vietnam role and mission requirements, a fight exacerbated by post-Watergate distrust and the growing stagflation and economic hard times of the late 1970s.¹⁷ By 1981 no operational RPVs existed in the Air Force or Navy inventory other than target drones.¹⁸

All these reasons and more served to close the door on a very promising future for the S-2 and other unmanned vehicles of the period. Ryan would once again enter a difficult period of small contracts as it struggled to survive through very lean times. It would be another fifteen years before that door would reopen on an unmanned vehicle renaissance.

As for Low Observables, Ryan would continue to explore that technology, developing some extremely interesting designs in the mid-to-late 1970s. But that is a story for another day.

Doug Fronius, Col. John Dale, USAF (ret), Norm Sakamoto and Craig Kaston contributed to this article. Thanks also to the San Diego Air and Space Museum (SDASM) for access to and use of its Ryan photo collection and data archives.

Tony Chong is a historian, photographer and a contributing editor to Airspace. He leads activities in the Aerospace Systems Display Model Shop and works in El Segundo.

Footnotes

1. Details of this collaboration can be found in: William Wagner, Lightning Bugs and other Reconnaissance Drones (Armed Forces Journal International / Aero Publishers, Inc. 1982)

2. Ibid, 213, and in: William Wagner and William P. Sloan, Fireflies and other UAVs (Aerofax, Inc. 1992), 13. Both references show the same chart. Note that Tactical Air Command flew some missions with 147NA/NC variants, but the number of flights is unknown and thus not listed in the tally
3. Teledyne Ryan Drone Sales, 1960-1971 – document in the SDASM collection
4. In 1965 Ryan acquired a controlling interest in Continental Motors Corporation, of which their Continental Aviation and Engineering Corporation subsidiary produced the jet engines used in many of the Model 147 vehicles
5. Lightning Bugs, 151
6. Ibid, 146
7. Fireflies, 35-37. This includes a fascinating account of the competition between Ryan and North American Aviation that led to the Compass Arrow (with heritage Northrop trying to get into the program as well)
8. Multi-Mission RPV Study – Executive Summary, Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical and RCA, 1971, document in SDASM collection
9. Lightning Bugs, 212-213. A complete breakdown of S-series sub-variants is listed along with a painting of all the Model 147s and other drones. As noted previously, Fireflies, 12-13 has the same painting and chart. Another good reference is this site that also lists production amounts, as far as they are known: http://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/aqm34/versions.htm
10. Model 147 S-2/147 S Comparison, Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical, date unknown, unnumbered page in brochure Xerox copy, Tony Chong collection via John Dale. The actual dimensions are not listed, but scaling out the comparative three-view drawings gave the approximate sizes for each vehicle
11. Ibid, no page number listed
12. Ibid, no page number listed
13. Multi-Mission RPV Study, 6
14. Lightning Bugs, 206, fireflies, 11, same image
15. A clear sense of the frustrations in dealing with this wall of secrecy is found in Lightning Bugs, 207-209
16. Fireflies, 104
17. A detailed, albeit biased view of this contentious period in Air Force history is found in Boyd – The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War, Robert Coram (Little, Brown and Company, 2002)
18. Lightning Bugs, unnumbered third page of Foreword

References

The standard references for Ryan RPVs are: Lightning Bugs and Other Reconnaissance Drones, William Wagner, 1982, Armed Forces Journal International / Aero Publishers, Inc., Fallbrook, CA; and Fireflies and other UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), William Wagner and William P. Sloan, 1992, Aerofax, Inc., Arlington, TX.

This is an outstanding website dedicated to the AQM-34 Ryan RPVs: http://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/aqm34.htm

These two documents were critical in understanding the 147S-2: Multi-Mission RPV Study – Executive Summary, Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical and RCA, 1971, San Diego, CA; and Model 147 S-2/147 S Comparison, Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical, no date listed.

Photo Captions

1. The cover of the July 1971 TRA/RCA RPV executive study was illustrated by three very intriguing designs. The S-2 is the upper-most vehicle. Photo credit: Craig Kaston via SDASM collection.


2. The full-color original art is even more striking. This piece is unusual in that two artists signed the painting: Robert Watts and Matt Giacalone. Watts would produce some extremely vibrant art for Ryan. Note the configuration of the tail and exhaust on the S-2. Photo credit: SDASM collection.


3. The Executive Summary included three sets of 3-view drawings of their advanced concepts. While Ryan did test a strike RPV variant based on the Model 147S (Model 234), this strike version, like the rest of the proposals shown here, was more refined for the chosen role. The S-2 in this view has a different tail/exhaust design. It is minus the parachute housing seen on the previous two pieces of art. Photo credit: Craig Kaston via SDASM collection.

4. The baseline Lightning Bug is a Model 147S. The S-2 is shown in comparison and reveals how much smaller in length, height and span the new vehicle was to be. This is the long exhaust version, or Configuration 4 as noted in the previous image. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection via John Dale.


5. This isometric cut-away view shows the parachute housing variant of the S-2. Notice how much slimmer the nose is, too. It is not known at this time if there were to be two versions of the S-2 (an A and B) or if this was just an interim design phase. It is possible the parachute version was for the Navy and the long-exhaust variant was for the Air Force and featured retractable landing skids. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection via John Dale.

6. Robert Watts painted this image of a parachute-equipped S-2 streaking over agricultural terrain. The structures to the left of the river appear to be American-style farm houses. Nevertheless it is a very dynamic image. The vehicle appears to be climbing to scorer altitude and preparing for a photo run. Photo credit: SDASM collection.

7. This unsigned piece of art, possibly by Matt Giacalone, shows what looks like an earlier variant of the S-2. There is a break in the line between the leading edge of the wing and nose and the verticals appear more outboard than in the other images. Still, it is a nicely rendered artist’s concept. Photo credit: SDASM collection.

8. Two parachute-equipped S-2s are carried by this Navy/Grumman A-6 Intruder in another great image by Robert Watts. As mentioned before it is possible that this version of the S-2 was for the Navy as the practicality of overwater MARS retrieval by helicopter would seem like a much more realistic solution than a skid landing on an aircraft carrier. Photo credit: SDASM collection.

9. This Robert Watts image shows a low-level launch of the S-2 by an A-6 Intruder. The S-2 was designed to fly near nap-of-the-Earth routes at 1,000 feet AGL during ingress. Watts seems to show it even lower than that. Again, note the drone has the parachute housing. Photo credit: SDASM collection.


10. Aside from the A-6, these vehicles were also tabbed as launch aircraft. The rather poorly reproduced ground launch cart is shown with a barely discernible S-2 on the cradle. The C-135 is an intriguing choice for a launch aircraft. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection via John Dale.


11. Wind tunnel testing was done on the Configuration 4 variant, the one without the parachute housing. This view gives a good indication of the increased internal volume in the area between the body and the wing root. The extra volume would allow the S-2 to carry more fuel and have greater range than the baseline 147S. Photo credit: SDASM collection.

12. Another shot of the wind tunnel model shows how compact the S-2 would have been. Photo credit: SDASM collection.

13. A shot from down the tunnel looking back at the model shows the belly of the S-2. The people around the model give a good indication of its size. Photo credit: SDASM collection.


14. While not 100% certain, this gray model of the Configuration 4 S-2 is quite possibly the same wind tunnel model as seen in the previous views, but repainted. The exhaust has been detailed out a bit more as well. Photo credit: SDASM collection.

15. This shot of the Configuration 4 S-2 on a cradle stand on top of a blue-covered table is clearly taken outside. While that seems odd what may be happening is the art department needed photo references of the new vehicle in interesting and dynamic poses to aid them in creating graphics and concept paintings for the company. Photo credit: SDASM collection.


16. Another more practical aspect of shooting models outdoors is the artist can see how the sunlight falls on the vehicle. Notice the differentiation of the reflectivity of light on the starboard canted vertical compared to the reverse-angle canted port vertical. Note also how the shadows fall around the body of the vehicle. This view also shows the exhaust in good detail. Photo credit: SDASM collection.

17. At least a handful of S-2 models were made at the time, of which this is one. A splash-mold was taken off this example by the Northrop Grumman Display Model Shop in El Segundo so new copies could be made if needed. The model comes out to about 1/30^th scale. Photo credit: Tony Chong.

18. The stand stated the model to be a 147 SK2, which created a great deal of confusion. There was a 147SK, which was an S-series vehicle modified for launching from Navy ships. It was assumed SK2 was a subsequent Naval 147 type. So far no other reference has been found to substantiate that SK2 was a real variant designation. Photo credit: Tony Chong.


19. The parachute-equipped S-2 also made it into one of Robert Watts’ periodic paintings of the Ryan family of drones (bottom vehicle on the left side). This also caused confusion as all the drones pictured here were built and flown, so the natural assumption was that the S-2 had been built and flown, too. It was disappointing to discover that this was not true. Photo credit: SDASM collection.


20. An enlarged view of the S-2 from the previous image shows the parachute housing extending aft and the exhaust plume glowing beneath the fairing. Photo credit: SDASM collection.


21. The S-2 made another deceptive appearance on a board of built and flown Ryan vehicles during this photo-op with returning Vietnam POW CMDR Ed Martin (center), ADM Ulysses S. Grant Sharp, USN, ret. (left) and TRA chief executive Robert C. Jackson (right). The S-2 is in the center of the board. Photo credit: SDASM collection.


22. A close-up of the center shows the Configuration 4 S-2 displayed as a half-model mounted on a board with the other half-models of Ryan products. It is worth wondering if this unique presentation still exists. Photo credit: SDASM collection.

Approved for Public Release: Northrop Grumman Case 12-2367, 12/21/12

Sierra Madre Art Show

2013-04-09T22:41:00.000-07:00

Tina and I will be showing at the Sierra Madre Art Fair again this year. Come see Tina's oil and watercolor paintings and my photography. It's a fun event with tasty food, good music and great art! See the attached photos for details. We hope to see you there either that Saturday or Sunday.

Compass Arrow and the Dawn of Stealth

2013-04-02T22:02:00.001-07:00

This article was a bit of an eye-opener for me. It was my first attempt at a heritage Ryan subject and it was also the first piece I wrote for the new in-house, on-line-only Engineering Department magazine Airspace.

Prior to Airspace I was writing for VelocitE, which had a hard-copy edition plus an on-line companion version. I usually tried to keep the photos and illustrations to a half-dozen or so because not all of them would survive into the print edition if the count went much higher than that. It took me a while to figure out that Airspace had no such restraints. The results were articles like the N-102 Fang in the previous post, replete with footnotes, references and lots and lots of images.

Part of my charter as I saw it was to cover all of the heritage companies during the course of the year, if I could. I was also to do a mix of aero subjects and space subjects reflecting the new Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems sector.

For this particular issue I originally wanted to do an article on the Ryan Model 147S-2, but I couldn't compile enough information to write about it at that time. While I did eventually turn in that piece (the subject of the next post), it was suggested to me that the Compass Arrow would be a very interesting subject in its place.

And it was, as you shall hopefully see when you read the article below. Ironically, a couple of years after I wrote this I began volunteer work at the San Diego Air and Space Museum in their library/photo archives section and have since discovered a tremendous amount of additional data that demands a much more in-depth treatment than what I gave here.

Fortunately, Craig Kaston, my cohort in the SDASM venture, is becoming the resident expert in all things Ryan UAV, including the Compass Arrow. He is rapidly acquiring the data, knowledge and imagery to do a definitive book on the subject - I just need to convince him to do it when the time is right.

As to that additional information we've uncovered, it turns out that two of the photos featured in the article are not what they were originally thought to be. Image 2 (and the lead-in image to this post) is actually of a sub-scale antenna test vehicle - however, the saw-tooth features highlighted are indeed part of the full-scale vehicle construction as mentioned.

The other photo in question is of the in-flight shot (number 4). It now appears that it is actually a composited image of the sky with a Compass Arrow taken on the ground at Edwards AFB on 6 October 1971 during a Ryan "Family of Drones" photo shoot. The finished image shows a bit of the pre-PhotoShop magic that all really good p.r. and marketing photo departments did at the time all the time.

And people say photos don't lie...

This article was originally published in the Northrop Grumman Engineering Department's in-house, on-line magazine Airspace, Vol. 1, number 1, October 2010. It is reposted here with permission and has approved for public release case number 12-1535.

Compass Arrow and the Dawn of Stealth

By Tony Chong

While the early days of stealth research became dominated by Lockheed and heritage Northrop, it is easy to forget the pioneering work done by another legacy Northrop Grumman company, Ryan Aeronautical (later Teledyne-Ryan Aeronautical).

By the end of the 1950s there was a growing awareness among some in the Pentagon and industry of the increasing vulnerability of manned reconnaissance aircraft. The political fallout from incidents involving those vehicles might have severe consequences for the country, the least of which was leaving the United States blind as to what its adversaries were doing.

The logical path in the eyes of those advocates was a remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) configured to do reconnaissance missions. Despite the advantages of such a system the Air Force was reluctant to pursue a RPV solution. In the 1950s it was one thing to use a drone for target practice; using it as a long range platform to perform precise, sensitive over-flights of contested airspace was another, more complicated matter entirely.

The downing of Francis Gary Powers’ U-2 in 1960 changed the equation. In the months that followed Ryan was awarded a study contract, code-named “Red Wagon,” to examine the feasibility of building reconnaissance RPVs.

What eventually emerged after a long and torturous road was a family of modified Model 147 Firebee RPVs, known as “Fireflies” and “Lightning Bugs,” which were used extensively during the Vietnam War.

But Ryan did not stop there. In 1965 the company pitched the idea of an air-launched vehicle that was designed from the start as a reconnaissance platform; one that could fly very high for over 2,000 miles.

The CIA passed on the program, but the Air Force expressed interest as a system like that could do over-flights of communist China, which was in the midst of the chaotic Cultural Revolution at the time. The program was given the green light in June 1966.

The proposed vehicle was the Model 154 Firefly. Featuring a low swept-wing of nearly 48 feet and reaching just over 32 feet in length, the Firefly was designed to cruise at 78,000 feet. Power was provided by a General Electric YJ97-GE-3 jet engine of 4,000 lbs static sea-level thrust.

But more importantly the Model 154 heralded a new future in the active design and implementation of stealth technology.

Prior to the Lockheed A-12, stealth design was more an accidental happenstance than a premeditated feature. The A-12 itself deliberately incorporated Low-Observables (LO) features, but only if they did not compromise the aerodynamic design qualities needed for Mach 3 flight. These included radar absorbent materials (RAM) and radar absorbent edges structures.

Model 154 would use both RAM and edges structures, but also engine location (for infrared or IR signature reduction) and body shaping for the lowest radar cross section (RCS) possible.

The YJ97 was positioned on the upper body so the RAM-coated inlet could also be shielded by the forward fuselage from below. The exhaust nozzle was cooled and shielded from below by the aft fuselage as well to lower its IR signature. Finally, the fuselage and twin-tailed empennage were designed to deflect radar signals away from the receiver. This gave the vehicle a sloped, slab sided look.

Flight tests of the new Air Force designated AQM-91A Compass Arrow began on 4 June 1968 at Holloman AFB, NM. Systems development and production ran concurrently as the need was deemed urgent. During this period Ryan became Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical (January 1969).

A series of problems slowed progress, but all issues were eventually resolved and Compass Arrow was ready to go operational by mid-1971. A few weeks later, President Richard Nixon announced his surprise trip to China.

Overnight Compass Arrow became politically unusable. Rapprochement precluded over-flights, so the program was cancelled and all twenty production aircraft were cut up.

Despite its untimely demise, Compass Arrow proved to be a landmark system on two fronts. It initiated the concept of high-altitude, long-endurance unmanned air vehicles (HALE UAVs), from which Teledyne Ryan would transition to Compass Cope-R and then on to Global Hawk. And, just as importantly, its designed-in RCS and IR signature reduction efforts showed tangible results which led the industry to more aggressive designs, resulting in the impressive Lockheed F-117 and the phenomenal Northrop B-2.

That is a legacy to be proud of.

Doug Fronius contributed to this article.

For further reading on the special Model 147 RPV platforms, check out: “Lightning Bugs and Other Reconnaissance Drones” by William Wagner, 1982 by Armed Force Journal International and Aero Publishers, Inc.

For a more detailed history on the Model 154 Firefly / AQM-91A Compass Arrow read: “Fireflies and Other UAVs” by William Wagner and William P. Sloan, 1992, Aerofax

Additional overview information can be found in: “Have Blue and the F-117A – Evolution of the Stealth Fighter” by David C. Aronstein and Albert C. Piccirillo, 1997, AIAA.

Online information on the range of Ryan model 147 Firebee special-use RPVs can be found at: http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/aqm34.htm

Photo Captions

1. – This 3-view general arrangement drawing of the Model 154 shows the matching angles of the canted tails and the fuselage sides to good effect. Credit: scanned illustration from “Fireflies and Other UAVs” by Wagner and Sloan (artist not credited).

2. – This shot of an unpainted Compass Arrow shows the special construction and materials used on the wing and empennage edges structures. The saw-tooth design, combined with RAM, created bounce traps for radar energy absorption or deflection scattering. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection.

3. – The mothership for Compass Arrow was a Lockheed DC-130E, which could carry two AQM-91As 2,300 miles to the launch point. The drones were air-dropped between the 15,000-25,000 foot altitude range. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection.

4. – A nice airborne shot of Compass Arrow shows the slight anhedral of the main wing. A preprogrammed cassette loaded the flight path data points and target information into the drone’s on-board computer. At any point in the mission, flight control could switch to the direct ground or airborne controller to bring the bird to the recovery site. A parachute deployed from the vehicle allowing either a ground landing or a Sikorsky CH-3E with a mid-air retrieval system (MARS) to snag the drone as it descended. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection.

5. – All Compass Arrow production and preproduction aircraft (28 in total) were thought destroyed in crashes or cut up after the demise of the program. Imagine the surprise Northrop Grumman legacy-Ryan engineers had when a military base in Georgia called to say they had one on a pole at their gate. The parachute recovery test article was retrieved and claimed by the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force. Photo credit: NMUSAF.

6. – Another view of the Compass Arrow after restoration at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force. The black paint was likely applied as the probable operational scheme based on those of some of the Ryan Model 147 Lightning Bugs. Photo credit: NMUSAF.

7. – This rather poor photo shows the restored Compass Arrow hanging on display in the Cold War Gallery at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force. Note the camera window on the underside a little bit aft of the tip of the nose. Photo credit: NMUSAF.

Fanged Butterfly - Northrop's First Vee-Tailed Fighter Proposal

2013-02-24T16:12:00.000-08:00

It has been a long and very busy winter for me. Finding time to post has been extremely difficult during this period. Fortunately, it appears I now have some time to return to this forum and showcase some more of my articles that were published in the various in-house Northrop Grumman magazines over the last few years, in this case Airspace.

The Fang has always been an interesting project to me as it is a really cool design that seemed to come out of nowhere. But as we all know, things do not occur in a vacuum. The story of this proposal is a lot more complex than generally presented, and extremely pivotal to the future success of the Northrop company.

As a side note, irony has always been a mostly unintentional consequence of human behavior and action. This story is no different. The fact that Oliver Echols passed over Eugene Root, a Cal Tech graduate, noted Douglas Aircraft and RAND Corp. engineer for Edgar Schmued, who then proceeded to recruit his own Cal Tech grad, former Douglas and RAND engineer William Ballhaus, who in turn hired Welko Gasich (Stanford, Cal Tech, Douglas and RAND) and Tom Jones (Stanford, Douglas and RAND), is too delicious for words. It seems that the Cal Tech, Douglas and RAND influence was going to be at Northrop no matter what.

Whether it would have produced the same results is another story.

This article was originally published in the Northrop Grumman Engineering Department's in-house, on-line magazine Airspace, Vol. 3, No. 22, September 2012. It is re-posted here with permission and has approved for public release case number 12-1832.

Fanged Butterfly – Northrop’s First Vee-Tailed Fighter Proposal

By Tony Chong

The appointment of Edgar O. Schmued to the position of Assistant Chief Engineer in November 1952 by then-Northrop Aircraft, Inc. General Manager Oliver P. Echols had two immediate and far-reaching consequences. The first was the hastened resignation and retirement of John K. “Jack” Northrop from the company he founded in 1939. The second was that the company’s engineering department would now undergo a major change in staffing and design philosophy which would eventually result in the T-38 and F-5 series of aircraft.

Echols picked Schmued, who built his reputation at North American Aviation as one of the designers of the P-51 Mustang and F-86 Sabre, over the objections of Jack Northrop. Northrop wanted to hire Eugene Root, a talented Douglas and RAND Corporation engineer, to be his assistant and eventual successor as Chief Engineer. Echols overruled him.

Northrop, realizing he had lost control of not only his company but his Engineering department as well, retired in disgust. After the bitter loss of the YB-49 and YRB-49 Flying Wing programs, and with his growing ill-health and other personal problems over the last three years, this was the final blow. The founder was out and a new regime took over.¹

Echols assumed the title of President of the company from Jack Northrop. He immediately elevated Schmued to Vice-President of Engineering.

Schmued, in turn, began to bring over engineers from North American to fill out the department’s ranks. However, he offered the job of Chief Engineer to Dr. William F. Ballhaus, a 34-year old Stanford and Cal Tech graduate who was then Chief of Preliminary Design at Convair in Ft. Worth, TX.²

Ballhaus accepted the offer and recruited two other Stanford graduates to join him: Welko E. Gasich and Thomas V. Jones. Gasich became Chief of Preliminary Design and Jones took the position of Assistant Chief Engineer to Ballhaus.³Jones would later become President and CEO of Northrop Corporation and Gasich a corporate V.P. and General Manager of its Aircraft Division.

Veering away from the large, complex fighter designs Northrop was known for, Schmued initiated the N-102 program in response to a new U.S. Air Force General Operating Requirement for a light-weight supersonic interceptor. The N-102 was to be less-complex and less-costly than contemporary fighters and be multi-purpose in function as well. Due to his aversion to the arachnid names used on the company’s previous fighters (Black Widow and Scorpion), Schmued named the new aircraft “Fang.”⁴

The Preliminary Design Department issued report P.D. 152 on January 19, 1953 that detailed the new fighter. Considering Ballhaus came from Convair it is not surprising that the initial proposal was heavily influenced by that company’s design thinking. Specifically, the N-102 featured a delta-wing. More interestingly, the Fang also had a butterfly, or vee-tail, which was used on one of the precursor interceptor designs that eventually led to Convair’s XP-92.⁵

Delta-wings and vee-tails were not uncommon design elements in many aircraft company studies around the world during the war and post-war period. Besides Convair, U.S. firms such as Lockheed, McDonnell, Republic, Chance Vought and North American all had concepts that explored one or both of these features.⁶

The Fang, however, was one of the first designs to combine the two into one vehicle.

With a projected 23 foot span and a 41 foot length, the N-102 was also one of the smallest supersonic jet fighters proposed in the 1950s. It was essentially wings, tails and a man wrapped around a big, powerful turbojet engine.⁷

The Fang also featured a unique power-plant arrangement where a single airframe could accommodate four separate engines. The concept was to fit the engine and armaments package tailored for a specific mission into the aircraft when required.⁸

The initial offering was the Wright TJ31B3, a licensed-built Armstrong-Siddeley Sapphire turbojet with afterburner (U.S. military designation J65). Projected performance was Mach 1.85 at 35,000 feet, with a ceiling of 56,000 feet. Combat radius on internal fuel only was to be 255 nautical miles and up to 465 nm with external tanks.⁹

A non-afterburning TJ31B2 (also known as a dry J65) was an option, as was the Pratt & Whitney JT3M (military J57), both optimized for low-altitude missions such as close air support and supply line interdiction. A General Electric X-24A (military J79) turbojet gave the Fang a projected high-altitude Mach 2-plus performance.¹⁰

Baseline armament for the Fang consisted of between eighty to one-hundred 1.5 inch rockets carried in two wing-root trays that would swing down into the airstream for firing. Alternative loads included thirty 2-inch rockets, bombs (napalm or general purpose), two 20mm or two 30mm cannon, or a “special stores” (nuclear weapons) package.¹¹

Special attention was given to ease of maintainability and avionics growth, presaging the company’s emphasis on extended life-cycle costs as important factors to be considered in future warplane procurement and operation.

The vee-tailed feature of the N-102 was short-lived, however. By 1954 the butterfly was gone, replaced by a more conventional empennage with a single-vertical fin and two horizontal tail surfaces. Northrop would not revisit the idea again for decades, coming into the hardware stage at last via the wide-tailed vee of the YF-23.¹²

The conventional-tailed Fang was also larger that the initial design, growing to 30’6” in span and 45’10” in length. The swappable engine capability was retained, with the addition of the Wright J67 license-built Bristol Olympus turbojet as one of the power-plant choices. The increase in size coupled with the baseline GE J79 gave a mission radius of 365nm on internal fuel in the high-altitude day-fighter role.¹³

The modified Fang would not progress to the prototype or production stage, either. As the Air Force had already awarded a contract to Lockheed for its XF-104 lightweight supersonic interceptor in March, 1953, the N-102 was passed over. The mock-up was eventually given to the Northrop Institute in 1956 for use by its engineering students.¹⁴

The delta-wing would remain a major Northrop design feature for most of the 1950s, recurring on the proposed N-94 Navy carrier-borne day-fighter and the N-126/N-144/N-149 Delta Scorpion and Long Range Interceptor concepts, among others.¹⁵By the end of the decade, however, Schmued had left Northrop and Ballhaus became General Manager of the new Nortronics Division, taking with them the emphasis on that feature.

But the changes in design philosophy were taken to heart by the engineering department at Northrop, specifically the incorporation of the basic N-102 concepts of simplicity, light-weight size and ease of maintenance married to a platform featuring solid, supersonic performance.

This would see fruition in the Gasich version of the N-156F and T.¹⁶ Wrapped around a pair of small General Electric J85 turbojets, the N-156T would become the legendary T-38 Talon and the N-156F would sire the F-5 line of low-cost, high-performance fighters.

While his tenure was only six years long, the appointment of Edgar Schmued was critical to the company’s history as his decisions changed the look of Northrop products for decades to come. Without him, Welko Gasich and Tom Jones would not have been recruited to Northrop by William Ballhaus and it is doubtful the T-38 and F-5 series would have been successful without the efforts of these two men and the team they led.

Indeed, the influence lasts to this day as the YF-17 was a direct descendant of the F-5 and it, in turn, begat the F/A-18 stable of Hornets, Super Hornets and Growlers, the mainstay of today’s U.S. Navy carrier aviation.

While it is easy to wonder what Eugene Root would have done had he become Jack Northrop’s successor, in retrospect the choice of Edgar Schmued was not a bad one.

Footnotes

1. Details of these events are related in the John K. Northrop Oral Interview Transcripts, University of California, Santa Barbara, Richard “Dick” A. Thurston, interviewer, 27 April 1972, 68-69; also in Jack Northrop and the Flying Wing – The Real Story Behind the Stealth Bomber, by Ted Coleman, with Robert Wenkam, 1988, Paragon House Publishers, NY, 188-191.

2. Mustang Designer – Edgar Schmued and the Development of the P-51, by Ray Wagner, 1990, Crown Publisher, NY, 195.

3. Ibid. Gasich, also a Cal Tech graduate, worked at Douglas Aircraft and spent some time with the NACA. Jones was with the RAND Corporation, a research and development unit sponsored by Douglas in the mid-1940s. Ballhaus also worked at Douglas before he went to Convair. Check this link for further RAND Corp. history: http://www.rand.org/about/history.html

4. Ibid

5. American Secret Projects – Fighters & Interceptors 1945-1978, Tony Buttler, 2007, Midland Publishing, England, 23-24.

6. Ibid, 15-16 (Lockheed), 17-18 & 39 (McDonnell), 25-27 & 44-45 (Republic), 36-37 (Chance Vought), 49, 60-61 (North American).

7. Lightweight supersonic fighter – Northrop Fang, Northrop Preliminary Design Department Report Number P.D. 152, Archive number TL 55,297 c.173, 19 January 1953, Hawthorne, CA. Declassified per DoD Dir. 5200.10 1 June 1965, 1.

8. Ibid, 11.

9. Ibid, 3.

10. Ibid, 11.

11. Ibid, 12-13.

12. Some early Northrop A-X concepts during the 1960s featured a Y-tail configuration which could be confused for a V-tail at first glance. The small Acme Aircraft Company (Sierradyne Inc.) S-1 Sierra Sue was utilized as a flying proof-of-concept demonstrator by Northrop Corp. during that period. Designed and built by Northrop engineers Ron Beattie and Walt Fellers, Sierra Sue is now displayed at the Western Museum of Flight at Zamperini Field/Torrance Airport, Torrance, CA. For further information check this link: http://www.wmof.com/Serria%20Sue.html

13. Fang – High Altitude Day Fighter, Northrop brochure NAI-54-321, CY 110, 15 July 1954, Hawthorne, CA. Declassified per DD 254, 27 July 1964, 13.

14. Northrop – An Aeronautical History, by Fred Anderson, 1976, Northrop Corp., Century City, Los Angeles, CA, 172.

15. Complete scans of two different N-94 company brochures can be found at this great site: http://retromechanix.com/article/fighters/northrop-model-n-94-class-vf-day-fighter/. Information on the N-126/N-144/N-149 can be found in American Secret Projects, 89 and 95-101.

16. A huge and very heated internal debate occurred in Advanced Design between Gasich’s version, which had the two engines carried within the fuselage, and Schmued’s proposal, which featured under-wing mounted engine pods. Schmued’s perspective on the resolution of the N-156T configuration fight is found in Mustang Designer, 201.

References

A great book on U.S. concepts, proposals, prototypes and production aircraft is: American Secret Projects – Fighters & Interceptors 1945-1978, by Tony Buttler, 2007, Midland Publishing, England.

The standard reference for Northrop Aircraft, Inc. products and history is: Northrop – An Aeronautical History, by Fred Anderson, 1976, Northrop Corp., Century City, Los Angeles, CA.

Despite being full of errors and flawed memories, Coleman’s book is fascinating. Especially interesting is his undisguised animosity toward Oliver Echols, Edgar Schmued and Whitley Collins, the man to succeed Echols as President of Northrop in 1954. Jack Northrop and the Flying Wing – The Real Story Behind the Stealth Bomber, by Ted Coleman, with Robert Wenkam, 1988, Paragon House Publishers, NY

Edgar Schmued’s opinions of Jack Northrop are equally acerbic as related in his biography. It makes for a classic case of opposite points of view with the rising specter of clashing loyalties and self-interest: Mustang Designer – Edgar Schmued and the Development of the P-51, by Ray Wagner, 1990, Crown Publisher, NY

Another fascinating read is Jack Northrop’s oral interview, despite the self-acknowledged faulty memories and deliberately forgotten painful events: John K. Northrop Oral Interview Transcripts, University of California, Santa Barbara, Richard “Dick” A. Thurston, interviewer, 27 April 1972

The following Northrop report and brochure were especially helpful:

Lightweight supersonic fighter – Northrop Fang, Northrop Preliminary Design Department Report Number P.D. 152, Archive number TL 55,297 c.173, 19 January 1953, Hawthorne, CA. Declassified per DoD Dir. 5200.10 1 June 1965

Fang – High Altitude Day Fighter, Northrop brochure NAI-54-321, CY 110, 15 July 1954, Hawthorne, CA. Declassified per DD 254, 27 July 1964

Photo Captions

1. The cover to the Northrop Preliminary Design Report P.D. 152 features a nice artist’s concept of the butterfly-tail Fang. This is probably one of the more pleasing angles of the aircraft. Note the size of the pilot and shape of the canopy relative to the rest of the vehicle. Tony Chong collection

2. Another artist’s impression, this time of three Fangs in formation peeling off into action. As noted by his signature, the image was done by Jack Leynnwood, who was also a noted box-top artist whose work was featured on many Revell and Aurora plastic model kits. Tony Chong collection

3. This 3-view of the butterfly-tail Fang shows how the razor-back canopy arrangement combines with the prominent engine housing to give the vehicle a hulking appearance in profile despite its diminutive size. Note the nose gear location in front of the inlet. Foreign object ingestion from normal gear cycling would be a concern if the N-102 was ever put into operation. Tony Chong collection

4. The inboard profile with cross-sections reveals how much of the lower part of the airplane is taken up by the engine, in this case a Wright TJ31B3, or J65 with afterburner. Tony Chong collection

5. Ease of maintenance was a prime driver in the N-102 design. The mid-fuselage wing arrangement helped facilitate engine removal. The forward-hinged windscreen would show up in the N-156F and T designs later in the decade. Tony Chong collection

6. The production breakdown of the N-102 vee-tail is illustrated in this image. Aluminum 75ST would be used extensively throughout the vehicle, with steel and titanium envisioned for high-load areas. The drawing also shows the different wing construction methods. The lower cut-away details the standard production structure of forged spars and ribs with honeycomb skin, while the upper art represents the mass production structure using integral spars, ribs and cover. Tony Chong collection

7. The upper art shows the two-gun T-182 30mm cannon placement and the lower the two-gun T-160 20mm cannon option. The T-182 would carry 160 rounds per gun while the T-160 had 200 rounds per gun. The link and case ejection chutes were positioned a little aft of the inlet. Tony Chong collection

8. The various scrap views above show the different rocket armament options on the N-102. The flip-down trays are installed near the wing root and close to the inlet, but hopefully far enough away that the rocket motor exhaust plumes or any launch debris would not be ingested into the engine. Tony Chong collection

9. Small pen & ink drawings are typically sprinkled throughout the reports and manuals dating from that period. This one shows the Fang launching a rocket salvo at an unseen enemy. A typical salvo was projected to be forty rockets. One suspects the fire and smoke of forty rockets leaving the aircraft would be far more spectacular than the benign environment shown in the art above. Tony Chong collection

10. Rocket salvo “probability of kill” patterns in the report featured the MiG-15 as the target. The appearance of this Soviet-made fighter during the Korean War made a huge impression on Allied air forces and became the focus of contemporary air-engagement studies. Tony Chong collection

11. It appears that the only surviving Fang in-house model still inside the company is this vee-tail example. Originally in the old Heritage Hall on the Hawthorne site, it now resides in the Building 202 ASDC Lobby (Lobby 10) in El Segundo. The visible split lines indicate the model had interchangeable parts, perhaps a possible two-seat forward fuselage option. Photo credit: Tony Chong

12. As with most models of the period, some damage has occurred over the years. The tips of both tails are chipped and the decals are crackled. All things considered, though, it is in relatively good shape. Again, elevated angles that disguise the large engine housing make the vee-tail Fang much more pleasing in appearance. Photo credit: Tony Chong

13. This underside view shows the large inlet and huge engine housing. It appears the housing is a separate section from the nose and upper fuselage as well. The damage to the port tail is quite apparent in this shot. The writing on the engine housing says: “X-24A – Max Mach 2.0+ – Combat Ceiling 67,000’.” The X-24A was a G.E. engine that carried the military designation of J79. Photo credit: Tony Chong

14. By 1954 the butterfly-tail gave way to the more familiar and sleeker version of the Fang with the conventional empennage. The aircraft also grew in length and span. Other changes included a cambered wing, pointed wingtips, a shift of the wing to the upper part of the fuselage, a slimming of the upper and lower fuselage and the addition of a bubble canopy for increased pilot visibility. Note the new bifurcated inlet. Tony Chong collection

15. Probably the prettiest of the variants was the two-seat conventional-tailed Fang. Length and span remained the same as the single-seat conventional-tail version. Tony Chong collection

16. Though difficult to see, the Fang patent was assigned to Edgar Schmued and Welko Gasich in May, 1957. Credit: U.S. Patent Office

17. This final piece of in-house Northrop concept art, signed by Todd, is from the company’s NAI-54-321 brochure on the Fang High-Altitude Day-Fighter. It appears to be the basis for the patent art in the previous illustration. This is an especially pleasing angle of view on the vehicle and a dramatic piece of art as well. Tony Chong collection

Approved for Public Release: Northrop Grumman Case 12-1832, 10/22/12

Endeavour's Homecoming Launches Statewide Shuttle-bration

2012-11-25T19:33:00.000-08:00

On occasion I get to pretend I'm a journalist. This usually involves Diane sponsoring me for a coveted media pass to gain entry into various neat military and/or industry shows and events, but the quid pro quo is I need to produce an article on that gig for her to use in the next issue.

When I first started doing articles for her this wasn't a big deal. In fact it was quite helpful as if gave me something to write about for a month that didn't involve as much research as is required by some of the more historical pieces that I do.

But since she gave me my own column earlier this year, called "Retrospectives" for those who are curious, I've come to view those journalistic pieces as supplemental to my primary responsibility, which is, of course, providing a good story for my column.

I'm sure some would say, "Just like a writer; give him his own space and it goes to right to his head." While that may be true, I prefer to think of it as pride of ownership. It's my space with my name attached to it: I will do the best I can to write something worthy to fill it.

Whatever the reason, the result is there are some months where I will write two or even three articles for the same issue - and all on my own time. Yes, I know it's nuts, but that's the way it is. So if I don't respond to emails or Facebook queries right away, you'll know why: I'm burning the midnight oil on deadline.

But if I didn't do that, I would not get to be a part of this! And that makes it all worthwhile.

This article was originally published in the Northrop Grumman Engineering Department's in-house, on-line magazine Airspace, Vol.3, No. 22, September 2012. It is re-posted here with permission and has approved for public release case number 12-1831.

For added interest I got included in a couple of the L.A. Times team's 360 degree panoramic photo spreads. While it's a bit like "Where's Waldo," I am in the crowd scene in the bleachers and in the 747 SCA interior shots. The link is here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-space-shuttle-endeavour-california-science-center-pano,0,6553732.htmlstory

Endeavour’s Homecoming Launches Statewide Shuttle-bration

By Tony Chong

The eagerly anticipated arrival of the Space Shuttle Endeavour aboard its 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft to the Los Angeles International Airport was finally accomplished on Friday, September 21, 2012.

Named after Captain James Cook’s “voyage of discovery” vessel HMS Endeavour, Orbital Vehicle 105 Endeavour was built from structural spares after the loss of OV-099 Challenger in 1986. Endeavour’s first mission was STS-49, launched on May 7, 1992. She flew 25 missions in space with the last, STS-134, occurring in May 2011.

The youngest shuttle in the fleet was also the only one named as the result a national contest among elementary and secondary school students. This heritage of involving and exciting children in the space program and especially in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) will now be the major focus of the decommissioned orbiter.

The California Science Center was a dark-horse winner in the fierce competition to get a shuttle. But the CSC’s bid was bolstered by solid goals and widespread community and political support. Added to the equation was that Endeavour would be the only orbiter displayed west of the Mississippi. When considering that the fleet was also built in Southern California, the win seems less surprising than at first glance. The stage was set for Endeavour to come home.

Originally planned as a direct flight from Edwards Air Force Base, where the 747 SCA and Endeavour were to spend the night before final delivery, NASA was convinced during consultations with the museum to do a grand tour of California, overflying famous landmarks like the Golden Gate Bridge, Shuttle-significant sites like Palmdale, where the vehicles were built, and NASA facilities such as the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. The hope was the tour would generate interest in the Shuttle and its new home in the Exposition Park museum complex in Los Angeles. The result was nothing less than spectacular.

Starting in the morning, the route took the Shuttle from Edwards and Dryden up to Sacramento, then on to San Francisco’s famous Golden Gate Bridge. After a pass over Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, the flight plan took them over Monterey Bay, Vandenberg AFB and down the coast past Malibu.

Turning inland the shuttle passed over Santa Monica pier and began its Southern California tour, passing over many famous landmarks such as the Griffith Park Observatory and Disneyland, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Space-X in Hawthorne (the old Northrop site where 747 fuselages are still being built) and the Queen Mary.

The response was staggering. One 747 crewmember confided that he had never seen so many people at the Griffith Park Observatory. Spectators jammed the sites along the route and many workers in the tall downtown skyscrapers pressed their faces against the windows to see the Endeavour from what must have seemed like a level viewing location.

The 747 made one early pass over the north runways at LAX at the start of the L.A. tour. At the end it made one low and majestic pass over the south runway and VIP viewing stand at the United Airlines maintenance hangar before landing in triumph. To the stirring strains of Aaron Copeland’s Fanfare for the Common Man, the 747 carrying Endeavour rolled to a stop, an American flag proudly flying from an open hatch over the cockpit.

The official welcoming ceremonies were emceed by Nichelle Nichols, best known as Lt. Uhura on the original Star Trek t.v. show and subsequent movies. Nichols spent many years as a NASA spokesperson encouraging and recruiting female and minority candidates to apply to be astronauts. The late-Dr. Sally Ride was one of Nichols’ many successful recruits. Mae Jemison, the first female African-American astronaut – who made her inaugural flight on Endeavour – cited Nichols’ portrayal of Lt. Uhura as her inspiration to become an astronaut.

Several current and former astronauts, all past Endeavour crewmembers, were in attendance, but did not speak. Actress June Lockhart – famous for her role in t.v.’s Lost in Space, among others, was also in attendance in support of the Endeavour welcoming, but she did not speak either. Like Nichols, Lockhart helped recruit female and minority astronauts for NASA.

Jeffrey Rudolph, the CSC president and CEO, spoke first, outlining the museum’s plans for showcasing Endeavour in phases: first as a temporary exhibit opening October 30 of this year in the Samuel Oschin Pavilion. In five years the new Samuel Oschin Air and Space Center will open with Endeavour displayed as a towering exhibit with real Solid Rocket Boosters and faux External Tank in the launch configuration. The Center will feature immersive experiences and hands-on exhibits designed to excite children in space and STEMs.

Lynda Oschin, Samuel Oschin’s widow and head of the foundation in his name, spoke next and detailed her conversion to the Shuttle’s coming. Invited to the official hand-over ceremony shortly after the award to CSC, she saw how excited the school kids at the event became when the astronauts appeared.

“The kids just went crazy,” she recounted later. “And I'm watching those children and thinking — I'm watching the next child who is going into space … because they are going to see the shuttle, they're going to be inspired by what they see … and they are going to do something in math and science and engineering, the areas that my husband loved."

The result was a “transformational” gift to the CSC that would allow an energetic start to the Air and Space Center named after her husband. She then told the audience that a photo of her husband flew in Endeavour on its trip from Kennedy Space Center to LAX.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villariagosa spoke next, followed by Inglewood mayor James Butts. Both expressed great satisfaction in seeing Endeavour come home, but both also addressed the issues many residents expressed about the cutting down of trees to make way for Endeavour’s 12 mile crawl through the streets of Inglewood and Los Angeles to the CSC site. The trees will be replanted 2 for 1 by the CSC, and many “trash” trees in Inglewood will be replaced by more desired species.

In the midst of the series of speakers, the sea breeze began to pick up. At one point Nichols’ note blew off the podium and onto the stage. Scrambling to recover her notes and find her place, she began to speak again only to have her voice drowned out by a Korean Air Lines 747-400 taking off from the runway behind her. Looking at the audience Nichols shrugged and launched into an acapella rendition of the famous choral part from the Star Trek theme music. Even though she could be barely heard, the crowd went wild.

Lori Garver, Deputy NASA Administrator and one of Nichols’ recruits, presided over the Endeavour flag exchange between NASA and the CSC. With a stage full of current and former astronauts and 747 SCA crew, the handover was complete.

The audience was then free to board the 747 SCA and to have their pictures taken in front of the two vehicles. It was indeed a memorable event.

The results of the California grand tour could not have been better. The excitement generated by the Shuttle produced a festive atmosphere that was emotional and communal. It brought the region together like no other happy event in recent memory. The amount of postings on Face Book pages, blogs and emails from non-aviation enthusiasts certainly made this one of the most photographed moments in Los Angeles history as well. Even the police were seen taking lots of personal pictures.

But the bottom-line question is will the enthusiasm last in the long term? If it does, this could prove to be a watershed moment in the effort to interest kids in STEMs and aerospace. The long-term health of the industry and the country’s future certainly depend upon it. As such, the best parting wish should be for Endeavour’s new mission to be a complete success.

Welcome home, Endeavour; the future begins now.

References

For more on the California Science Center and the forthcoming Samuel Oschin Air and Space Center, check these links: http://www.californiasciencecenter.org/Exhibits/AirAndSpace/endeavour/endeavour.php; http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-092412a.html;

A synopsis of Shuttle history can be found here: http://history.nasa.gov/shuttlehistory.html

Tony Chong is a historian, photographer and a contributing editor to Airspace. He leads activities in the Aerospace Systems Display Model Shop and works in El Segundo.

Photo Captions

1. The United Airlines maintenance hangar at LAX was loaned to the CSC for the Endeavour homecoming ceremony. Note the welcome home banner under the United banner and the t.v. monitor tracking Endeavour’s progress. Photo credit: Tony Chong

2. One of United’s Boeing 737-900 extended range airliners was occupying the spot where the Shuttle would go after the de-mate process. The company used the opportunity to have the guests tour the interior of the aircraft before the ceremony. It was due to go back into service before the night was over. Photo credit: Tony Chong

3. Two large cranes were brought in to facility the de-mate process. The yellow structure is the support brace that attaches to the Shuttle. Note the taller section, which is the aft end of the brace. The procedure dictates that the Shuttle be nose on to the wind, thus the alignment as shown. Photo credit: Tony Chong

4. A close up of the brace support. Photo credit: Tony Chong

5. Endeavour will be placed on this large trailer for transport to the CSC site in Exposition Park. Speed will be about 2 mph. The tires have independent articulation to allow extremely precise maneuvering around corners and tight spots. Photo credit: Tony Chong

6.The crowd begins to fill in the seats and bleachers as the Endeavour starts its southland tour. A Jumbotron screen tuned to live network coverage kept the audience apprised of the Shuttle’s whereabouts, with great shots from the ground and air. Photo credit: Tony Chong

7. As seen by this image, the low pass down the south runways was indeed low. At this stage of the tour the 747 SCA was accompanied by two F/A-18A chase aircraft. Photo credit: Tony Chong

8. The first really good live view of the Endeavour and 747 SCA that the crowd got was indeed impressive. Several in the VIP audience began to whoop and cheer. Note the two outsized endplate fins attached to the tips of the horizontal tails, giving the SCA its distinctive appearance. The plates are used to add more lateral stability when carrying the Shuttle. Photo credit: Tony Chong

9. The 747 SCA turns off the runway and onto a crossing taxiway, giving the audience a nice head-on view of the stack. While difficult to see, the rise behind the vehicles is loaded with people and cameras. Note the American flag and flight engineer popping out of the hatch above the cockpit. Photo credit: Tony Chong

10. Turning on the crossways taxiway afforded the only opportunity for a sun-side shot of the Endeavour. For most of the day shooting was into the sun. The aircraft light up beautifully from this angle. Note the large faired travel cone in the back of Endeavour. That will be available to any museum that wants it after this flight. Photo credit: Tony Chong

11. A close up of the cockpits of both vehicles. Note the mission markings on the 747 fuselage. According to CSC officials the Endeavour will not be washed or prettied up. They want to present the vehicle as she was after her last flight. Photo credit: Tony Chong

12. The 747 SCA prepares to stop in front of the crowd. In actuality the vehicle will come to a halt with the nose obscured by the Jumbotron. This is the last clean shot from this vantage point. Photo credit: Tony Chong

13. The flag hand-over ceremony had all the attending astronauts and SCA crew members on stage. The three people in the front row are, from left to right, Nichelle Nichols, event emcee and actress, Lori Garver, NASA Deputy Administrator, and Jeffrey Rudolph, CSC President and CEO. Photo credit: Tony Chong

14. A close up of the mission markings on the side of the 747 SCA. The markings are on both sides of the aircraft. The markings in front of the hatch, not seen in this shot, are the SCA crew names. The final disposition of the two SCA aircraft is still evolving. N911NA is currently at NASA’s Palmdale facility and is scheduled to be utilized as spare parts for SOFIA. Eventually it is supposed to go to Edwards AFB as a display with the NB-52B at North Gate. This aircraft, N905NA, is rumored to be used for carrying future projects. Note the Boeing Phantom Ray mark on the left. Photo credit: Tony Chong

15. The interior of a 747-100 from the aft pressure bulkhead looking forward is quite spacious when the interior is stripped out. Heritage Northrop built over 1000 747 fuselages in Hawthorne before the commercial aerostructures side was sold to the Carlyle Group in 2000. This is what all those fuselage segments look like when assembled. Photo credit: Tony Chong

16. A radio-controlled model of the 747 SCA with Shuttle was on display inside the aircraft. The model was used to test the flight characteristics of both vehicles during separation prior to trying it out on the real thing. Note the propeller on the inside engine nacelle. Photo credit: Tony Chong

17. The number of tiles on the underside of a Space Shuttle is impressive. Also quite noticeable is the scarring and damage from the last reentry, as is the extensive weathering from operational use. Photo credit: Tony Chong

18. A tighter close up of the nose reveals more tile details. Each tile is individually marked with its own serial number and placement code. The Shuttles proved to be very maintenance heavy. Note the discoloration on the nose cap, explained to the author as due to the weathering from the airstream during the transit from Kennedy Space Center to LAX. Photo credit: Tony Chong

Approved for Public Release: Northrop Grumman Case 12-1831, 10/22/12

The Might-Have-Been Mercury - The Grumman G-214

2012-10-31T22:44:00.001-07:00

Researching little-known heritage Grumman projects and proposals for articles is always a challenge for me as most of the really good primary source materials are on the East Coast. Since I rarely travel back there, finding other ways to access that data becomes important. The Internet and local libraries are great, but they have their limitations in what they offer.

Fortunately for historians there is the Northrop Grumman History Center in Bethpage, NY. While I prefer to poke around archives myself looking for interesting material when I can, in this case I relied on the good graces of the staff at the History Center to fulfill my request. Run by Grumman retiree Larry Feliu, he and his crew did a great job in finding and copying many of these images for me.

I will definitely have to visit there some day.

This article was originally published in the Northrop Grumman Engineering Department in-house, on-line magazine Airspace, Vol. 2, No. 11, August 2010. It is re-posted here with permission and has approved for public release case number 12-1475.

The Might-Have-Been Mercury –

The Grumman G-214

By Tony Chong

Grumman’s bid for the Manned Space Capsule competition, also known as Project Mercury, was not a total surprise despite the company’s lack of participation in previous space vehicle studies and proposals. Indeed, every major aircraft company not already participating in the X-20 Dynasoar program eagerly sought a piece of the new civilian space pie. What was surprising was the fact that they nearly won.

But while Grumman’s entry into the competition was new, their bid was not a spur-of-the-moment effort, but a calculated and evolutionary step in the company’s long-range plans.

The initial stepping stones were their work on advanced avionics and on the Rigel and Eagle missile programs. After Sputnik, Grumman formed the Long Island Space Team with rivals Republic and Fairchild. While nothing much emerged from this team, it did let NASA know Grumman was interested in becoming a serious contender on future space programs.

Internally Grumman created the Space Steering Group in 1958 headed by a preliminary design engineer named Al Munier. It was this group that created the in-house designated G-214, Grumman’s bid for the Mercury Capsule.

Unfortunately, the proposal and related data on the G-214 are very hard to find now, over fifty years after the program submission. The only information retrieved thus far comes from Larry Feliu of the Northrop Grumman History Center in Bethpage, Long Island, New York.

What is available is tantalizing. Like the Northrop N-227 (see previous entry) and the winning McDonnell Mercury proposal, the Grumman G-214 is based on the blunt-body ballistic capsule with high aerodynamic drag.

No dimensions were available as of this writing, but the accompanying scanned images provide some hints. The drawing shows what appears to be the North American Aviation “Little Joe” rocket built specifically as a low-cost, sub-orbital booster to prove out the Mercury capsule hardware and its proposed launch-abort sequence.

The Little Joe had a diameter of 80 inches. The N-227’s diameter was also 80 inches. The McDonnell capsule was only 74.5 inches. In photos the taper on the adapter ring between the McDonnell capsule and Little Joe body appears slightly greater than the taper on the G-214 drawing. The obvious inference is that the G-214 had a diameter between the two, probably somewhere around 77 or 78 inches.

More intriguing are the deployable panels on the forebody of the Grumman design. Appearing somewhat like the tail retarding device used on the Mk. 82/Snakeye bomb, which slowed the ordnance down rapidly when dropped at low altitude so the carrier aircraft could clear the blast pattern, this feature perhaps performed a similar function in concert with the already high-drag blunt-body shape of the capsule. Or perhaps, if the panels could open separately, it could provide differential drag to give the capsule a limited cross-range capability, something lacking on the purely ballistic Northrop and McDonnell vehicles.

Then again, given the weight penalty of such a device on the real spacecraft, perhaps they were attached only to the model to emulate the drag effects of the parachute system in the tunnel. Without the actual technical data to tell, the true nature of the angled panels is difficult to ascertain.

In any event, the Grumman proposal scored exceptionally well in the technical and management categories. Indeed, the NASA selection board felt there were only two highly qualified competitors: Grumman and McDonnell. But there were other factors to consider beyond that, and they proved fatal to the G-214. On January 12, 1959, McDonnell was awarded the Mercury Capsule contract.

As the first NASA Administrator, T. Keith Glennan, later explained to Congress:

“The reason for choosing McDonnell over Grumman was the fact that Grumman was heavily loaded with Navy projects in the conceptual stage. It did not appear wise to select Grumman in view of its relatively tight manpower situation at the time, particularly since that situation might be reflected in a slow start on the capsule project regardless of priority. Moreover, serious disruption in scheduling Navy work might occur if the higher priority capsule project were awarded to Grumman.”(1)

In short, Grumman’s own A2F Intruder (later A-6) and W2F Hawkeye (E-2) programs scuttled their bid. Yet, all was not lost. Grumman had proven to NASA it was a formidable player in the space game and NASA had taken notice. Less than three years later, after the A-6 and E-2 programs were on track to the Navy’s satisfaction, NASA awarded perhaps the greatest prize of all to Grumman: the Lunar Module, the vehicle that would take men to and from the surface of the Moon.

(1): Swenson, Grimwood and Alexander, “This New Ocean – A History of Project Mercury,” NASA SP-4201 in the NASA Historical Series, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966, page 137.

Larry Feliu of the Northrop Grumman History Center contributed to this article.

Any further information on the Grumman Mercury proposal would be greatly appreciated by the author for incorporation in a possible future follow-on article.

For further reading, check out:

“This New Ocean – A History of Project Mercury” by Swenson, Grimwood and Alexander, NASA SP-4201 in the NASA Historical Series, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.

“The Grumman Story” by Richard Thruelsen, Praeger Publishers, Inc., New York, New York, 1976.

On-line information on Project Mercury can be found at: http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/history/mercury/mercury.htm and http://www.thespacereview.com/article/586/1

Photo Captions

1. This isometric exploded drawing of the Little Joe and G-214 shows a Grumman boiler-plate capsule with adapter ring. The slight taper indicates the diameter is smaller than the 80 inch barrel of the Little Joe body. Credit: Northrop Grumman History Center.

2. The last in the series of Little Joe tests was LJ-5, which used a real McDonnell Mercury capsule rather than the McDonnell boiler-plate test articles. Note the difference in adapter ring taper from the G-214 drawing. The adapter ring is the burnished metal section below the dark band of the capsule and just above the “U” in United States. Ironically, the LJ-5 launch on November 8, 1960 was a failure and resulted in the destruction of the capsule. Photo credit: NASA

3. Grumman built a full-scale mock-up of the G-214. Like all the other Mercury contenders the capsule was a small vehicle. The circular hatch and figure give scale to the size of the G-214. Credit: Northrop Grumman History Center.

4. The mock-up had a cut-away section to reveal the inside of the vehicle. The figure in the seat/couch and the size of the instrument panel shows the tight quarters inherent in the G-214, and indeed all the capsule designs. Credit: Northrop Grumman History Center.

5. A shot of a wind tunnel model of the G-214 with the NASA-prescribed launch-escape rocket tower structure. Like the Northrop N-227, the structure attached to the nose of the capsule. Credit: Northrop Grumman History Center.

6. Another view of the tunnel model with the launch-escape rocket tower structure removed from the nose of the capsule. Credit: Northrop Grumman History Center.

7. The combined G-214 capsule and launch-escape rocket tower structure are shown on a sting in the wind tunnel either before or after a test. The capsule appears to be made of laminated wood. Note the paneled segments on the forebody with insert holes. Credit: Northrop Grumman History Center.

8. Another shot of the capsule in the tunnel, but without the launch-escape rocket tower structure. The purpose of the flanges around the base of the capsule is unknown. The insert holes on the forebody are more clearly shown here. Credit: Northrop Grumman History Center.

9. Angled panels are attached to the holes in the forebody of the G-214 tunnel model in this photo. It is unclear whether these panels were to mimic actual parts on the real spacecraft or were test features only. Credit: Northrop Grumman History Center.

10. A view of the attachments from the blunt end of the capsule shows the extent of the deflection from the forebody. The white and dark patterns on the section between the bottom of the capsule and the panels are the reflections of the panels on the conical surface of the model, giving the illusion of a notched structural feature where none actually exists. Credit: Northrop Grumman History Center.

11. As a comparison, this shot of a Mk. 82/Snakeye model in the NASA Langley wind tunnel shows the aerodynamic braking panels on the bomb. The difference is the panels open in the direction of travel on the Snakeye and opposite the direction of travel on the G-214. If the angled panels were meant to represent real features on the spacecraft, the much higher speed of the capsule during reentry would likely rip the panels off if they were opened in the same direction as the Snakeye. Credit: NASA.

12. The scanned cover page is of interest for two reasons: First it spells out the official titles and number designations for the three volume G-214 proposal along with the cross-referencing key words. Secondly, the added notation contains the phrase “…Just won the A-6(.) Navy ‘we told NASA not to pick you.’” Since “A-6” was used and not “A2F,” the note was added after the Defense Department’s 1962 mandated change in the military’s aircraft designation system and at least three years after the Mercury contract award. Credit: Northrop Grumman History Center.

Chasing Mercury - The Northrop N-227

2012-10-16T13:31:00.000-07:00

One of the requests that Diane made when I started doing monthly articles for her was to cover space related projects. This was because our sector includes the former TRW, which has an incredible space history.

Fortunately, I also had a strong interest in that subject, so the request was not a hard one to fulfill. I am, after all, a child of the space age. But I remain a heritage Northrop guy and even though I greatly appreciate the history of Grumman, Ryan, Radioplane, TRW and Scaled Composites, any chance I get to explore Northrop legacy programs and proposals I will do so in a heartbeat.

This is not to say I won't explore the other heritage companies' histories - I have and I will continue to do so and they will eventually be posted here. But availability is also a key and I have had much more success with finding Northrop history than with the other companies, save perhaps Ryan.

The Mercury Program is of special signifcance to me. I remember my mother waking me in the early morning to watch Alan Shepard's suborbital flight and later John Glenn's launch and three-orbits around the Earth. Nearly twenty years later the circle would close as I roused my six-year old daughter to watch Columbia make the maiden voyage of the shuttle program into space. Perhaps someday she can watch a launch to Mars with her kids in the wee hours of the morning.

One final note: I did manage to find some information on the Grumman G-214, their Mercury proposal. Be on the lookout for it in the next few days.

This article was originally published in the Northrop Grumman Engineering Department in-house, on-line magazine Airspace, vol. 2, no. 6, in April 2011. It is re-posted here with permission and has approved for public release case number 12-1474.

Chasing Mercury – The Northrop N-227

By Tony Chong

April 12, 2011 marked the 50^th anniversary of the launch of Vostok 1. On that day in 1961 Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human to go into space. He also became the first human to orbit the Earth.

Twenty-three days later, on May 5, 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American astronaut to go into space during a 15 minute, 28 second sub-orbital flight that took him 303 miles downrange from the launch site at Cape Canaveral, Florida. Shepard rode inside a Mercury capsule fitted to a U.S. Army Redstone missile.

Project Mercury, America’s first series of manned spacecraft, was a program designed to put an American into space as quickly as possible. It was not, however, a hastily conceived stop-gap measure. In actuality the ballistic manned satellite concept was one of three methods under active consideration by the U.S. Air Force since 1956 for establishing an American presence in space, with the initial phase eventually being called “Man In Space Soonest” and the fourth and last phase to encompass a manned lunar landing fifteen years after program start.

Sputnik’s launch on October 4, 1957 changed all of the dynamics in the blossoming American space program. Faced with a need to respond to the Soviet initiative, and with a desire to curb military expansion into space, President Dwight Eisenhower threw his weight behind a civilian-controlled agency. The important, but obscure National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics was remade into the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, effective October 1, 1958.

NACA had itself examined the three basic types of manned spacecraft – ballistic, skip and glide – prior to Sputnik. For a variety of good reasons (launcher capabilities and developmental issues, among others), the new NASA chose the ballistic approach. McDonnell Aircraft Corporation won the competition to build the capsule, but what is largely forgotten is that heritage Northrop Aircraft, Inc. competed for that program as well.

Northrop was one of the eleven aircraft manufacturers that responded to the Air Force’s 1956 request to industry for manned satellite concepts. As late as January 1958 the company (which changed its name to Northrop Corporation on February 2, 1959) adhered to the more sophisticated “boost-glide” vehicle proposal, the basis for the eventual X-20 Dyna-Soar (Dynamic Soarer) program won by Boeing in June 1959. However, with NASA issuing a specification on November 14, 1958, for a ballistic capsule, Northrop answered with a design that carried the internal designation N-227.

NASA’s specifications included the need to fit the capsule to both the Redstone missile (for sub-orbital flights) and the Air Force/Convair Astronautics Atlas missile (for orbital missions). Additional requirements for a launch-escape rocket tower system, a retro-rocket system for de-orbiting, a zero-lift body utilizing blunt-end re-entry for drag braking, pilot controllability of the capsule and the ability to land in water also drove the basic shape of the design.

Northrop’s proposal was very similar to the winning McDonnell vehicle. The main visual differences were in the wider diameter at the blunt end for the Northrop craft – 80 inches versus McDonnell’s 74.5 inches – and the shape of the forebody of the capsule.

The launch-escape rocket tower structure also differed in where it attached to the two proposals. Northrop’s craft featured a constant-diameter forebody with the tower joined to the flat end (top) of the vehicle. McDonnell’s design had a tiered forebody with the tower structure fitted over the smaller diameter upper section.

Both designs also featured a corrugated look to the capsule exterior surface. However, Northrop’s corrugations ran along the length of the vehicle while McDonnell’s formed around the circumference of the craft.

Final designs on this fast-tracked proposal were due by December 11, 1958. The NASA selection team worked over the Christmas holidays to determine the winner. Northrop did not make the final cut.

Ironically, heritage Grumman, a late entry into the manned spaceflight game, did. It essentially tied with McDonnell as having the best design. However, because Grumman was deemed to be short on manpower due to some impending Navy contracts, the award was given to McDonnell on January 12, 1959.

Alan Shepard would make his historic flight just two years and four months later.

Kristi Harding of Records Management contributed to this article.

Any information on the Grumman Mercury proposal would be greatly appreciated by the author for incorporation in a possible future article.

For further reading, check out “This New Ocean – A History of Project Mercury” by Swenson, Grimwood and Alexander, NASA SP-4201 in the NASA Historical Series, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.

For “Man-In-Space-Soonest” background information, check out: http://www.astronautix.com/fam/manonest.htm

On-line information on Project Mercury can be found at: http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/history/mercury/mercury.htm and http://www.thespacereview.com/article/586/1

Tony Chong is a historian, photographer and a contributing editor to Airspace. He leads activities in the Aerospace Systems Display Model Shop and works in El Segundo.

Photo Captions

1) N-227 3-view: This 3-view drawing taken from the Northrop proposal shows the basic layout of the N-227 design. Note the shape of the forebody, the attachment of the launch-escape rocket tower and the diameter of the blunt end of the spacecraft. The head-on view shows the linear corrugations on the skin. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection

2) McDonnell 3-view: By comparison this general arrangement 3-view drawing of the McDonnell capsule, taken from one of its proposal pages, shows a tiered forebody, a narrower diameter in the widest part of the capsule proper (the adapter shroud flares out more) and a different method of attaching the tower structure to the spacecraft. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection

3) N-227 stats: Another page from the Northrop proposal features a weights and balance breakdown of the various components of the company’s design. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection

4) img066: Northrop’s proposal featured an artist’s concept painting of the N-227 in the splashdown/recovery phase. The linear corrugations show up well in this interpretation, as does the inflated orange, torus-shaped landing impact airbag with an internally-fitted stabilization water bag. The artist’s signature says “Todd.” Photo credit: Tony Chong collection

5) 158209: Several photos were taken of a small model of the N-227 showing how it would have looked mounted on a Redstone or Atlas missile. This particular image shows the rather ungainly looking transition fairing and how it would have joined to the Redstone missile. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman

6) mr-2: Contrast the previous image with this of the McDonnell Mercury capsule fitted to the Redstone missile. Even with the slight overhang, the smaller diameter of the McDonnell design makes for a much cleaner fit to the launcher. Photo credit: NASA

7) 158208: This image shows the model of the N-227 separated from the Redstone launcher. The combined fairing, capsule and launch-escape rocket tower assembly sitting next to the Redstone body gives a good indication of the relatively small size of the missile, as if emphasizing that it was only powerful enough for sub-orbital flights. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman

8) 158206: The fairing on the N-227 and how it joins to the Atlas missile is shown in this photo. Note the inverse taper from the capsule’s 80” diameter body to the smaller diameter top of the Atlas. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman

9) GPN-2003-00042w: Again, the contrast between the Northrop proposal and the actual Mercury/Atlas combination is noticeable. While still featuring an inverse taper, the McDonnell fairing is much shorter than the N-227’s. An obvious question would be did the taller fairing and wider capsule, with perhaps its potential vibration and/or stability problems along the transition structure, play a part in Northrop’s loss? Photo credit: NASA

10) 158207: The N-227, with its tower and fairing, is shown separated from the Atlas booster. The hand is a good indicator of the size and scale of the model. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman

Northrop's Lost Tracker - The N-60

2012-10-02T19:49:00.000-07:00

Much like the evolution from vinyl to tape to CD to the cloud, advances in technology always make for that awkward moment when you realize your "state-of-the-art" reproduction tools in one era are pretty much antiquated in another.

And so it is with the N-60 data. Originally reproduced on a copy machine in the early 1990s, I had the opportunity to get the brochure back for a short time and was able to take some digital images about eight years later.

What I would have given to have had a nice scanner back in those days.

Nevertheless, we do what we can with the tools we have available at the time. Perhaps another day I will get a third chance.

This was a particularly intriguing subject to me mainly because Northrop proposals for Navy programs are not well known. The fact that a primarily Army and Air Force contractor would pursue carrier-based aircraft raises all sorts of issues for that company, especially in understanding the environment in which those aircraft operate. In short, it ain't as easy as it looks, and it doesn't really look easy to begin with.

A couple of comments before we proceed: When I wrote the caption to image number 8, I knew I had seen a photo of a twin-engine prop aircraft in that angle before. While there is indeed one of the AJ-1 Savage in just such a position, as noted, the photo I was really thinking of was one of the Lockheed P2V Neptune, which was taken shortly before the artist's concept was done. I, of course, unearthed it after the article went to publication.

It is, of course, logical to say that all images of a twin-engine prop airplane taken or drawn from that vantage point would look similarly dramatic. However, I'm fairly convinced that this particular piece of art was deliberately fashioned after the Neptune photo in order to generate a more visceral reaction within the Navy customer examining the proposal. The survival of Naval aviation was being fought over in the Pentagon and in Congress at that time and a strong emotional appeal could only help sell the product. As Northrop was a very dark-horse in the competition, it would need all the help it could get. Or so, I'm betting, the thinking went.

This article was originally published in Airspace Vol. 3, No. 16, March 2012. It is posted here with permission and has approved for public release case number 12-1493.

With that said, let's take a look at the N-60.

Northrop’s Lost Tracker – the N-60

By Tony Chong

The demands of naval carrier aviation have always presented tough challenges for those willing to build airplanes for that service. It is a difficult field to compete in and even more difficult for an inexperienced company to win against established opponents.

The rapid advancement of aircraft design in World War II, followed shortly by the start of the Cold War and the transition from the piston age to the jet age, offered a multitude of opportunities for unproven companies to make that breakthrough. One such opening occurred in 1949 when the Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) issued an Outline Specification inviting the industry to bid on a new type of aircraft.

OS-117, as it became known, sought to replace the existing Hunter/Killer teams then in service with a single, self-contained platform that could detect, identify, track and destroy enemy submarines in an ocean environment and in all weather. Additionally it was to be operable from all of the Navy’s carriers, ranging from the small CVE-105 class escort carrier all the way up to the very large CVB-41 class battle carrier.

Eighteen companies responded with a total of 24 proposals. Among them was one from heritage Northrop Aircraft, Inc., an unlikely entrant with no previous carrier aviation experience.¹ Nevertheless the company submitted a heavily detailed design with the in-house designation of N-60.

Northrop envisioned a conventional mid-wing, twin-engine aircraft of all-metal construction with a span of 61 feet and a length of 48 feet, 10 inches. The outer wing panels would stow for more compact deck storage by rotating the leading edges up and folding the panels aft.

The N-60 also featured a bulbous forward cabin for the four-man crew and a fixed, aft belly radome containing the AN/APS-33A radar. A single Mk. 41-1 light-weight torpedo was to be carried in the weapons bay, along with rack-mounted sonobouys. Additionally six 5” rockets could be fitted, three under each wing.

Multiple access panels, doors and hinged sections for easier maintenance were an integral part of the proposal. Aircraft sub-assemblies were also designed for simplicity in construction and repair. The engine nacelles were to be fully interchangeable as part of that goal.

Propulsion was to be provided by two 900hp Wright R-1300-C7B6 Cyclone 7 radial engines, each driving a 12-foot diameter two-bladed Aeroproducts prop. Designed for catapult launch at 73 knots airspeed, the N-60 could also accommodate two Aerojet 3500lb thrust JATO (Jet-fuel Assisted Take-Off) units for short, 300 foot deck operations.

The choice of the R-1300s was intriguing, especially considering most of the other contenders gravitated to more powerful Wright R-1820 or Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engines. One result was Northrop needed to build as light an airframe as possible in compensation, for instance using magnesium skins instead of heavier aluminum alloys over the outer wing panel box structures.

Despite the detailed submission, the N-60 did not make the down-select to the final three contenders. Certainly the engine choice must have played a role in the selection, as well as the company’s lack of carrier aviation experience. Moreover the airframe design seemed tailored to a less robust structure than one required by the Navy for its operations.

In the end, experience did matter. Heritage Grumman eventually won the competition with a robust submission slightly shorter in length and a few feet wider in span than the proposed N-60. However, it was powered by two R-1820s driving three-bladed props each, with enough power to meet all requirements with greater speed, payload and range than the Northrop entry.

December 2012 will mark the 60^th anniversary of the first flight of Grumman’s XS2F-1 Tracker. This remarkable plane not only became the Navy’s first specifically designed carrier-borne ASW platform, but a piston-engine survivor in the burgeoning jet age, serving for over twenty years in operational squadrons at sea.

The N-60 in turn would fade into oblivion, one of several unproductive Northrop navy proposals submitted during the 1950s. It was not until the introduction of the F/A-18 Hornet over 30 years later that Northrop would see one of its designs, albeit one heavily modified by experienced McDonnell Douglas, become a successful carrier-borne aircraft.

Footnotes

1: Jack Northrop developed the Navy’s BT-1 carrier-based dive bomber, the precursor to the Douglas SBD Dauntless, in the mid-1930s while heading the El Segundo, CA-based Northrop Corp., a subsidiary of Douglas Aircraft Company. Douglas dissolved Northrop Corp. and made it their Northrop Division in 1937. When Jack Northrop left the company in 1938 it was renamed Douglas’s El Segundo Division.

References and Notes

An excellent brief overview of the OS-117 competition featuring several of the contenders is found in: American Secret Projects – Bombers, Attack and Anti-Submarine Aircraft 1945 to 1974, by Tony Buttler, Ian Allan Publishing, 2010, pp 168-173

Additional OS-117 information from the Grumman perspective is in Grumman Aircraft since 1929, by Rene J. Francillon, Putnam Aeronautical Books, 1989, U.S. publisher Naval Institute Press, pp 350-352.

A great on-line discussion on OS-117, with images of some of the competing types not shown in Buttler’s book, is found here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,584.0.html

Tony Chong is a historian, photographer and a contributing editor to airspace. He leads activities in the Aerospace Systems Display Model Shop and works in El Segundo.

Photo/Image Captions

1) 100_0009w: The cover art for the Northrop N-60 brochure shows the aircraft banking over a late Essex class-type carrier with spurious markings on the forward deck. Note the size of the N-60 launching from the portside catapult. The “23” on the cover indicates this is the 23^rd brochure put out by the company. Photo credit: Tony Chon

2) Img989w: A scan of a 3-view drawing of the N-60 with a human figure for scale. The “NS-60” notation on the upper right-hand corner of the sheet stands for “Northrop Specification 60.” Most Northrop N-numbered projects also came with specifications details. Early in the company’s history the N and NS numbers would usually match. But as the system progressed into the 1950s the numbers began to diverge widely and rapidly. Credit: Tony Chong collection

3) 100_0016w: This photo of the general arrangement 3-view from the brochure adds a few more details. While Northrop had a fixed belly radome, Grumman’s design featured a retractable “dustbin” housing that could be stowed during launch, transit and recovery, lessening drag during non-mission portions of the flight. Note also the dihedral on the wings outboard of the engine nacelles. Photo credit: Tony Chong

4) 100_0003 (2)w: A detailed fold out drawing of the landing gear and tail hook was included the brochure as well. Note the rather spindly nature of the nose gear and the unusual retraction process where the gear folds rearward and the wheels go forward. Photo credit: Tony Chong

5) 100_0003w: This illustration of the N-60 on the elevator of a carrier shows the wings folded in the stowed position with the leading edges up and the upper surfaces of the wings facing inboard. The picture also shows Grumman F6F Hellcat fighters on the same deck. Hellcats were withdrawn from active duty carrier-based squadrons in 1948, which makes their inclusion in this 1950 scene a puzzling anachronism. Photo credit: Tony Chong

6) 100_0007w: The complex wing-folding mechanism is illustrated in this drawing, which also shows the forward locking pins, eyelets and actuators. Photo credit: Tony Chong

7) 100_0008_2w: With space on Navy carriers at a premium, deck-spotting charts like this one from the N-60 brochure highlight the advantages of folding wings for aircraft storage. Photo credit: Tony Chong

8) 100_0004w: This illustration from the brochure shows the N-60 on the deck of CVB-42 USS Franklin D. Roosevelt. It is eerily similar to a photo of a North American Aviation AJ-1 Savage on the deck of CVB-43 USS Coral Sea that was shot just after the brochure was published in April 1950. Photo credit: Tony Chong

9) 100_0009aw: Accessibility and ease of maintenance on the N-60 were prominent selling points touted by Northrop. This drawing shows how those features would operate for engine repair or change-out. Photo credit: Tony Chong

10)100_0018w: A production breakdown drawing was also included in the brochure, where Northrop said it designed the principle airframe joints to require a “minimum of manufacturing and tooling hours.” Photo credit: Tony Chong

11)100_0006w: This cut-away illustration shows crew stations and major equipment and parts placement within the N-60. Note the torpedo just aft of the crew compartment and forward of the radar equipment. The crew included the pilot, “assistant pilot,” a forward-facing “radar operator” and a rearward-facing “countermeasures operator.” Photo credit: Tony Chong

12)100_0008w: Pilot forward visibility and the AN/APS-33A radar range limits are illustrated in this drawing. Photo credit: Tony Chong

13)100_0002w: This nicely done illustration shows an N-60 in flight over a coastline area. While visually interesting it would not be the normal area of operation for the airplane. Photo credit: Tony Chong

Talons in Space: Northrop's N-205 Proposal

2012-09-23T23:26:00.000-07:00

When I ran across this concept nearly twenty years ago I was utterly amazed and intrigued by the whole idea of using a modified T-38 to gain access to suborbital space. It really was a fun subject to research and write about. I hope you enjoy it.

This article was originally published in Airspace vol. 3 no. 19, June 2012. It is posted here with permission and has approved for public release case number 12-1467.

Talons in Space: Northrop’s N-205 Proposal

By Tony Chong

The launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union on October 4, 1957 created a massive shift in America’s perception of itself and its technological prowess. The result of that shift was a period of intense competition between differing visions of what our response should be, with the ultimate winner charting the course of this nation’s programs and policies for years to come.

Many proposals, drafted in the period before the Soviet launch, were to fall victim to the rushing demands of the new space race and the growing tensions within the country and around the world. Among these casualties was the U.S. Air Force’s ambitious goal for a manned spacecraft that was winged and reusable.

Part of an overall plan for a permanent military presence in space, up to and including orbiting space stations and bases on the Moon,¹the aerospace plane was envisioned not just as a research vehicle, but also as a rapid-response reconnaissance platform as well as a strategic weapons system that would be impossible to defend against and recallable if necessary.

Despite the clamor after Sputnik, the Air Force pressed ahead with its plans, requesting and receiving 9 submissions from 12 contractors for an aerospace plane in March 1958. Boeing and the team of Martin-Bell won the first down-select, with Boeing becoming the surprise final winner in June 1959. The initial Phase I vehicle became known as the X-20 Dyna-Soar (Dynamic Soarer).²

Heritage Northrop, its boost-glide proposal eliminated from the first round down-select competition, nevertheless saw an opportunity for itself with the new X-20. While the company’s fortunes were rejuvenated in October 1956 with the selection of the N-156T as the new supersonic trainer for the Air Force, Northrop sought to further secure the program by expanding the capabilities and role of its newly designated T-38 Talon.

On May 22, 1958, barely two months after the Dyna-Soar initial down-select, Northrop proposed an “Aerospace Trainer” variant of the Talon, reasoning that the Air Force would require a reliable, low-cost vehicle to teach student astronaut-pilots how to operate in the near-space environment.³

Given the in-house designation N-205, the projected vehicle required only about a 25% modification to the basic T-38A structure to make it capable of the proposed mission. Powered by three Rocketdyne AR-4 rocket motors in place of the two General Electric J85-GE-5 turbojets, the rockets would generate a total of 33,000 lbs. of sea-level thrust using a 90% hydrogen peroxide, 10% JP-5 jet fuel mixture.

Designed to be vertically launched at an 80° angle of attack from a small rail-guided ground platform, the N-205 would reach Mach 3.2 during the 90 second burn to 90,000 feet and coast to an apogee of 200,000 feet in a ballistic trajectory before returning. Hydrogen peroxide-fueled reaction jet nozzles in the fuselage nose and wing tips provided space attitude control.

Reentering at Mach 2.6 during the downward flight, the N-205 would then flatten out into a glide-slope angle at Mach 1.26 before coming in for a runway landing at a slightly higher touch-down speed than a standard T-38A. There was also an option for an “auxiliary” 1,000 lb. thrust rocket motor for added safety during the landing phase.

Unfortunately for Northrop, the Air Force took no action at this point, despite a subsequent study issued by the company on August 28, 1959 that again touted the advantages of an aerospace trainer.

In 1963 the company formally revised and readdressed the issue. By this time, in conjunction with the Navy and NASA, the Air Force was heavily involved in a winged aerospace plane flight research program with the North American X-15. X-20 development was also progressing, although the multiple changes in configuration and proposed launch platforms created a lot of vacillating requirements within the project.

A further impetus to Northrop’s action was the decision by the Air Force’s Experimental Flight Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base to rename itself the Aerospace Research Pilot School (ARPS) on October 12, 1961. Utilizing their existing fleet of Lockheed F-104 Starfighters, the school pressed for converting several of the aircraft into aerospace trainers. The resulting vehicle, designated the NF-104A, was outfitted with an additional engine, a Rocketdyne AR2-3 rocket motor, at the base of the vertical tail which made the aircraft capable of ballistic trajectories up to 120,000 feet.

On April 29, 1963, three months before the NF-104A began contractor flight trials, Northrop presented a new report titled “ST-38 Aerospace Trainer Study.⁴” Also known as the N-205B the ST-38 featured many improvements in performance over the original proposal.

Chief among these was the elimination of the vertical launch method in favor of a rocket-powered rolling take-off from a conventional runway. Because of the heavier gross take-off weight – 21,000 lbs. versus the 11,000 lbs. of a standard T-38 – the N-205B would utilize the beefier F-5 series landing gear.

Still using three Rocketdyne AR-4 motors, the ST-38 could fire any or all rockets for take-off. Pitching up to an 85° angle of attack after wheels-up and an initial acceleration run, the vehicle would reach Mach 3.3 and top out at 285,000 feet, or 53 miles – high enough to qualify pilots for astronaut wings under Air Force rules at the time, making it a true aerospace trainer.

After reentry and transition from the ballistic to a glide-slope trajectory at 40,000 feet, the ST-38 would then perform a loop with a roll to reverse course and allow the trainer to land at the base of origin. Unlike the initial N-205, no auxiliary rocket motor was proposed.

An added complication for the ST-38 was the fixed aft ventral fin, a holdover feature of the N-205. While not an issue for the vertical launch proposal, it would limit the rotation angle on a conventional runway take-off. Since landings were already restricted to a 9° angle of attack on both versions, the ST-38 would have the same constraint on take-off. Even so, ground roll on take-off was impressive considering the heavier gross weight: 4,453 feet with only one rocket; 1,149 feet with all three firing. The minimum take-off roll for a standard T-38 was 2,300 feet.

T-38A Block-17 aircraft were to be the baseline vehicle for the proposed conversion. One article noted a Northrop spokesman claiming the ST-38 would have 90% commonality with the T-38A’s basic structure.⁵ However, the original N-205 figure of 75% seems more reasonable considering conversion included the addition of the rocket propulsion motors, modified internal fuel cells, side-stick controls, reaction control nozzles, fixed ventral fin and faired inlet covers, to name just a few differences.

Northrop’s window of opportunity, however, was closing fast as the Air Force’s vision of a manned, winged aerospace plane, and a permanent military presence in space, was about to be overtaken by the events and decisions initiated after Sputnik.

The Air Force had already lost their leadership role in that arena in October 1958 when President Dwight Eisenhower chose to emphasis the civilian nature of America’s space program by establishing the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as the lead agency in the nation’s space efforts. The designs NASA picked for its near-term manned space vehicles were ballistic-trajectory, blunt-body capsules and not winged aerospace planes. By 1963 more and more funds were being diverted to the growing Apollo program as NASA sought to fulfill President John F. Kennedy’s vow of landing an American on the Moon by 1970.

At the same time, the growing expenditures on the X-20 and the Air Force’s inability to convince Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara that the vehicle had an operational purpose and was a valuable strategic asset caused the Secretary to cancel the program in December 1963, two weeks after President Kennedy’s assassination and two months after ARPS accepted the first NF-104A from Lockheed. X-20 was only about a year away from flight test at that point.

A vehicle call the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL), based on the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation’s blunt-body Gemini spacecraft, replaced the X-20 and became the Air Force’s last hope for a manned space program under its aegis. That, too, was cancelled in 1969 amid rising costs, a redundant mission profile with existing reconnaissance satellites and a national budget consumed by the Vietnam War, new social programs and the Apollo effort.

Winged aerospace planes suffered another setback during 1963 as the research focus began to shift to lifting body studies. Ironically, Northrop would build two of the designs for NASA, the M2-F2/F3 and HL-10, both of which began flight tests in 1966.

The X-15 ended its flight tests in 1968. It would be another decade and a half before a winged aerospace plane flew again in the form of the NASA/Rockwell International Space Shuttle. It would be four and a half decades before the Air Force finally managed to procure and fly its own winged aerospace plane – the unmanned Boeing X-37B.

The success of the NASA-sponsored blunt-body design is indisputable: Americans landed on the Moon on July 20, 1969 and on five subsequent missions. No other nation can yet claim that feat. But the rush to be the first left lasting consequences. The downward ballistic trajectory of NASA’s budget following Apollo 11 left many critics wondering if the sustained incremental progress of programs like the Air Force’s X-20 would have better served the nation’s interests.

But that is all hind-sight. While the X-20 probably would have succeeded, there is no guarantee that it would have. The same holds true for the ST-38. Yet, it is very exciting to imagine the sight of a Talon streaking to Mach 3+ and crossing into the threshold of space. It would have been a remarkable highlight in the long history of the T-38/F-5 series. The fact that it could have happened in the mid-1960s is even more remarkable. It makes wondering what the course of aerospace history would have been like, had they both become operational, a fascinating case of “what if…”

Footnotes

http://www.astronautix.com/fam/manonest.htm - This link contains a good background overview of Air Force plans for space operations in the 1950s.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm - This link provides a good overview of the X-20 history.
Noted as proposal NAI-58-366 (May 22, 1958) in “Study Report SR-49756: Program Plan for Study of Advanced Design Trainer,” Northrop Corporation, Los Angeles, August 28, 1959: 3.
Northrop Corporation, “WSDS-248: Summary Report: ST-38 Aerospace Trainer Study,” Los Angeles, April 29, 1963.
Willard E. Wilkes, “Northrop Proposes Space Trainer,” Missiles and Rockets, (September 10, 1962):17.

References and Notes

As noted in the footnotes, these links provide excellent background material for both the Air Force’s “Man-in-Space-Soonest” and X-20 Dyna-Soar programs: http://www.astronautix.com/fam/manonest.htm, http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm.

The Secret Projects website has a small segment on the N-205B. It can be found here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,13808.msg161679.html#msg161679

Northrop Reports SR-49756 and WSDS-248 were extremely helpful (see footnotes for more detailed description). If anyone has NAI-58-366 in their possession, this writer would be very interested in obtaining a copy.

A valuable book on the X-20 program is: Dyna-Soar: Hypersonic Strategic Weapons System, Robert Godwin, Apogee Books, 2003, printed by Collector’s Guide Publishing, Inc., Burlington, Ontario, Canada.

Another valuable reference is the monograph: Lockheed N-104A Aerospace Trainer by Scott Libis, photo research by Tony Landis, Air Force Legends Number 204, published by Steve Ginter, 1999

Tony Chong is a historian, photographer and a contributing editor to Airspace. He leads activities in the Aerospace Systems Display Model Shop and works in El Segundo.

Kristi Harding contributed to this article.

Photo Captions

img156: The Boeing X-20 mockup is shown on a cart with two men for size comparisons. This version of the X-20 was a boost-glide sub-orbital variant with no engines and provisions for a single pilot. Fully orbital versions with engines were planned. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection.
IMG_0001b: This scan of an article from the April 3, 1959 issue of The Aeroplane (page 393) details early press releases about the N-205 program. The article contains a fair amount of useful information and was posted on the Secret Projects N-205 link (see references). Interestingly the text mentions a jettisonable ventral fin. The Northrop studies indicated the fin was fixed on this variant as well as on the ST-38. Credit: Secret Projects.
IMG_0001a: This close-up scan of the artist’s concept from the article in The Aeroplane issue discussed above shows wing-tip fuel tanks and an inset of the vertical launch platform. Note the rectangular windows in the area where the bubble canopy would be on a standard T-38. Credit: Secret Projects.
img157: A beautiful color shot of an NF-104A showing the lit Rocketdyne AR2-3 motor at the base of the vertical tail while the vehicle is in a 70° zoom-climb. Colonel Charles “Chuck” Yeager, the first man to break the sound barrier and commandant of the ARPS at the time, was attempting to win back the altitude record from the Russians in another NF-104A when the aircraft departed into a flat spin, an unwanted first for the F-104 series. Yeager suffered burns to his face when he ejected at 11,000 feet. The incident was later featured in the 1983 film “The Right Stuff.” Ironically Yeager’s crash occurred on the same day as the announcement of the X-20 cancellation (December 10, 1963). Photo credit: U.S. Air Force, Tony Chong collection.
ST-38 3-view: A general arrangement drawing of the ST-38/N-205B. Note the size of the ventral fin and the eyelet-shaped heat-resistant glass window openings in the canopy replacing the Plexiglas bubble. Also of interest are the leading edge flaps, a feature not found on a standard T-38. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection.
ST-38 loft: A stitched-together series of loft lines and inboard profile scans shows internal details of the ST-38, with many of the parts labeled for identification. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection.
ST-38 Iso: A much cleaner drawing shows the internal arrangement detail but without identifying labels. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection.
1547-112: A 1962 photo of an N-205 model shows the vehicle in a then-standard Air Force training color scheme with day-glow orange panels. Judging from the eyelet openings lateral visibility would have been terrible inside the cockpit. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman.
3989-043: While not apparent at first glance, this 1963 company concept art shows the ST-38 in a dark color scheme as seen by the white lettering on the tail, wings and fuselage. The faired inlet covers are shown to good advantage in this piece. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman.
N205b: This is a scan of the Missiles and Rockets article in the September 10, 1962 issue (page 17). The article, like the first one described earlier, is extremely detailed in the description of the vehicle, its systems and its mission profile. At this point Northrop was only saying the N-205B would reach “at least” 250,000 feet. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection.
img159: An internal Northrop Corp. publication featured the N-205B in one of its articles. Again note the dark color replacing the initial white and orange scheme. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection.
C-5612-053: The previous image was actually a black and white reproduction of a full-color painting done by a Northrop artist who signed his name as “Todd.” The black color, similar in appearance to the scheme then in use on the X-15, shows up much better in this scan. Ironically the X-15A-2 would eventually be coated in pink ablative material that was sealed by a white coating, making the vehicle look more like that on the original N-205 scheme. Note that the leading edge flaps do not appear in any of the ST-38/N-205B concept art. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman.
img160: A graph of a typical ST-38 flight profile shows the ballistic trajectory going to 265,000 feet. Peak altitude was projected to be 285,000 feet. Note the loop with roll that reverses course to bring the vehicle back to its base of origin. It would pass over the runway at 40,000 feet before initiating the landing procedure. Estimated total mission time was about 9 minutes. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection.
1137-102: The ST-38/N-205 wasn’t the only variant proposed by Northrop. A supersonic VIP transport was one such version. One can only imagine the cramped space inside the cabin. Note the additional slipper-tanks mounted on the wings to carry extra fuel. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman.
T-38 VTOL: Northrop was heavily involved in V/STOL technology in the early 1960s so it’s no surprise a T-38 VTOL variant was proposed. Note the wingtip and tail fairing roll thrusters for stabilization in the vertical lift and hover mode. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection.
full03: The U.S. Air Force began the quest for a winged, reusable aerospace plane in the mid-1950s. 55 years later they finally achieved their goal with the unmanned Boeing X-37B. The number two vehicle is shown here upon completion of its maiden flight on Saturday, June 16, 2012 after spending 15 months in orbit performing a clandestine mission. Photo credit: U.S. Air Force.

"For the Snark was a Boojum, you see."

2012-09-08T00:33:00.000-07:00

I really enjoyed writing this piece. How often does one get to quote Lewis Carroll in the title? Plus Boojum is a really cool name to say.

This article was originally published in Airspace vol. 2 no. 11, September 2011. It is posted here with permission and has approved for public release case number 12-1433.

“For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.”*

By Tony Chong

Perhaps no two companion aerospace projects have had a more whimsical set of names given to them than the heritage Northrop Snark and Boojum. Yet, like the fantastical creatures featured Lewis Carroll’s nonsensical poem, the Snark and Boojum were meant to be deadly as well.

In 1945 the U.S. Army Air Force’s Air Material Command issued a block of ten MX-designated research and study contracts to several companies for various advanced missile designs. Half of them were allotted for subsonic and supersonic Surface-to-Surface Missiles, of which three were to be ultimately built as air-breathing cruise missiles.

Northrop was awarded one of these contracts, MX-775, in March of 1946. MX-775A was for a subsonic intercontinental cruise missile, which eventually became the Snark. The MX-775B was for a supersonic intercontinental cruise missile. It was christened by the company as Boojum.

In December of 1946, the funding for Snark was deleted from the budget, but the more technically difficult Boojum survived. After lobbying by Jack Northrop himself, Snark was reinstated in 1947 with the promise that it would only take two and one-half years to develop. Boojum was retained as well, but now as the follow-on system to Snark.

1947 saw the formation of the U.S. Air Force as its own branch and the Snark was designated SSM-A-3 and the Boojum SSM-A-5. “X” was added as a prefix to indicate the experimental nature of the programs at this stage.

The early version of the Boojum bears a distinct similarity to the early Snark. Both had in-house N-25 designations, with N-25A for Snark and N-25B for Boojum (each would acquire new N-numbers later on, the Boojum in particular being noted as N-217 in some internal documents). Both also carried thin, highly swept-wings on a long, semi-tailless fuselage. A small vertical fin adorned each vehicle’s aft end. However, Snark had a high-mounted wing with a flush belly inlet, while Boojum sported a mid-fuselage wing and an annular inlet.

The final Boojum version would show a radical departure from the early configuration. Ultimately the missile was to be a semi-tailless, delta-winged vehicle that would reach 85.33 feet in length and have a span of 50.85 feet.

Missile construction was to feature a conventional semi-monocoque fuselage with aluminum alloy-faced, honeycomb core bulkheads. The skin of the Boojum was to be made from a non-strategic magnesium alloy.

An “ultimate short-life” afterburning General Electric J47 turbojet was to be mounted near the tips of the wings, each providing 13,620 pounds of static thrust. Engine life was estimated to be 25 hours, but the life of the continuous-use afterburners was only required to be 4.5 hours – the duration of a typical mission at Mach 1.8 with expendable drop tank.

Estimated top speed was Mach 2.0 at 66,600 feet, with a range of nearly 3,400 miles clean and 4,980 miles with drop tank. Maximum ceiling and range were 70,000 feet and 3,510 miles clean or 5,080 miles with tank at Mach 1.8. All figures factored in the 3,000 lb. “special” (nuclear) warhead as the payload.

Alternate engines were available for use, with the primary one being the proposed General Electric XJ53. Other types, including the General Electric/Allison J35 and Westinghouse J40 were considered as well, but more as a stop-gap measure if the J47 or XJ53 were unavailable for the test phase.

Like the Snark, the Boojum was to be guided to its target by the Northrop-designed Automated Celestial Navigation (ACN) system. This system, which marked the start of Northrop’s Electronics “Nortronics” Division, utilized an automatic day/night star-tracking sextant and associated avionics that weighed nearly one ton.

Boojum could be rail-launched in either a single or two-stage configuration. The first stage component was a large 80.5 foot span straight-wing attachment with wingtip-mounted fuel tanks. The wing mounted to the belly of Boojum via a massive pylon that remained with the first stage when it detached.

Boojum was also designed to be air launched from a large carrier aircraft. Mounted on the top of the mothership because of its size, it resembled the recently retired 747/Space Shuttle combo.

Wind tunnel and rocket-boosted atmospheric models tests of the Boojum proceeded through the late 1940s, but by the start of the new decade customer confidence in the viability, accuracy and performance of the supersonic cruise missile waned. The program was cancelled in 1951.

Snark would continue, but its path was long, difficult and marginally successful. While the system did eventually attain operational status with the 702^nd Strategic Missile Wing in February, 1961, its life was short. The first U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile went operational months earlier in September 1959, rendering the in-coming Northrop vehicle obsolete. The 702^nd SMW was deactivated four months later. Like the Baker in Carroll’s poem, Northrop’s aptly named cruise missiles softly and suddenly vanished away, never to be met with again.

*The Hunting of the Snark by Lewis Carroll. http://books.google.com/books?id=TLoNAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Hunting+of+the+Snark#v=onepage&q&f=false

Additional information about the Boojum can be found at the following links:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/ssm-a-5.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSM-A-5_Boojum

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,11635.msg111121.html#msg111121

An interesting book called The Evolution of the Cruise Missile, by Kenneth P. Werrell, Air University Press, Maxwell AFB, 1985, can be found in pdf. format here:

http://aupress.au.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/werrell_cruise.pdf

Photo Captions

img779 – This scan of the N-25 3-view drawing comes from the in-house publication Northrop: An Aeronautical History, by Fred Anderson, Northrop Corp., 1976, (the “Brown Book”) and shows the early Snark configuration. Note the flush inlet and high-mounted wings. Tony Chong collection.
xssm-a-5 – A drawing of the early Boojum configuration shows the similarities with the early Snark. The main external differences are with the mid-mounted wings and annular inlet. Image credit USAF
100_0007_3 – Northrop issued a brochure in 1950 in an attempt to highlight the advantages of the Boojum to the customer. This is a photo of the very dynamic cover art. The artist is unknown, but it is very reminiscent of Jack Leynnwood, who occasionally worked for Northrop, but who also worked for the Revell and Aurora model kit companies, where he did a lot of their boxtop artwork. Photo credit: Tony Chong
img736 – The brochure contained this baseline 3-view drawing of the Boojum. As noted in the text, the vehicle was over 85 feet long; a very impressive size even today. While the engines are far apart, Northrop projected minimal control disruption with asymmetric thrust and was supposed to retain enough engine-out performance on take-off to direct the vehicle to a safe ditching point away from the base or populated areas. Tony Chong collection.
img735 – This scan from the brochure shows the 3-view drawing of the Boojum and its large expendable fuel tank. The tank slips over the bottom fuselage of the missile and extends beyond the nose and tail, increasing the length nearly 20 feet. The sidebar art shows the tank being dropped in flight. Tony Chong collection.
img734 – Another artist’s concept shows a larger image of the Boojum, two with tanks and one in the midst of dropping a tank. In real life separation would have been an interesting issue at Mach 2 for an unmanned vehicle carrying a conformal tank longer than itself. Tony Chong collection.
img771 – This plan-view drawing shows the Boojum with it straight-wing first stage. Like the basic missile, the two-stage configuration was rail-launched. Note the size of the wing and the tip tanks. The sidebar shows the first stage dropping away from the missile. Tony Chong collection.
img772 – The profile and front view of the two-stage configuration shows the massive size of the pylon attaching the vehicles together. The acceleration stresses during rail launch are interesting to consider. All of the thrust appears to come from the Boojum’s two J47 engines. No mention is made anywhere in the brochure of expendable rocket or jet assisted devices. Tony Chong collection.
img773 – Another, larger artist’s concept showing a couple of Boojums in operation, one with its first stage attached and the other dropping its stage. The art shows the drop taking place over land, which seems rather unlikely in real life. In all probability Boojum basing would be near coastal areas and the drop points would be over water. Tony Chong collection.
img777 – This image shows some of the interior structure of the first stage. The inset art appears to highlight one of the pylon attach points. What looks like wiring could be part of an explosive bolt triggering mechanism for first stage separation. Unfortunately the various launch configuration drawings appear to be from a second brochure, not all of which was copied, so details are elusive. Tony Chong collection.
img778 – Ironically, one of the launch aircraft considered for the Boojum was the Convair B-36 Peacemaker. This is a later version of the B-36 as it has the twin-engine jet pods outboard of the buried main piston engines. The jets are non-afterburning General Electric J47-GE-19s, from the same family as the Boojum’s engines. Tony Chong collection.
img776 – The final image is intriguing not just for the Boojum on the back of the mothership, but for the mothership itself. It is a swept-wing, swept-tail, four engine turboprop version of the B-36 with counter-rotating blades. This is likely an early concept for what eventually became the jet-powered, eight-engine YB-60. Note the mushroom cloud in the background. Since the aircraft are over land, and the two are still together, one can assume a strike has been made against the American homeland and a retaliatory launch is moments away. Tony Chong collection

2012 Garden Party Art Show

2012-08-31T00:16:00.000-07:00

It's that time of year again for our annual Garden Party Art Show. If you are in the area, please drop by for some good art, good food and good conversation! Hope to see you then.

Northrop's TAB for All Seasons

2012-08-29T22:17:00.000-07:00

It's been a long time since I've posted regularly. The answer is partially revealed here tonight.

For the last few years I've been writing articles for a variety of in-house magazines attached to the Northrop Grumman Engineering Department. Starting sporadically with "The Leading Edge," a traditional hard-copy magazine, to "VelocitE," a combination pdf/on-line journal, to the current "Airspace" and its pure, on-line format, I've been gradually writing more and more current and historically-themed pieces.

Earlier this year I was given my own column. While exciting, it's been very time consuming as there is a lot of research involved in some of the articles. Also I've now gone on a 9/80 schedule at work, making for longer days and tougher commutes. Since I do all of my writing on my own time at home, something had to give. Sadly, that included blogging (I think eBay stock dropped as a result, too).

While I've gotten a lot of good response to my articles, I couldn't share them with anyone outside of the company. Fortunately, Diane Hensley, my very generous editor, granted me permission to reprint these on my blog.

However, before I could do so, I had to get them cleared for public release through the Northrop Grumman system. That has been an interesting experience and something of an eye-opener. In today's environment, everyone is being extra cautious. It's understandable, but very frustrating at times.

I now have several articles that have cleared the process - photos included - with several more in the queue. I hope now that I will be able to post more regularly and you can see the results of my work. I hope you enjoy them.

This article was published in Airspace vol. 2 no. 7, May 2011. It is reprinted here with permission and has approved for release case number 12-1465.

Northrop’s TAB for All Seasons

By Tony Chong

Perhaps one of the most unusual designs proposed by the heritage Northrop Corporation was the Truck, Airplane, Boat (TAB) Vericraft triphibian, an ungainly looking vehicle that attempted to be the all-in-one answer to the U.S. Army’s looming tactical needs.

TAB was developed in the mid-1960s in an attempt to secure participation in an Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) program called Project AGILE. One of the issues under investigation was the problem of mobility and logistical supply to remote bases and outposts in inaccessible environments. With the U.S. increasingly involved in the Vietnam conflict this was a major concern for military planners.

Northrop envisioned a rugged, easy to build, low-cost aircraft that had the ability to operate effectively not just in the air, but on the water and on land as well. While primarily designed for the short-range utility cargo mission, it was to be easily adaptable for use as a troop transport, weapons carrier, mobile command post or medical evacuation vehicle.

The proposed craft featured a rectangular box of a fuselage outfitted with a catamaran hull, retractable wheels and rotatable wings and tail. Twin Pratt & Whitney PT6-B15 turboprop engines, mounted in a single pod nacelle, provided power to a 7.5 foot shrouded propeller. Engineered with a constant-chord wing with a span of 60 feet, the TAB was to be 40 feet long, with a folded wing width of 9.5 feet and a height of 13.5 feet. The cargo compartment was to be 6 feet high, 6 feet wide and 15 feet long. Gross weight, complete with up to 4,000 lbs of cargo, was projected at 12,000 lbs.

Conversion to any operational mode was anticipated to take approximately 10 minutes. Additionally, all mode conversions could be done onboard the TAB during water operations. The vehicle was also scaled to fit into the cargo hold of a Lockheed C-130 Hercules transport for long, overseas deployments.

Northrop expended considerable time and effort in this design. A multi-volume proposal brochure was developed that included cost and operations comparisons to other proposed Army vehicles, including the fixed-wing de Havilland of Canada CV-2 (later C-7) Caribou and the rotary-wing Boeing-Vertol CH-47 Chinook and Bell UH-1 Iroquois (Huey).

Performance was projected to be modest. The 130 mph air speed would be slightly faster than the Huey but much slower than the Caribou or Chinook. Truck speed would top out at 50 mph. Ironically the boat mode would provide the best performance with calm water speeds up to 35 kts.

A detailed scale model was built toward this effort, along with a larger scale radio controlled model of the basic TAB design. Interestingly enough, no formal N-number was attached to the program. While a Preliminary Design (PD) number was likely given to the TAB, its identity has proved elusive thus far.

In any event, the program did not go forward. ARPA declined to offer funding, perhaps in part because the newly implemented 1966 agreement between the Army and U.S. Air Force mandated that the Army give up all fixed-wing tactical airlift capabilities in exchange for unrestricted development and acquisition of rotary-wing assets. TAB’s primary customer was now obliged to go with the UH-1 and CH-47. The end result was the coming of age of the helicopter-borne air-mobile Army during combat operations in the Vietnam War.

Kristi Harding contributed to this article.

For further reading on Project AGILE, go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_AGILE

A look into the scope of Project AGILE can be found in this July to December 1963 semiannual report by ARPA, including Subproject III to which TAB was tailored: http://www.nal.usda.gov/speccoll/findaids/agentorange/text/00340.pdf

A review of the Army/Air Force 1966 agreement can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-McConnell_agreement_of_1966

Photo Captions

100_0001_rlw: The TAB proposal brochure included this artist’s conception of the vehicle in a scenario that showcased all three modes. Boat operations could take place on rivers, estuaries, coastal areas, lakes and, revealingly, rice paddies. Clearly Southeast Asian environments were in mind. Image credit: Tony Chong collection
img662: This 3-view shows the basic dimensions of the vehicle. Note the split inlet on the nacelle for the twin P&W PT6-B15 turboprop engines. As a point of reference, Northrop Grumman’s new X-47B UCAS-D is a couple of feet greater in span and about a foot shorter in length than the proposed TAB. Image credit: Tony Chong collection
img665w: All three modes of transportation are shown in this image. The stowed wings would have shielded the shrouded prop, possibly dampening the noise for bystanders. Image credit: Tony Chong collection
img666w: The wing and tail folding operations appear to be simple and straightforward, a plus for use by draftees in rough conditions. Image credit: Tony Chong collection
img675w: This detailed view, with cross-sections, shows the catamaran hull design of the TAB. Image credit: Tony Chong collection
img676w: The cockpit would have been a fairly basic affair. Instrumentation was only installed on the “driver’s” side even though a second wheel was provided for the right seat. Image credit: Tony Chong collection
img667w: TAB was designed to fit inside the Lockheed C-130 Hercules, albeit rather snuggly. Note the Hercules outline is of the early C-130A “Roman-nose” configuration. Image credit: Tony Chong collection
img670w: The projected aircraft performance specs were very modest compared to other fixed wing aircraft, and even to some helicopters. Obviously the selling point was the versatility of the land and water options. Image credit: Tony Chong collection
img673w: Projected truck performance was better, despite a top speed of only 50 mph and the ungainly addition of large exposed surfaces from the stowed wings. One wonders how vehicle mobility would have been affected by this, much less their susceptibility to road damage and small arms fire. Image credit: Tony Chong
img671w: Water performance would be rather good, all things considered, especially in speed. Note the sea state operations/survivability figures. Image credit: Tony Chong collection
Northrop TAB bw: Old Polaroid photos found in the Display Model Shop archives show a rather nicely detailed scale model of the TAB in profile with cargo ramp down. The angle of the nacelle and shroud is more pronounced in the model than in the 3-view, suggesting a different design iteration. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman Display Model Shop
Northrop TAB cw: Another Polaroid showing a high-angle view of TAB. The size of the model is apparent when seen with the tabletop. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman Display Model Shop
TAB model lf frt: This appears to be a studio shot of the TAB model with the wings and tail folded into the stowed position. The shrouded propeller is effectively shielded by the wings. They also appear to channel airflow to the prop. Ground and water operations would seem to be similar to Airboat vehicles. Since TAB was supposed to be able to handle 45% longitudinal slopes on a hard surface, propulsion via prop would’ve been interesting to see in those conditions. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection
TAB model lf rr: The TAB cargo bay was designed to hold either a standard Jeep, Army Mule, M-102 105mm Howitzer or other like equipment. The model shows two such payload options. Photo credit: Tony Chong collection
Northrop RC cw: Northrop authorized a Radio Control (RC) model for concept testing. This is a shot of a straight-tail version under construction. Note the catamaran hull and wood body. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman Display Model Shop
14060-104Aw: It is unclear if only one RC model was made or if there were more than one. This image shows a variant with a pronounced dihedral to the tail. There are endplates to the tail as well and a tricycle-type landing gear arrangement. The propeller shroud also appears different in configuration, although that may be an illusion due to the large side support structure of the model. Note the size compared to the cameraman. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman
14063-104Bw: This photo shows the model taking off for a flight. It is unknown how many flight were made, or where. It does not appear to be Hawthorne. One thought is that it might be the old Rancho Conejo Airport, where the former Northrop Ventura Division facility was located near the southern end of the runway in Newbury Park, CA. Photo credit: Northrop Grumman