UNCLASSIFIED AD NUMBER

AD368426

CLASSIFICATION CHANGES
TO: unclassified

FROM:

confidential

LIMITATION CHANGES
TO: Approved for public release, unlimited distribution

FROM: Distribution: Further dissemination only as directed by David Taylor Model Basin, Washington DC; Nov 1965 or higher DoD authority.

AUTHORITY
Nov 1967, Group-4, 1962; DWTNSRDC ltr DoDD 5200.10, 7 Oct 1980 26 July

THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSI FIED
dt

AN OPEN-OCEAN V/STOL SEAPLANE FOR THE ASW MISSION (Title Unclassified) by

Richard D. Muirphy, Gary W. Brasseur, Robert Bart, and Robert M. Williams

This ~ November

~
e1096 *

afctn dounot210ato ~ epr Aero Report

linsC73 &d 7 heFs 1 h

UNCLASSIFIED

Foreword This paper was init-ially presented at the AIAA/USN Marine Systems and ASW Conference in San Diego, California, The results presented were derived from an March 10, 1965. indeperndenL ia-nous._ exploration of the potential of a Publication of the results does not imply V/STOL vehicle. endorsement by any organization other than the Aerodynamics The authors gratefully acknowledge the asLaboratory itself. sistance of the following individuals for their contributions in the maintenance of a realistic approach to operational CAPT C. W. Griffing, ONR; Mr. F. W. S. Locke, Jr., aspects: CDR R. K. Geiger, Mr. R. L. Parris, Mr. K. E. Dentel, and LCDR P. L. Dudley, Jr., BuWeps.

e,
6

NTIS

AcsoiFof CRA&I

Ur

IDTIC TAH

JuSthfhcjutc,

By
DiStr ibution

Availbrlity Codes

UNCNC-LAS75SReFI2-UD

L'I

ItJIflhElW'UNCLA3S ,FED,
~N
C

SYMBOLS b E L D V Vk P W S d n c LV wing span in feet (M.A.C.)

lifting-surface mean aerodynamic chord lift in pounds pounds feet per second knots per second

drag in

velocity in velocity in power in

pound-feet

vehicle weight in

pounds square feet \---2

reference momentum area in propeller diameter in rotational speed in feet

revolutions per second coefficient

propeller airfoil equivalent lift-drag

section lift ratio

P P

-power

parameter

w
V
-

speed

parameter

vehicle Mach number propeller propeller tip helical Mach number reference blade angle density in slugs per cubic foot

atmospheric air propulsive

efficiency tip Mach numbers,

propulsive efficiency at subcritical incompressibe Tinax

1i

maximum propulsive incompressibhl

efficiency

ratio,

compressible-to-

iii

--

iRL

Normal Rated Mil TO TP-SS TP-DS RTP-SS RTP-DS AFU Rest

maximum continuous engine power setting

military engine powet setting take-off engine power setting engine, engine, engine, engine, turboprop, turboprop, single shaft double shaft turboprop, single shaft double shaft

regenerative

regenerative turboprop,

auxiliary power unit condition of waterborne ASW tactical surveillance

iv

PRNC-GEN-175

(Rev.

12-55

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SYMBOLS SUMMARY INTRODUCTION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS VEHICLE CONFIGURATION PREDICTED PERFORMANCE PROPULSION CONSIDERATIONS PERFORMANCE TRADEOFFS iii-iv 1 1 2 2 3 3 6 7 7 9 9 10 13 15 17

WIND-TUNNEL TESTS AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ASW MISSIONS CONTACT MAINTENANCE COMTUTER SIMULATION COMPUTER RESULTS CONTACT INVESTIGATION TEMPORARY BARRIER

SPECIAL-PURPOSE VEHICLE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Aircraft Table 2 Physical Characteristics Fuel

18
18 21

23-24 25

Summary of Submarine Tactics and Aircraft Consumption LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Figure Figure

1 2 3 -

Nondimensional VTOL Vehicle Comparison of Equivalent Lift-Drag Ratio Versus Speed Classical Propulsion System Loading for Hover Flight in Cruise Configuration

26 27 28 29 30 31

V/STOL Seaplane Principal

Figure 4 Figure 5 -

Dimensions of the Seaplane

Nondimensional VTOL Vehicle Comparison Including the Seaplane Design Nondimensional Parameters Performance of Power Versus Speed

Fivtlrc 6 -

IRev.

12-55,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(Concluded) (Concluded) Page

LIST OF ILLUSTrPATIONS

Figure 7 - Effect of Compressibility Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 -

on Propeller Efficiency

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Turboprop Engine Characteristics Cruise Performance With Six Engines at 35-Percent Normal Rated Power The 1/20-Scale Unpowered Model guration in the Cruise Confi-

Figure 11 - The 1/20-Scale Powered Model in ration

the Hover Configu-

Figure 12 - Air Transportable Sound Surveillance System (ATSSS) Figure 1.3 Conception of V/STOL Seaplane in Artist's tional Layout for Change of Mission Command in Contact Maintenance a Func-

Figure 14 - Sequence

Figure 15 - Basic Tracking Mission Figure 16 Computer Simulation Sonar Characteristics Calculations

Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 -

for True Range and Probability

42 43 44 45

Basic Tracking Mission Following a Tactical Maneuver On-Station Maneuver Sequence

Figure 20 - Air Drop of ATSSS Buoy Figure 21 Figure 22 Drop Pattern (Archimedes' Investigation Entrapment Probability in Spiral) Contact for Contact Investigation

46 47

vi
PRNC-CEN-175 (Rev. 12-55)

loo

SUMMARY A V/STOL Open-Ocean and Seaplane with good payload/range capability has been investigated for specific

high seaworthiness characteristics fhe results

ASW missions. maintenance

from a simulation program of the contact using the predicted per-

mission on the IBM 7090 computer,

formance of the seaplane design and the projected capability of the Air Transportable tial Sound Surveillance System (ATSSS), indicate a good poten-

for tic s,:aplane in

passively tracking of on-station nuclear sub(contact

marines.

The application of the seaplane to other ASW missions is also considered.

investigatio n and the temporary barrier) configuration

The special the

limitations and performance considerations

involved in

preliminary design of the 93,000-pound V/STOL seaplane are outlined. INTRODUCTION The Aerodynamics heen involved Off and only in in Laboratory of the David Taylor Model Basin has of Vertical and Short TakeHowever,

the research and development (V/STOL) Aircraft

Lwnding the last

for the past fifteen years.

two years has a concentrated

effort been devoted to

conceptual design.

This two-year period started with a review of the programs in the

information available from earlier test and development V/STOL field. Figure cepts, is the result of a performance estimate It

for several

con-

including a modern tilt-wing transport. lift/drag

.s a plot of the speed parameter, es-

equivalent

ratio versus a nondimensional concept.

sentiallv a power-required

Notice that the early V/STOL conthan 4. It must be and were not

copts produced maximum lift/drag rciembered de,signed that these were,

ratios of less essentially,

test-bed vehicles, However,

for optimum cruising performance. te esc vehicles were less type of vehicle is

compared with the and, hovering Also,

hetlicoptcr, since this

efficient

cruise machines;

always a less efficient device in advantage,

flight, th(

they represented no specific which1many because of

except for speed.

speed capal)itiLes

them possessed

could not be utilized the fuel reof being an

io a mititar-' I i r(:'mt ,

cnoironment

the payload vanished in

Only

the

tilt-wiog transport 1).

showed any promise

vehici e (Refereuict.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS From these available data, up certain study criteria. istics the Aerodynamics Laboratory staff set

They were:

that the payload/range characterthat the design must be design practice, and

of any designed vehicle are paramount, of standard aircraft

an evolutionary development that an equivalent lift/drag

ratio of less than 10 would automatically The transition characin favor of for design

disqualify a primarily load-carrying vehicle. teristics were to be subordinated,

although not neglected, The initial

increasing the cruise potential. concepts and mission formats The aircraft to give a fair concepts. in

considerations

led to severe limitations on configuration. aerodynamically,

question could not be made clean enough,

evaluation of the efficiency potential of future V/STOL

The outgrowth of this dilemma was a diversion of attention to Seaplane, where configuration limitations were minimal.

an Open-Ocean

The primary design consideration was the selection of the propulsion group. Figure 2 is the classical power-loading/disc-loading 2). In curve for

hovering flight of the curve,

(Reference

the low disc-loading area at the left successful operation

rpresenting the region of helicopters, The jet-surface

over water has been performed. jet-lift systems,

loadings associated with are expected in to be too a marine

shown at the right of the curve,

high for a vehicle to exhibit satisfactory handling qualities environment. it is is Although it has not been satisfactorily

evaluated to date,

assumed that an allowable disc loading of 50 pounds per square foot operations. need The problems identified and

compatible with water surfacc

with operation in

a marine eniironment

further clarification;

full-scale testing is loading boundary.

probably necessary

to establish a definite discper square foot With indicates

The selection of 50 pounds

the desirability of a free-propeller configuration. loading, a 90,000-

this hover disc

to 100,000-pound vehicle could be supported by six

20-foot-diameter

propellers. VEHICLE CONFIGURATION

The resulting vehicle configuration canard seaplane with a rrequirement fully developed is about
-2-

(Figure 3)

is

a six-engine the STOL fliglht

hull to accommodate a P3-A

The aircraft

the size of

(ORION).

--

The canard arrangement gives a location for the six engines within reasonable structural considerations and offers the advantage of longitudinal trim control in hover and transition without the use of a tail rotor. The vertical and short take-off lifting capabilities of the respectively, Figure 4 and

aircraft are considered to be 93,000 and 115,000 pounds,

The "no fuel" operational weight should be about 81,000 pounds. Table 1 summarizes additionai configuration specifications. PREDICTED PERFORMANCE

presents the major dimensions of the seaplane in a two-view drawing,

Figure 5 shows the predicted performance of the DTMB seaplane in comparison with the early vehicles. alent lift/drag ratio is bil.:y. It is noted that the predicted equivthe generation the Looking in excess of 10, the initial limit for accepta-

The value used for propulsive efficiency was 0.80 in

of the seaplane curve.

These data can be Uiewed in a modified form, as shown in Figure 6.

nondimensional power versus speed parameter,

at the data in this manner leads to the often-stated argument that the cruise power requirements installed power. for VTOL aircraft are about one-third of the This observation immediately suggests that with a six-

engine vehicle, cruise might be effected with two engines at high power, four engines at medium power, or six engines at low power. An investigation of the propulsive efficiencies and fuel consumptions of various engine combinations is required to establish the most efficient operation.
level is dependent

Main-

taining a high performance pulsive efficiency inefficient well-matched for all

upon maintaining high proVery clean aircraft with

flight requirements.

propulsive systems will show up poorly when compared with powerplant/airframe combin tions.

PROPULSION CONSIDERATIONS The curves is 0.9 of Figure 7 indicate how the maximum propulsive efiiciency is increased beyond recent

dograded as the tip Mach number of the propeller (Reference logy in 3). These curves do not take

into account ITaV

the most

t.techno

contemporary propeller

deSign which

include using variable of c ruise

geonlevt y

to achieve hiih stat ic Excluding thit, curves thle 1e mrits

t h rust with i minimum comproomiist oi the vet

t fficinercN. proe l ers,

unproved variahle-geometry des ig!n of a freepropel ler

do ind icat

that( i n thie

-3

VTOL vehicle (where static conditions dictate the selection of propeller diameter and power train gearing), seemingly well-matched propellers

may not retain a high propulsive efficiency when operating at an altitude cruise condition. If the tip speeds are not maintai ed near a maximum the hover condition, wnere the demands on the prothere will necessarily be a weight Assuming that this requirement one should look The progiven

permissible level in

pulsion system are the greatest, penalty in

the entire propulsive group.

exists for the particular design under consideration,

at the resulting tip speeds under crnising flight conditions.

'y:

peller helical tip Mach number fir the forward flight condition is

MT

M(, V/) + 1

At the cruising altitudes and speeds considered for most ASW mission profiles, the aircraft cruise Mach number would be between 0.4 and 0.5.

To avoid the compressible flow losses associated with operating a conventional propeller above a tip Mach number of 0.9, variables appearing in one or more of the With a given only engine

the expression must be decreased.

flight speed and altitude, rotational speed (n)

and the propeller diameter fixed,

can be diminished.

Old piston engines provided simple turbo

does not.. more

this reduction in r~m for the cruise power settings; however,

machinery,

running at nearly constant rpm for any power setting, be drawn that efficient VTOL aircraft

The conclusion i'-, complex engines.

may require

Fig~ure 8 shows of four

the character is tic

propel Icr shaft Speed .f percent

reduc t ion power.

turboprop elgignes as a functi," turboprop (TP-SS'

normal-rated

The single-shaft a dec ri-ase in

engine shows t urhoprop

no speed
,

reduction with

power.

The doulbi

-shaft

or tree-turbine
"4

(TP- DS )
pe r1ceInt

engi ne,
power;

shows almost

20 percC'lt

rot2tiOnal

speed reduction alt

(RTP-SS) tnu

and the single-shaft

rcgcnerati vt

ite shows a sirui lar

speed reduction at 35 percent normal rated power (see References 4 through 6). The curve also shows an RTP-DS engine with approximately turbine speed at low power. Such an engine This engine is

30 percent reduction in

would be a free turbine with a regenerative cycle.

suggested as the type which may be necessary to optimize performance over the large span of flight requirements vertical take-off and high-speed cruise. In addition to considering turbine speed, power output through the propeller efficiency, which changes air horseit is necessary to consider The for VTOL aircraft, including

the specilic fuel consurntion (sfc) at desirable power settings.

desirable effect of reducing turbine speed at low power will be lost if the engine sfc is high. For example, turbine speed characteristics of

the free turbine (TP-DS)

shown are nearly satisfactory with the engine However, the sfc at this power setting At ap-

operating near 40 percent power. is

approximately 30 percent higher than the sfc at full power.

proximately the same low percent power,

(R'rP-SS) percent). connected, is significantly With all stages

the sfc of the regenerative turbine

full power (approximately 10

lower than that at

of the single-shaft

regenerative engine interturbine output speed

this engine does not offer the ultimate in

characteristics.

The engine suggested as desirable for free-propeller

VTOL aircraft would essentially incorporate the best features of the free
turbine power). ends of If in (speed relaxati on) and the regenerative cycle (low sfc at low both

This is

probably a complex engine with variable geometry in

the gas cycle. the cruise speeds for the aircraft require the maximum reduction efficiencies, to as then low

,ngine rotational speed to

ulaintain high propulsive in

one sho lId consider that as 15 per-celt of normali

Cllginc- power ratted power.

cruise may be reduced

The turbine characteristics would this six-engine aircraft should Some

then

indicatt, that

under most encines

conditions

be cruised with all consi doration 11111 bht t lilt ;lICCLs t ofor

rnllllning Lt

the lowest power setting. opcr-a ion, but it is

given to four-engine

believed

two-t cu I i t, operat i o) t he pro o)ted

ill tOlt' eflficient of

cru'lise

range wotuld

ht. to)() 1ow

requirements

t his aircraft.

S-

go

hs

Many VTOL" design concepts have not given serious consideration propulsive efficiency in cruise.

to

Looking at this problem for each indi-

vidual design makes many of them unacceptable. Performance predictions engine specifications (Reference st-t-of-the-art p'esntly in 6). for this vehicle have been made using the regenerative is turboprop engine reasonable

of a single-shaft,

The regenerative

turboprop

considered to be a

engine development, service. TRADEOFFS diie-ted

although no engines of this type are

PERFORMANCE

Whmn attcnf ion is

toward a

specific aircraft

speed,

it

is

necessary to select the operating point on the power/speed curve or equivalent lift/drag curve. If payload/range characteristics are of Cruising

primary importance, at (L/D) a is

cruise must be at the maximum equivalent L/D. aircraft, but it often requires

max higher altitudes or lower speeds than are desirable.

is not considered for the seaplane,

possible for all

flying at

Flying at (L/D)max
issued by Air Programs,

Recommendations

Naval Application Group of the Office of Naval Research indicate that a cruise speed of the order of 300 knots, most ASW missions altitude limits, is, off its it (Reference is 7). or greater, is desirable for

To approach a speed of 300 knots within (L/D) max; that

necessary to fly the seaplane "off"

most efficient cruise point. the tradeoffs in in

A performance analysis has been against an increase in in a pro-

completed to weigh speed. portionLi

payload/range

A slight reduction increase in

aerodynamic efficiency results

the fuel requirement.

This vehicle should be capable

of accepting

the penalty of flying "off design" to achieve acceptable

cruise speeds.
overweight mode. sents It if is

The additional
the, initial

fuel load required will not make the vehicle

is assumed to be in the short iake-off

take-off

tihe vertical

take-off or vertical of the aircraft. in It

landing weight

that repre-

the limiting weight

will be necessary to fuel fuel burn-

the aircraft off will Fiyre

with a specific mission allow arrival 9 shows lift/drag in the tactical

mind so that transit

area at design VTOL weight. performance at variGus weights for

the aircraft's ratio of

an eqtiivalent

10.35.

The two curves which define

the

-6(--

performance of the airplane, within propeller-tip Mach-number limits of 0.9, (RTP-SS) are the predicted performance of a regenerative turboprop and the hypothetical VTOL engine (RTP-DS). With the regener-

ative turboprop,

speeds from 260 to 290 knots are attainable at altitudes At these speeds, is the specific range of almost constant at 0.095.

from 21,000 to 16,000 feet. the aircraft,

in miles per pound of fuel,

The hypothetical engine allows a significant improvement in aircraft efficiency, feet). but only by operating at very high altitudes (above 25,000

These altitudes are not considered consistent with mission Furthermore, the hypothetical engine installation does the seaplane cruise speed.

requirements.

not produce a significant increase in

WIND-TUNNEL TESTS Wind-tunnel tests have been conducted in facilities at the Aerodynamics Laboratory, the handling qualities, the 8by 10-foot subsonic

Taylor Model Basin to determine and flight per-*

transition stability and control,

formance of the V/STOL seaplane. the model in in

Figure 10 shows the unpowered version of Figure 11 shows the powered model

its cruise configuration.

the hover mode.

These tests involve tilting the wings to establish the

trim conditions throughout the transition phase of flight. Results of the tunnel tests to date indicate that the configuration, as shown, demonstrates slight static longitudinal instability in cruise. when compared with finite wing theory, substantiate tests and a

The drag measurements,

the prediction that the downwash from the canard destroyed the elliptic lift distribution on the main wing. Results of the wind-tunnel for thf! seaplane cruise performance are reported in Reference 6, report of transition characteristics It is is in preparation. the aircraft geometry can A small investiga-

predicted that a modification in

result in a substantial resolution of these prcblems.

tion for the optimization of high-aspect-ratio canard configuration geometry is planned. AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS In discussion with personnel in Weapons, the ASW Office of the Bureau of Naval

the suggestion was made that consideration be given to the Air

-7PRNC-GEN-175 (Rev. 12-55)

Transportable Sound S-rveillance System (ATSSS) buoy concept, the activepassive unit now under development (Reference 9). it This system would prowould prevent data

vide the aircraft with multi-sensor deployment; degradation from tuowing effects; and it tact during aircraft manueverso

should give unbroken target con-

The ATSSS buoy is shown in Figure 12. it

While the ATSSS concept considers both active and passive operation, was further suggested that if

the system were to be used only passively

for target tracking, a buoy designed for purely passive operation might have only half the weight of the ATSSS system (about 1,500 pounds), a three-fold increase in battery life could be expected (permitting nearly 24 hours of operation), improved in and the bearing accuracy might be The cyclic operation would be ap-

the passive mode to 3.

proximately the same as the initial ATSSS concept--15 minutes to lower the array and 30 minutes to raise it. It is assumed that The size would It is further con-

remain the same as that of the original buoy concept.

sidered that a modified A-New Data Handling System would be incorporated The system modifications would delete items not re-in the airplane. quired to perform. the mission selected. Other systems considered for the 180 0 -scan radar, low-light-level

aircraft are: a limited Jezebel capability, TV, and automatic ECM. An artist's

conception of the seaplane in a functional The seaplane is

layout is

presented in Figure 13. vertical floats. system.

shown sitting on inflatable considered to be a Mod-2 A-New

The tactical layout is

Volume requirements

for specified equipment have been considered, Minimum personnel requirements would

using standard aircraft rack sizes.

include: a three-man flight crew, a five-man tactical crew, and a buoy handler. The inset, Figure 13, shows the stowage location for four buoys:

two aft of the main wing and two in a trough under the floor of the data compartment. These buoys will be ejected and retrieved through a buoy A large portion of buoy handling

shoot aft of the main support float.

would have to be done with automated power equipment because of their weight and size. Proposals are in existence whereby buoy deployment feasible.

and retrieval should be operationally

-8-

ASW MISSIONS

The seaplane has been considered for three ASW missions: contact maintenance It is (tracking), contact investigation, and the temporary barrier.

not implied specifically that the seaplane cannot perform such amphibious area screen.ing,

missions as convoy and task-force screening, and open-ocean search. It is, however,

believed that these missions can

be more economically performed by other vehicle systems. CONTACT MAINTENANCE The principal mission for the seaplane is considered to bE that of

maintaining contact with enemy nuclear submarines for extended time periods. It is further considered that continuous tracking would be in

a passive mode of operation without the submarine being aware of the aircraft's presence. by some other means. Contact maintenance presupposes target localization Target localization by some other means signifies essentially the take-over of a tracking

that contact maintenance is command.

Figure 14 shows the sequenace of events to complete a mission Considering the case of a target 1,000 miles from the

command change. base harbor,

transit and buoy deployment--from cold start to rest--can be Near the end of the cruise-out leg of would initiate an interrogation This interro--

effected in 4 hours and 18 minutes. transit,

the tactical coordinator (TACCO)

of the computer on board the vehicle holding the target. gation would be done ia

automatic radio data link, where the memory in read into the memory of the arriving aircraft. completed, a data presentation is available in

the tactical computer is When the interrogation is both vehicles. Hence,

a determination of the most effective buoy deployThis degree of coordination

ment can be made by the arriving TACCO.

allows the arriving aircraft to transition and effectively deploy three of its four buoys in the 4 hours and 18 minutes. The basic tracking or contact maintenance mission is ure 15. It is shown in Fig-

believed that this coverage represents a satisfactory if attack is not imminent. Buoys 2, 3, The aircraft and 4 are

level of passive localization, is

sitting at position 1, with buoy I on board.

deployed.

The circles around each buoy represent the acoustical range for 40 percent detection probability against a 5-knot

(24 kiloyards)

-9-

. 12-55)

submarine. tactical cent. speed,

Notice that buoy 2 is since its

rapidly becoming useless to the is down to 20 per-

situation,

detection probability

These percentages, form the basis

functions of buoy detection range and submarine of the tactical situation in a

for an assessment

mathematical analysis. The detection probabilities lishing seaplane maneuvering with any one buoy must be at must total 50, are used as a set of limits for estabioe., the percentage associated

requirements; least 20,

the percentages

for any two buoys 120o determine

and the percentages

for all

three buoys must total

These specific limits,

together with other "fix" quality criteria shown in Figure 15 is

that the buoy deployment

satisfactory and the sea-

plane should remain at rest. In an actual passive is a tracking situation, signal strength in a given sea

environment

function of submarine speed and the signal is

attenuated

as a function of range. the quantity

These acoustical energy phenomena will influence from any signal source. treatment in is the The obvious.

and quality of date available

analogy of the physical conditions COMPUTER SIMULATION following paragraphs. Initial Condition3 all
---

to the mathematical

The computer simulation -is

detailed

It

is

obvious

that problem analysis becomes the

quite complex if buoys,

factors covering the status of the submarine,

and the aircraft

are to be investigated over long periods of time. has been of an is

For this reason a simulation procedure for the IBM 7090 computer devised. Thus far, it has been applied It

to the contact maintenance is assumed that

on-station enemy nuclear submarine. maneuvering in a non-ordered pattern,

the submarine

at speeds

from 0 to 5 knots.

This

tactical situation is assignment

believed to represent a very difficult

tracking

for an airborne :;vstem. shown in Figure 16.

A simple representation of the computer Initial conditions are established by speed, and duration on a the true

simulation is

random selection of the submarine true-course, particular leg, In small time intervals,

the computer updates geometry,

submarine data and the true buoy-submarine tection probabilities. availability

and determines de-

Detection probability is -IO-

the index of data

to the aircraft
VW -CGEH-1i75 (Re

-ifL
Sensor Characteristics sensor characteristics. are presented. rates -- At this point, it is necessary to consider In Figure 17, the assumed buoy characteristics incorpoThe curve at the left, lateral detection range,

the assumption that at zero speed,

a nuclear submarine will generate

some machinery noise from pumps and generators and can be assigned a finite detection range (10 kiloyards). assumed that the submarine is range is At a 15-knot transit speed, it is

detectable at 40 kiloyards.

The detection

assumed constant beyond 20 nautical miles because of convergence The right-hand side of the curve, smoothed for computa-

associated with the reliable acoustic path. curve is tion. It essentially the transmission-loss

reflects the logarithmic variation associated with sonar devices. Returning to Figure 16, a random number system,

Data Availability -indexed to probability, aircraft (Reference 10).

dictates when tactical data are available to the Under actual tactical conditions, data would

probably be available only in bits and pieces. lates the real data availability quite well. computer analyzes the data given, quired. It

The random system simuThe aircraft side of the re-

and decides whether maneuvering is

then updates the aircraft's status accordingly.

Arbitrary

statistical rules for aircraft maneuvering must be established as program inputs, and the aircraft can only maneuver within the constraints of the While the program remains flexible and can the

initial input parameters.

incorporate nearly any maneuver that can be expressed mathematically, computer will exercise that maneuver only when the criterion for the required maneuver is and, satisfied. A human TACCO could exercise judgment

in some cases, would delay, abort,

or completely eliminate maneuvers,

a choice not available in this simulation program. Aircraft Maneuvers -is buoys changes constantly. In any tactical situation, unless the submarine The TACCO monitoring the situation should order

sitting, the relative position of the submarine with respect to the

maneuvers as the confidence level of the data presentation reaches some lower limit. Figure 18 shows a typical maneuver. It is an extension

of the earlier passive localization case.

The figure shows the aircraft

flying from its original position 1 (at the lowr left) and depositing buoy 1 (which was on board) ahead and beside the predicted track of the

-11PRNC-GEN-175 (Rev. 12-55)

submarine.

At this time,

the deep unit of buoy 2 is

commanded to rise,

via the UHF command link, and the pilot flys the aircraft to the position of buoy 2 for retrieval. is given in Figure 19. The frequency of aircraft maneuvers is controlled by the necessity The sequence of events for an on-station maneuver

of continuously maintaining a satisfactory level of target localization. If some minimum level is violated, Therefore, there is a high risk of losing the buoys must be periodically moved to a new location A total of 120 percent cumulative The total of 140 perFigure 18, provides

target.

that will hold the target satisfactorily. probabiliLy on three buoys was shown in

Figure 15.

cent immediately after an aircraft maneuver,

as given in

additional target coverage so that another buoy replacement would not be required for some time. Probability, which is a measure of target distance corrected for is not the single basis for determi-

signal strength due to target speed, nation of buoy replacement. rays from pairs of buoys
nmsL

The intersection angle between the detecting also be considered. For example, although

the signal strength may be high when the distance between a buoy and the target is small, no accurate target fix can be made if the lines of signal

transmission are nearly parallel, this quality reduction in the fix.

The computer simulation takes account of

A technique for handling a target lost during a tracking mission has been incorporated into the simulation program. Ideally, the "go lost" tracking

route would not be implemented if properly. course, However,

the aircraft sensor system is

after certain sporadic changes in and a special pattern is then, is required.

target speed or

the available data from a conventional buoy deployment pattern The recommended

are unsatisfactory, tracking procedure,

to hold the target as loosely as possible, while reestablishing the

minimizing the number of buioy movwments required, oasir contact pattern.

Here th& seaplane accepts a slightly higher risk

of belhng detected by deploying the buoy on board at a range of 10 kiloyards

from the predicted position of the target,

The probability that the about 10 A

seeilane will be detected in the hover mode at this range is percent.

The scaplane immediately returns to the most remote buoy.

-12PRNC-G N-17b (Rev. 12-55)

second alteration to standard procedure was that the remote buoy was commanded to rise immediately when the "go lost" routine was ordered. During on-station maneuvers, determines the take-oif, drop, the index of sea-state condition Where

and landing modes of the aircraft.

sea states are low, short take-offs and landings would be used to conserve fuel. In the digital program, the dividing line for VTOL maneuvers per manuever, is quite

was between sea states 3 and 4. high in

Fuel consumption,

either case because of the full power required for take-off and a nominal saving is experienced in STOL operations.

landing; however, It is

the length of time between maneuvers,

not the amount of fuel per

maneuver,

that makes the system competitive on the basis of pounds of fuel Typical transit distances involved in an on-station The time per maneuver is maneuvering, usually

burned per hour.

maneuver are 30 to 80 nautical miles. 20 to 35 minutes. temporary break in

While the aircraft is

there may be a

the line-of-sight data link between buoy and aircraft. the buoys may

Should this interruption occupy a significant time interval,

require a short-term tape memory 6ystem which could be interrogated when the data link is reestablished. Several thousand hours of simulated tracking have Table 2 is a summary of some submarine was maintaining

COMPUTER RESULTS --

been completed on the IBM 7090.

track patterns and the fuel used by the seaplane while it target contact.

The seaplane had maneuvered essentially as shown in

Figure 16 throughout the time spans considered. Because the submarine tracks are generated from random inputs, is tracking problem for the seaplane sensor system. it difficult to assess which submarine maneuvers present the most exacting The average hourly fuel

consumption of the seaplane, which depends primarily upon the number of maneuvers required, difficult cases. The number of times the target is lost may also prove to be a good In should be weighed heavily in estimating the more

indication of the difficulty of maintaining continuous contact. general,

the results show that any submarine track which includes abrupt or quality of fix (bearing change) for a tactical coordinator.

changes ini signal strength (speed change)

would present the more difficult tracking problems

-13_-VW 000 PRMC-GEN-175 (Rev. 12-5b)

A comparison of the fuel used by the seaplane,

per hour of tracking,

with that of contemporary airborne tracking systems shows that the seaplane represents a substantial improvement. No direct comparison is

made regarding the relative merit of the seaplane versus the conventional fixed-wing aircraft in stdying with a target. It may be stated, however,

that tracking an on-station submarine with magnetic-anomaly detection (MAD) gear represents a considerably more difficult assignment, and in

the assumed time frame may be impossible. Looking at the amount of fuel burned per hour would indicate that the seaplane should be capable of staying on-station for extended time periods. Crew endurance rather than fuel limitation may then become the A double, or nearly double, crew may be reUnfortu-

measure of mission length.

quired to realize the full mission potential of the aircraft. nately,

accomodation of a double crew requires further vehicle growth.

In one mission that was assumed to have a mean level of fuel consumption, 35 hours transpired from crew briefing to debriefing. The time

in actual tracking operations was 21 hours, of fuel was burned.

during which 14,000 pounds

This schedule produces about 60 percent useful utirequired coordinated refuelings with and duty assignments inconsistent

lization of mission time; but it

the previous and following seaplanes, with the number of personnel on board.

One additional aspect of the data available to the TACCO showed that the quality of the fix varied. a displacement and bearing error in A part of the simulation results was the predicted target position. The

human operator would see the geometry of target-buoy deployment, would be displayed on the TACCO console in the real mission.

as it

There are

patterns which yield high quality fixes and those of low quality--thus, the display is a quality index. It is most significant that the posiassumed for the buoy, is

tioning errors for the :0 bearing accuracy,

well within the acquisition range of present weapons when the quality of fix is high.

A simulation of the contact maintenance problem on the IBM 7090 computer is ASW mission. not intended to be a final statement of the case for the All of the inputs used in the program %ere based upon the

-14-RG7e2
__ PRM-GEN-I75 (Rev. i2-55)

best information available. teristics

However,

in

many cases

the system charac-

had not been sufficiently defined to assign an absolute value parameters.

to specific

The random number and probability technique used to generate submarine tracks and assess data availability is followed in lieu of a

satisfactory definition of enemy submarine tactics and final sensor capability. If an estimate of the length of time and the accuracy with the computer

which a tracking mission could be carried out resulted, simulation has guidelines concept

then served the intended purpose of providing a set of The final usefulness of the seaplane sub-system

to evaluate the concept.

can be appreciated only by allowing the appropriate the results;

experts an opportunity to evaluate ation, to establish practical

and from such an evalu-

limitations

for application of the concept

to specific Navy requirements. CONTACT INVESTIGATION The second major ASW problem compatible with the seaplane is contact investigation. in As initially considered, transport aircraft. that of

this mission would be An early disclosure

conducted

conjunction with a

of the ATSSS proposal showed a parachute deployment of the buoy from the P-3 aircraft, vehicle, as shown in Figure 20. The seaplane would be the tactical The transport would be a In addition, it is

and would carry only two ATSSS buoys.

buoy carrier and would use parachute deployment.

considered that the transport would carry additional The transport requires

fuel for the seaplane. so

the addition of accurate navigation equipment in a very accurate manner.

that deployment can be made

To establish the framework for this mission, must be made. It is assumed that a contact aircraft It is is

a series of assumptions perhaps visually, making

reported,

from an over-flight

or from a small ship (or fishing boat)

a periscope sighting.

further assumed that this fix might have a five nautical miles. The contact may be posi-

positioning error of as much as

an acoustical one from a fixed passive array in which the initial tioning error may be 50 nautical miles.

Since the data from the acoustical

contact can be updated constantly as the airplane progresses on the outward track, the mission for the visual sighting of a 15-knot transiter and

-15PRNC-GEN-17S (Rev. !2-55)

nMOP-

that of the acoustical contact are not markedly different.

A third

assumption considers that the area commander has placed a very high priority on entrapment of this target. this type of mission is Finally, it is assumed that

ordinarily carried out and that there are air-

craft and crews on immediate standby status. Figure 21 represents a visual contact, which is miles from base. assumed to be 600 for 1,500

The lateral detection range of the active ATSS, is assumed to be 30 kiloyards in

the geographical area considered, fathoms of water.

The mission commander ascribes a speed to the contact, In the figure it is

and this speed establishes the level of effort.

assumed that a transit speed of 15 knots has been assigned. and trinsport cruise speeds were 275 knots and 325 knots, however, both aircraft are dispatched together.

The seaplane

respectively;

Although the transport

arrives in Archimedes'

the tactical area and begins deployment of buoys on the spiral prior to arrival of the seaplane, the seaplane will be The

within monitoring distance when the first buoy data are available. seaplane proceeds into the area and deposits two buoys (Is lands beside buoy 2s for monitoring purposes.

and 2s); then

A detection picket fence is

essentially established with the planting of buoy 11, and the pattern can be abandoned at any time a positive identification is earlier buoy. If established by an

The advantage of the twelfth buoy will be shown, subsequently.

the estimate of submarine transit speed was not low and the initial con(five nautical miles), then entrapment is quite certain.

tact area was not greater than the 75 square miles associated with the positioning error If

the submarine should continue on any heading at 15 knots or less from then detection with this system would be only an index of the probability of detection dropped. The specific

the time of initial contact, a matter of time.

Figure 22 is

as a function of the time after the first buoy is assumption is heading, This is

that the subrmarine did transit at 15 knots, along any given only remotely realistic. Actually,

from the time of initial contact until the barrier was intercepted. a very specific case, which is

It the submarine would, in all probability, exercise evasive tactics. can be assumed that the submarine would have a better acoustical range

-16PRNC-GER-175 (Rev. 12-55)

than the buoys (through the use of a conformal array or some other technique), and therefore could identify the active buoys beyond the However, the entrapment fence would be closed If the submarine were to continue its This

buoy detection range.

before escape could be effected. evasive tactics,

sanitizing the center region might be necessary.

can be done with buoys presently on hand--hence,

buoy 12--but an addiSeveral facets of

tional fuel suFply would be necessary for the seaplane.

this seaplane operation dictate that the seaplane should be capable of air-to-air refueling from a transport tanker. With this capability, the

seaplane (with the buoys already deployeJ1 in the water) can sanitize the center area in 12 buoy movements, rather difficult work. This mission has been considered as requiring active ATSSS (3,000pound buoys) to prevent escape of the most quiet boats. It may be reasoned that the 15-knot transiter is mode buoys. sufficiently noisy to allow the use of passive requiring approxLmacel. tour hours of

This would have the a.dvantage of denying deployment informa-

tion to the target and establishing the entrapment fence with less expensive buoys. Perhaps the initial assessmnent of target threat should include an assumption as to boat propalsion system. * The quiet diesel-electric system

might require the more expensive active-buoy system; but concurrently, the transit speed assessmetit will lower the level of effort applied. Obviously, it is difficult for the aircraft designer to more than suggest where tactical doctrine is so question-

a mission capability in this case, ,able.

The reality of this mission description is uniquely dependent upon

a doctrine committing a large expenditure of personnel and equipment to

an individual entrapment.

TEMPORARY BARRIER The third ASW mission for which the seaplane is the temporary barrier. idea)ly suited is

This role takes advantage of worldwide deployment Reference 7 specifies

capability of the seaplane in relatively short time. a requirement for a 2,200-nautical-mile

ferry range against a 5G-knot The seaplane demongiving

head wind as a performance level for this deployment.

strates this capability within the ll5,000-pound STO allowance,

PRNC-GEN-175 (Rev.

12-5

one hour reserve at a "loiter power" setting.

Block time is

of the

order of 10 hours for the fully operational configuration. Specialized equipment and manpower support is of this mission. a natural necessity

Providing this support would suggest the coordinated Where deployment is enhanced by high-speed seaplane loading

use of transport aircraft. transport capability,

a variety of alterations in

exists; and no conjecture will be made as to best procedure. Although this mission has not been detailed to any specific degree in this paper, it is not difficult to imagine that a contact investigaestablish

tion network--in conjunction with the transport aircraft--could

about 375 to 400 nautical miles of barrier net in a similar time frame to that used in the contact investigation, if the transit legs were of the would be if order of 600 miles. With these buoys deployed along a line, it

necessary to use more than one seaplane to act as monitor.

Further,

a contact maintenance mission were to develop from a contact investigation in the temporary barrier, then an additional seaplane (fitted with passive An airplane so configured could be

buoys)

would necessarily be required.

used as the second monitoring aircraft by leaving the active barrier net and concentrating on the contact maintenance, if that should be desirable.

SPECIAL-PURPOSE VEHICLE The Navy has a variety of other missions where a seaplane, good seaworthiness, submarine resupply, would be advantageous. command control, etc. with

These could be air-sea rescue, After determining the weight

of such a configured vehicle,

the performance curves of Figure 9 could be An exception exists in the case of air-

applied for a capability index.

sea rescue where a high "dash speed" may be required for the outbound leg. At the sacrifice of propeller efficiency, appears feasible. However, a dash speed of 355 knots

for a 1,000-nautical-mile mission radius,

careful cruise control would be required on the return leg to complete the mission within the available fuel supply. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The V/STOL seaplane with its specified svstems and predicted performance would provide aii ASW capab ilitv not now available.
"" - 18 .-

This,
l

to
r kJ AI

some extent,

is

dependent upon a presumption that the degree of sensor to achieve the desired level of performance, requires

sophistication,

that the buoys be inexpendable and that they be recovered a very high percentage of the time. Other recognized ASW systems appear to be much less suited to prolonged passive tracking. Only an airborne system (acoustically isolated) or complex fixed-barrier arrays can amass large stores of signature data for target classification reference. Only such a self-sustaining airborne

system can remain with a target long enough to establish enemy tactical doctrine. Both signature and tactics of a target aware of being tracked Achievement of the passive deoffer an important

may be compromised by countermeasures.

tection capability described in this paper will, thus, step forward in the solution of the entire ASW problem.

To have an ASW vehicle/sensur combination like the V/STOL seaplane concept ready for operational use in be required in the following areas: the 1970's, considerable work would

1.i Propulsion a. Engine development emphasizing low sfc at low power (regen(double shafting).

erative cycle) and turbine speed relaxation b. Propeller development,

especially weight and structure,

including variable camber with supersonic tip design. c. mediumn. 2. Aerodynamics a. b. A design study to establish weight and structural limits. Definition ot handling qualities through the transition Propeller environmentally designed for the recirculation

phase of flight. 3. Sensors a. b. c. Continuing development of air transportable systems. Attending to the development of a purely passive buoy. (non-

Leaving open the utilization of newly developed

acoustic) sensor systems.

-19-

4.

Avionics a. b. c.

(Navigation, Communication and Data Processing)

Improvements in long and short range precisi a navigation. Relaying of tactical data through communication channels. Sophistication of data reduction, analysis, and display.

5.

Seakeeping a. Development of a retractable inflatable float system,

recognizing specific stowing and structural problems. b. Testing various configurations to establish which wil give

the greatest attenuation of wave motion in the open-ocean; hopefully allowing crews to operate effectively in 6. Naval Environment a. Investigation of the particular handling problems involved sea state 5 or greater.

in operating over water at a disc loading of 50 pounds per square ifoot (sea spray, dynamic and static stabi]ity). b. operation Determine the acoustic signature generated in all modes of (hover, take-off, landing, sitting with only auxiliary power).

Many of the development areas enumerated are included within the continuing effort to improve existing systems, and only moderate alter-

ations would be required to adapt these improvements to the seaplane concept. Other arcas, however, present problems peculiar to this vehicle

and would require considerable innovations.

Aerodynamics Laboratory David Taylor Model Basin Washington, D.C. september 1965

-20PRNC-GEN-175 (Rev. 12-55)

REFERENCES
1. Vought Aeronautics Div. (LTV Aerospace Corp.). XC-142A Performance

Data. 2. Rafner,
(N.Y.), 3. Stack,

Dallas, R.

Jul 1963.

lv. (various pagings) Journal of Aircraft

Domain of the Convertible Rotor.

Nov-Dec Eugene C. 1964, p. 350-359.

v.1,

John,

Draley,

James B. Delano and L'is

Feldman.

Investigation of the NACA 4-(3)(08)-03 and NACA 4-(3)(08)-045 TwoBlade Propellers at Forward Mach Numbers to 0.725 to Determine Effects of Compressibility and Solidity on Performance. G.P.O., 1950. 32 p. Rpt. incl. 999) Navy Model T56-A-10W Military 42 p. illus. (Model illus. Wash., the

(National Advisory Committee

for Aeronautics. 4.

Allison Div. (General Motors Corp.) Turboprop Engine.

Indianapolis* Aug 1962.

Specification 479-C) 5. General Electric Co. T64-GE-6. Lynn, Engine, Aircraft, lurboshaft T64-GE-2 and incl. illus. (Model

Mass.,

Mar 1961.

[356] p.

Specification E1057) 6. Allison Div. (General Motors Corp.) Navy Models T78-A-2 and YT78-A-2 [Title Unclassified]. (Model Specification 649) CGNFIDENTIAL 7. Coates, L. D. Solicitation of Technical Inputs for Open Ocean ASW

Military Regenerative Turboprop Engine Indianapolis, Jul. 1963. 72 p. illus.

Weapons System Feasibility Study [Title Unclassified]. Mar 1964.

Ser. 8. Thomas,

Wash.,

[14] p.

(Office of Naval Research ltr ONR:461:CWG:meb

(1)-(6)) CONFIDENTIAL 1/20-Scale

0482 of 23 Mar 1964 with Encl. Richard 0.

Wind-Tunnel Investigation of a in

Powered Model Tilt-Wing V/STOL Seaplane Wash., Rpt. 9. Aug 1965. 2079. 32 1. incl. 1093) U.S. illus.

the Cruise Configuration.

(David Taylor Model Basin. CONFIDENTIAL

Aero Rpt.

(DDC AD 472 709)

The Bunker-Ramo Corp. System ATSSS 20 p. incl,

Navy Air Transportable Sonar Surveillance Canoga Park, Calif,, Jun 1964. CONFIDENTIAL 100,000 Normal Deviates.

(Title Unclasrified). illus.

"10.

The Rand Corp.

A Million Randum Digits With

Chicago, Free Press,

1955.

200 p.

-21PRNC-GEN-175 (Rev. 12-55)

Ii.

Dewey,

D. B.

Full-Scale Demonstration of the Vertical San Diego, Oct 1963.

Float Sea-Stabilization Concept. 25 p. incl. illus.

(General Dynamics/Convair GD/C-.63-200.

Contract NOw 63-0793-f)

-22PRNC-GEI-17b (Rev. 12-55)

Table I Aircraft Physical Characteristics Lifting Surfaces Wing Area in sq ft Span in M.A.C. ft in ft 1000 100.0 10.34 0.5 10.0

Taper ratio Aspect ratio Dihedral in degrees WS 0 to WS 195 WS 195 to WS 600 Airfoil section Root Tip Flaps (plain) Canard Area in sq ft
Span in ft

0 5.5

NACA 4412 NACA 4412 Aileron 0.20c

250
50.0

M.AoC.

in

ft

5.17 0.5 10.0

Taper ratio Asper* ratio Dihedral in degrees

WS 0 to WS 60
WS 60 to WS 300 Airfoil section Root Tip Flaps (plain)

0
5.5

NACA 4415 NACA 4412 Elevator 0.20c

-23-

PRN-GF4-175

(Rev.

12-55)

Table I (Concluded) Vertical Tail sq ft ft in ft in degrees 350 24.5 14.16 25

Area in Span in M.AoC. Sweep

(quarter-chord)

Airfoil section Root Tip Dorsal fin area in Rudder -sq ft NACA 0012 NACA 0008 42.0 0.30

(plain flap): c r/c

Rur1
Hull Length in Width in Height in ft ft ft cu ft (approx.) fiber) 20.0 120 10 15 3000

Cabin volume in Propellers

(reenforced ft

synthetic

Diameter in

Disc area (total) in sq ft Solidity

Engines (regenerative turboprop type) (Allison T-78

1884 0.13

specifications Power Setting in shp

increased 22 percent)

Military Normal
Vertical Floats Diameter in Wing-tip ft float (pneumatic; internally coiled)

4682 4122

3.0 3.0 7.0

Nose flcat C.G. float

-24PRNC-GEN-17b fRev. 12-55)

Table 2 Summary of Submarine Tactics and Aircraft Fuel Consumption [0 to 5-knot submarine. Averaged over a 300-hour period] Average Course Changes in deg Predominately high and low speeds; 12 stops taking 58.2 percent of time Predominately high and low speeds; stops taking 29.4 percent of time 10 73 Average Course Duration in hours 6.0 Seaplane Fuel Consumption in lb/hr 345.7

70

4.5

475.5

Even distribution; 0-4 knots only; 19 stops taking 32.5 percent of time Even distribution; 0-4 knots only; 16 stops taking 17.5 percent of time Even distribution; 9 stops taking 21.8 percent of time Biased slightly toward low speeds; 11 stops taking 20.5 percent of time Biased slightly toward low speeds; stops taking 9.3 percent of time Biased slightly toward low speeds; stops taking 11.3 percent of time Even distribution; no stops Predominately high and lov speeds; 11 stops taking 12 percent of time 11

70

3.1

507.0

68

3.0

604.8

58

4.0

616.8

66

3.1

650.4

70

4.5

682.2

12

68

4.0

711.8

70 75

3.1 6.0

730.0 803.2

Biased slightly toward low speeds; 6 stops taking 14.9 percent of time Even distribution; no stops

70

6.0

814.7

70

4.0

898.8

-25-

PRWC-GflI-I7

e,

10
9

7'
LV

6_

TILT-WING TRANSPORT
-

5 4

--

(PREDICTED)

-TANDEM HELO
-

-*-1

-I-------1-- CONVERTIBLE ROTOR VECTORED SLIPSTREAM

,,,, # 2 l

Figure 1 - Nondimensional VTOL Vehicle Comparison of Equivalent Lift-Drag Ratio versus Speed

-26PRNC-GEN-175 (Rev. 12-55)

3.0

-. j

6- 2.0
S2O
z

JET LIFT LIFT

FANS DUCTED

0
-!

-F 1.0 ""i0

LtJ3:PROP

PROPELLERS FREE ELLERS ' HELICOPTER ROTORS

0.0

r7

I-

1 ,

3
Figure 2
-

10

20 30

50

100

200

500

1000 2000

5000

DISC LOADING I" PSF

Classical Propulsion System Loading for [lover Flight

-27-

PRNC-GFN-175 (Rev.

12-55)

C7)

-28-'

QRCGM

15 (e .1-5

T4o

337

6.2 5 50.0

16-25
-

--

900.0 I D

S.

----

. .

-. H6.7

Note:

Dimensions

are

in

feet.

i3.3 .

h.
. 23.4
-

28.8
24.9
-

~~75.0
Z,

81.1

/ , . _. T
-

-- 137-

245

233 -:
L2.92

6.8
.........

/
/ i --$"-M/

..-..-.....

15-0

216.3

Figure .1 - Principal Dimensions of the Seaplane

-29P40 N-I' b RRev 1122-55 5

12

-DTMB

VTOL SEAPLANE

10-

--

7--5
-

" ___

TILT-WING TRANSPORTJ
(PREDICTED)

TANDEM HELO 3--2 _ " m CONVERTIBLE I.., ROTOR I I <DUCTED FAN I f -VECTORED SLIPSTREAM

"o

Figure 5

Nondimensional VTOL Vehicle Comparison Including the Seaplane Design

"-30PRNC-GEN-175 (Rev, 12-55)

2.8

"T 2.8 DUCTED

-r-

FAN

2.4
2.0 SP 12.0 = |--ECTORED SLIPSTREAM ,m * t HELO TILT-WING TRANSPORTt (PREDICTED) 'DTMB VTOL SEAPLANE 56789 V VPSm
Figure 6
-

W\

.2TANDEM 0.8 -.-

0.4

CONVERTIBLE ROTOR S~(PREDICTED)1 0 1 2 3 4

Nondimensional Performance of Power versus Speed Parameters

PRNC-GEN-175

(Rev.

12-55)

CONFIDENTIAL

1.1

S>"

0.9
I-V U. ,T0.8

XJ

j S0.7 0.5 0.6

FOR OFF DESIGN c

'

:IE

0.7 0.8 0.9 TIP MACH NUMBERMT

1.0

1.1

Figure 7 - Effect of Compressibility on Propeller E fficiency

-32-

CONFIDENTIAL
PRNC-CFN-175 (Rev. 12-55)

---..

TP-SS TP-DS

TURBOPROP SINGLE SHAFT TURBOPROP DOUBLE SHAFT

-...... 100

RTP-DS REGENERATIVE TURBOPROP DOUBLE SHAFT (VTOL) RTP-SS REGENERATIVE TURBOPROP SINGLE SHAFT

9000
PERCENT S70 RPM ,TP-SS-MIL

70
60
-

RTP-DS-MIL TP-DS-MIL TP-SS-TO TP-DS-TO

5011 0

20
Figure

40

60

80

100

120

140

PERCENT NORMAL RATED POWER

-

Engi 'e Chnracteristics T Turboprop

PO--N-I

,v--2-5

0.14

z0.10
.1( .1

0.1

z'

0.10
0.06

SEA LEEL_____j___

26 0 2208

6 1

720

-301

10 90" GROSS WEGT S x i0

11

120

-a 20,sed

Opr60o

upo.

L0/

03

-34-WEGT

1-

PROC-GEN-!75

~s

2~~

0
5-

5-

5-

0 0 V
5-

rf

-K-M

00

-36-

-If

F.37

-38-4

ow
IUI-

I-t

w~

I I
z0

U 0

Wj

_j 0
u L)<0 Z

I
0

0> 0 -1

L)

0
z 0~

i-j
0L

LU

I:

wo
uz

-3-PRNMC-GEM-175S

e.T~

CONFIDENTIAL

SUBMARINE POSITION

--

=''(70%)

SBUOY 3
S(30%)

sww SUBMARINE TRACK

stam,,, PREDICTED TRACK

(20%)

(I)

AIRCRAFT POSITION
Figure 15 - Basic Tracking Mission in Contact Maintenance
Satisfactory level of passive localization, cumulative probability is 120 percent. The circles represent 40 percent detection for a S knot submarine.

-4o-

CONFIDENTIAL
PRNC-GEN-175 (Rev.

12-55)

INITIAL CONDITIONS

TIME

[TRUE
SUBMARINE COURSE
BUOY DETECTION PROBABILITY
SC

AIRPLANE MANEUVERS

Figure 16 - Computer Simulation

-41PRNC-GEN-17S (Rev. 12-b5)

ii :www

iia -

1-ILI
oe UJ

I.

0
z

z
0

S.LON)I AI)O-13A 3NiJvwals

PRNC-GEN-175 (Rev. 12-55)

CONFIDENTIAL

"JoZu
,,, I,-

Go

II

=4L

oo

00a

o,

So

.-

W0

40

Z>
%

~06
:34)

0E

C0

CO;FIDENTIA

z CID

-43-CONFIDENTIAL
"PRNC-GFN-175
(Rev. 12-55)

'

lfVRTTOJ

CRUISEI

BUOY DROP

CRUISE

VL/SL

REMOTE BUOY
Figure 19 - On-Station Manieuver Sequence

-44PRMC-GEN-175 (Re,. 12-55)

",,,

.-

'--

u-

rI)

I-

1.

I
-45-

TRANSPORT
-

SEAPLANE

CONTACT AREA

Figure 21 - Drop Pattern (Archimedes' Spiral) for Contact Investigation

--46-

100
m

z i0~ U 60 -LU
. 40 _z -

c 20 S

0.2 0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 TIME IN HOURS

1.6

1.8

2.0

Figure 22 - Entrapment Probability p, in Conitact investigation

-47-

CopieG S

Copies

I
-

DIR of Army Research (Attn: Physical Sciences Div.) CH European Res. Office U.S. Army R&D Liaison Grp.
(Attn: TC Liaison Officer)

j-6

R"10 Co. -e Aronatti-c--Ree. Lab.

.-Cedar Rpfd.-1--owa

Cornell. Aeronautical Lab.,

Buffalo, N.Y.

Inc.

20 I

DDC Avco Corp. New York, N.Y.

Curtiss-Wright Corp. VTOL Sys. Grp. Caldwell, New Jersey Curtiss-Wright Corp.

Aerospace Corp.
Los Angeles, (Attn: Lib. Calif. Tech. Doc. Corp. Grp.) I

Wash.,

D.C.

Bell Aerospace

Curtiss-Wright Corp. Wright Aeronautical Div. Wood-Ridge, N.J.

Bell Aerosystems Div. Buffalo, N.Y.

(Attn: 1 Tech. Libr.) Corp. 1

-iraf B- o A
Tore _-

-Co.
4f. Inc.

Bell Aerospace Fort Worth,

Douglas Aircraft Co.,

Bell Helicopter Co.

Texas

Airccaft Div.
Long Beach, Calif.

Boeing Co.
Wichita, Kansas

.1- .- Do"ug-AircxafL
El Segundo, Div.

Go.,

Inc.

(Attn:
1

Chief Engr.)
2

El Segundo,- Calif.
General Dynamics Corp. Convair Fort Worth Oper. Fort Worth, Texas

Boeing Co. Transport Div. Seattle, Wash. (Attn: Libr.) Boeing Co. Vertol Div. Morton, Pa. booz-Allen Applied Res., Bethesd& Md. Cessna Aircraft Co. Res. Dept. Wichita, Kansas Chrysler Corp. Defense Operations Div. Detroit, Mich. (Attn: Lihr.) Inc.

Div.

General Dynamics Corp.

Convair Div. Dept. of Aero. Engrg. San Diego, Calif.

Genera. Electric Co. FPD Tech. Info. Center Cincinnati, Ohio General Electric Co. Small Acft. Engine Dept. West Lynu, Mass. General Motors Corp. Nllison Div. indianapolis, Indiana (Attn: Engrg. ReE. Lib.)

--- i-PRMC-G[N*i7b

-o)9-

(kev.

!2-55)

__mig
Copies 2 Goodyear Aircraft Corp. Akron, Ohio Grumman Aircraft Engrg. Corp.
Bethpage, L. I., N.Y.

Copies I McDonnell Aircraft Corp. St. Louis, Mo. North American Aviation,
Autonetica Div.

Inc.

Downey, 1 Gyrodyne Co. of America, Dept. of Aero. Engrg. St. James, L. I., N.Y. inc. I

Calif. Inc.

Noith American Aviation, Columbus, Ohio ColumbuE Div..

1-Northrop Corp. 1 Hiller Aircraft Corp. Advanced Res. Dept. Palo Alto, Calif.
Hughes Tool Co.

Hawthorne, Calif.
Piasecki Aircraft Corp. Philadelphia, Pa.

Air-Craft Div. Culver City, Calif. (Attn: Chief, Tech. 1 Kaman Aircraft Corp. Bloomfield, Conn.

Republic Aviation Corp.

Farmingdale, (Attn: Mil. Engrg.) 1

L. I., N.Y. Contr. Dept.)

Rocketdyne Div. North American Aviation, Canoga Park, Calif. Ryan Aeronautical Co. San Diego, Calif. (Attn: Chief Engineer) Solar Aircraft Co. San Diego, Calif. United Aircraft Corp. Pratt & Whitney Acft. East Hartford, Conn.

Inc.

Kellett Aircraft Corp. Willow Grove, Pa.

P~~nier-A ircre f t -Gp.Xarlto~z, N.J. 1 LTV Vought Aeronautics Div. Dallas, Texas Lockheed Aircraft Corp. Lockheed-Cal ifornia Burbank, Calif. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
Lockheed-Georgia Marietta, Ga. 2 Martin-iAarietta Bahtimore, Md. Co.

United Aircraft Corp. Sikorsky Aircraft Div. Stratford, Conn.

United Aircraft Corp. Res. Dept. East Hartford, Conn.

1 Corp.

Martin-Marietta Corp. Orlando Div. Orlando, Fla.

Vanguard Air & Marine Corp. Bala Cynwyd, Pa. Harlan D. Fowler Burlingarne, Calif.

-50-

PRMC-GEN-.tb5 'Rev.

2-55)

Copies I Catholic Univ. -Dept. of Mech. Aero. Engrg. IT; -

and

-L ...

t"Tg7a ry

University of Md. Dept. of Aero. Engrg. Miss. State College Aerophysics Dept. Princeton Univ. Forrestal Res. Center (Attn: Libr.) Virginia Poly. Inst. Carol M. Newman Library

Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps (A04E) G-4 Div., Washa., D.C. The Garrett Corp. Airesearch Mfg. Co. Phoenix, Arizona
(Attn: L.ibra-Er(iavn)
I

S-5].

PRNC-UENI-175

(Rev.

12-55)

S.

Security Classification

JNCI.ASSIFIED
DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA - R&D
2 1

(Security

lOtaasllcatiar, of title, body of abatract and indexing annotation must be entered when the overall report is classified)

ORIGINATING ACTIVITY (Corperyat; author)

LASSIFICATION

FAerodynamics Laboratory
David Taylor Model Basin 20007 Washington, D. C.
3 REPORT TITLE

2b GRoup

AN OPEN-OCEAN V/STOL SEAPLANE FOR THE ASW MISSION (U)

4. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (rype of report and inclusive date&)

Formal Report
S. AUTHOR(S) (Lost name, first name, initial)

Murphy,

Richard D.,

Brasseur, Gary W.,

Bart, Robert,

and Williams,

Robert M.

6. REPORT DATE

7a. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES

7b. NO

OF: REFS
_l

November 1965
80. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO.

51 [vi]

9a. ORIGINATOR'S RCPORT NUMBER(S)

b. PROJECT NO.

Report C-2106
9b OTHER REPORT this report) NO(S) (Any other numbers that ma" be assigned

C.

d.

Aero Report 1096

ILABILITY/LIMITATION NOTICES

0o. AV

ly to this document and must be met, rements whic -In kdition to security r st have prior e the Department of De ansmittal each ureau of Naval Weapons (RAAD-3), Washington, the Chie-,
I.
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY

Bureau of Naval Weapons Department of the Navy

_Washington, 13. ABSTRACT

D.

C.

20360

The results of preliminary vehicle design and mission-oriented operations analysis for predicted ASW systems are incorporated tc form an index of tactical capability of an open-ocean seaplene. The vehicle is a canard configuration with free-propeller propulsion on tilting lifting surfaces. Regenerative cycle turboprop engines power six 20-foot-diameter propellers to achieve VTOL capability and efficient cruise at 275 knots for the 93,000-pound VTOL or 125,000-pound STOL aircraft. Computer simulation of mission performance covering several thousand hours indicates favorable utilization of manpower and equipment. (C)

UNICLAtSSIFIED.

DD

JAN54

1473

3 T

.-

assitication

'0fi
14.

1aFc~o
KEY WORDS

'fit____________
LINK A ROLL: WT LINK 8 ROLE w LINK C ROLE W

Seaplane Design

V/STOL
Tilt-Wing Free-Propeller

Canard Planform Vertical Floats ASW Performance Prediction Computer Simulation Contact Maintenance Contact Investigation Temporary Barrier
ATSSS Sonobuoy A-New
INSTRUCTIONS 1. ORIGINATING ACTIVITY: Enter the name and address of the contractor, subcontractor, grantee, Department of Defense activity or other organization (corporate author) issuing

imposed by security classification, using standard statements such as:

(1) "Qualified requesters may obtain copies of this

the report.
2a. REPORT SECUI1TY CLASSIFICATION: Enter the overall security classification of the report. Indicate whether "Restricted Data" is included. Marking is to be in accordance with appropriate security regulations. 2b. GROUP: Automatic downgrading is specified in DoD Directive 5200. 10 and Armed Forces Industrisl Manual. Enter the group number. Also, when applicable, show that optional markings have been used for Group 3 and Group 4 as authorized 3. REPORT TITLE: Enter the complete report title in all capital letters. Titles in all cases should be unclassified. If a meaningful title cannot be selected without classification, si-ow title classification in all capitals in parenthesis immediately following the title,
4. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES. If appropriate, enter the type of

report from DriC."

(2) (3) "Foreign announcement and dissemination of this report by DDC is not authorized. "U. S. Government agencies may obtain copies of this report directly from DDC. Other qualified DDC users shall request through " (4) "U. S. military agencies may obtain copies of this report directly from DDC. Other qualified users shall request through (5) "All distribution of this report is controlled. Qualified DDC users shall request through
_"

report, e.g., interim, progress, summary, annual, or final. covered.

Give the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is or in the report.
5. AUTHOR(S): Enter the name(s) of author(s) as shown on

Services, Department of Commerce, for sale to the public, in~dicate this fact and enter the price, it known. 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES: Use for additional explane-

If the repo't has been furnished to the Office of Technical

Entei last name, first name, middle initial.

tory notes.

If military, show rank and branch of service. The name of the principal author is an ahsolute minimum requirement. 6. REPORT DATE: Enter the date of the report as day, month, year. or month, year. If more than one date appears

12. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY: Enter the name of the departmental project office or laboratory sponsoring (par ing for) the research and development, Include address.

on the rep,rt, use date of publication.

7a. TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES:

13.

ABSTRACT:

Enter an abstract giving a brief and (actual

should follow normal enter the shold pagination painaionproeduesi~e, ollw nrma procedures, i.e., eterthe
number of pages containing information. 7b. NUMBER OF REFERENCES, references cited in the report. Enter the total number of

The total page count

summary of the document indicative of the report, even though it may also appear elsewhere in the body of the technical repr.I diinlseei .,pace is reqi, etieacniuto ired, a continuation sheet port. If additional he shall hl be attached. It is highly desirable that the abstract of classified reports be unclassified. Each paragrap'i of the abstract shall end with an indicatioa of the military security classification of the information in the paragraph, repiesented as (TS), (S), (c), n, (U) There is no limitation on the length of the abstract. however, the suggested length is from I50 to 225 words 14 KEY WORDS: Key words are technically meaningful re;ms or short phrases that characterizer a report and may be used as index entries for cataloging the report. Key words must be selected so that no sez-ursty clsssification is required. Identifiers, such as equipment model designation, trade name, military project code name, geographic lccation, may be used as hey words but will be followed by an indication of technical con!text. The assignment of links, rales,, and weights is optional.

8a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER: If appropriate, enter the applicable number of the contract or grant under which the report was written. 8b -'c. & 8d. PROJECT NUMBER: Enter the appropriate .- mil!itary department identification, such as project nuriber, 's6bproject number, system numbers, task number, etc. 9a. ORIGINATOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S): Enter the official report number by which the document will be identified and controlled by the originating activity. This tumber must be unique to this report. -)b. "OTIlER REPORT NUMBER(S): If the report has been assigned uny otlier report numnbers (either by the originator "o" by the sponsor), also enter this number(s). 10,. AVAILAABILITY/LIMITATION NOTICES: Enter any lirr'taltionci on further dissemination of the report, other than thos'?

YSecurity

Classification