Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

During the 1960s, both the USSR and NATO countries had many programs for the development of VTOL aircraft. Most of these never reach flying status, though a few did fly at least in prototype form. One of these was the Ryan XV-5 Vertifan.





Development of the XV-5 began on November 10, 1961, when the US Army issued a contract for the development of an aircraft using the lift-fan propulsion system. Primary contractors were General Electric and Ryan Aeronautics. The lift-fan system was quite different from other VTOL systems of the time, such as the lift jets found in the original MiG-23 prototype or contemporary VZ-4, for instance. Rather than the jet exhaust directly providing the thrust for vertical flight, the exhaust drives several fans, which provide the thrust for vertical lift. This has the advantage of not projecting hot exhaust gases downward, however, there are losses in efficiency due to the extensive ducting needed.


The XV-5 (orignally designated VZ-11 at the start of the program) was powered by a pair of J85 turbojets, the same engines as found in the F-5. Maximum takeoff weight was 12,500 lb. Space for two crew members was provided. Two large lift fans were located in the wings, which provided most of the thrust for vertical takeoff. A smaller lift fan was located in the nose, which provided additional thrust as well as attitude control. The vanes on each fan could be pitched between -7 and 45 degrees to provide directional control while hovering. As the XV-5 would spend much of its time in hover, the test aircraft were fitted with helicopter style controls, to provide better handling while taking off and landing vertically.


Two XV-5A test aircraft were formally accepted by the US Army on January 26, 1965, and began flight testing shortly afterward, at Edwards AFB.





The XV-5A demonstrated the ability to land and take off vertically, as well as successfully transition to horizontal flight (transition took place at about 170 km/h). However, there were some issues. The aircraft's ground attitude meant that taking off perfectly vertically was quite difficult; it require the pilot to release the brakes, adjust pitch controls, and change engine power simultaneously. Additionally, the aircraft was found to be difficult to control during the transition period, as there was no integrated control system for both modes of flight. Often, the XV-5A would pitch up or down for a few seconds as the transition occurred. Numerous other small issues were noted; many instruments were poorly placed, and cockpit temperature control was ineffective. More importantly, visibility downward was very bad when hovering. Oddly, a parking brake was not fitted to the XV-5A, which caused issues during testing.




The XV-5A had decent conventional takeoff performance, with a takeoff run of about 800 meters needed. The aircraft also performed well during conventional landings. However, during vertical takeoffs and landings, severe turbulence was noted while in ground effect, making the aircraft difficult to control. This made it difficult to land in a precise spot (a major problem for an operational VTOL aircraft), and limited operations to when winds were less than about 10 km/h, obviously unacceptable for operational use. Another problem noted with vertical flight was that at high loads, the lift fans would reingest exhaust gases, leading to loss of power similar to vortex ring state. Despite these flaws, the XV-5A was judged adequate by the US Army as a research aircraft (however, it was recommended that these issues be fixed in follow-on research aircraft).


The first XV-5A aircraft was lost in an accident on April 27, 1965, which unfortunately killed the pilot testing the aircraft. Investigation showed this was likely due to the pilot accidentally switching the aircraft from horizontal to vertical flight mode (the switch was located on the collective control for convenient access, which made it easy to activate accidentally). Testing continued afterward with the second prototype. Later in the testing, the XV-5 was considered by the US Army for use as a close air support aircraft or as a rescue aircraft (the lack of hot exhaust gases meant that it could hover over people without inadvertently frying them). The second fatal accident in the XV-5 program occurred in 1966 during testing of this capability. A rescue harness was ingested into the lift fan on the left wing of the XV-5A, damaging it. The pilot ejected, but was killed as the seat deployed horizontally due to the attitude of the aircraft during ejection. Later investigation showed that the damaged fan was still capable of producing enough lift to slow the XV-5's descent to a survivable rate.



The XV-5A following the second crash.


Following the crash of the second XV-5A airframe, it was decided to rebuild it into the XV-5B, and continue the test program with that aircraft. Numerous improvements were made to the systems of the XV-5 (including improved control systems and cockpit layout), correcting some of the deficiencies of the XV-5A. The aircraft was also repainted in NASA colors (the XV-5A had been painted in US Army markings.)




In addition to being used for testing of the VTOL characteristics and the lift-fan concept, the XV-5B was used for testing of approach procedures for VTOL aircraft. Particularly, the XV-5B was flown at steep approach angles of up to 20 degrees.The aircraft was flown successfully in this role, but it was found to be somewhat difficult for the pilot, as engine throttle, lift fan controls, and conventional flight controls all had to be manipulated to stabilize that approach. Testing of the XV-5B in this role was continued until 1971, when the aircraft was retired. It is currently on display in Fort Rucker, Alabama.





Video footage of the XV-5A









Lift Fan Aircraft - Lessons from Pilot's Perspective

Link to post
Share on other sites

Various proposals were made to use the lift fan technology in operational aircraft. The first picture is the Model 182, a transonic fighter bomber, while the second and third (186 and 187) are supersonic fighter aircraft. The fans on the Model 187 retract into the fuselage.





Link to post
Share on other sites

The million dollar question: Do you think this was a sound concept?


I think the lift fans are a generally decent concept. The XV-5 probably would have done better in the 70s/80s when they could have fitted it with a computerized FCS (that probably would have helped with a lot of the control issues). Using a design like this as a light CAS bird? Maybe, the lift fans seems better than lift jets for something that's going to be strictly subsonic. It'd be a pretty niche application though; stuff a good distance away from the front can be handled by fixed wing CAS assets operating out of bases behind the lines, and if you're going up against something only a few kilometers away, why not use a helicopter? (I guess something like the XV-5 would have better survivability against Shilkas and low end MANPADS).


Using it as a medevac plane is fucking stupid. Payload of 1 casualty in a sitting position. emot-thumbsup.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

High subsonic, wiki says 880 km/h (unsourced), one of the documents I have says 406 KIAS Vmax, but doesn't give an altitude. At 15,000 feet (~4500 m), that comes out to 527 KTAS, or 976 km/h. Can't find anything about Mach limits, but based on the other numbers it probably tops out around Mach .8.

Link to post
Share on other sites





Looks like exhaust is taken from the jet engine and hits a whole bunch of little vanes on the outside of the fan, spinning it. It was supposed to get ~7,000 lbf (31kN) of thrust out per J85 out of this, and two J85s were enough to lift a 12,500 lbf aircraft, so it performed pretty close to expectations.

Link to post
Share on other sites





Looks like exhaust is taken from the jet engine and hits a whole bunch of little vanes on the outside of the fan, spinning it. It was supposed to get ~7,000 lbf (31kN) of thrust out per J85 out of this, and two J85s were enough to lift a 12,500 lbf aircraft, so it performed pretty close to expectations.


Very interesting, thanks.

I wonder how that compares to the F-35B's system of taking the power to the fan via a shaft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking power from a shaft seems like it would have less losses (I'm assuming there wouldn't be too much in the way of power loss through whatever gearbox you have linking the jet engine and the fan).

With the minor downside of having shafts running all over your fuselage if you want more than a single fan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Does anyone know why Ryan was run into the ground? Was it their VTOL projects?

Getting sold for $128 million to Teledyne in 1968 isn't exactly being run into the ground.  Then Grumman bought Teledyne Ryan in '92. Teledyne Ryan was still making drones into the 90s.  I'm guessing TR is the core of whatever drone business Grumman is doing these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
  • 4 months later...
  • 9 months later...
  • 7 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Sturgeon
      A thread for helicopters, choppers, copters, helos, thopters, whirlybirds, eggbeaters, gyroplanes, slicks, autogyros, gyrocopters, ornithopters and other non-fixed-wing aerodromes.
      Our first topic: Attack helicopters. They are undoubtedly awesome, but in a large-scale conventional war, will they be resilient enough to have a presence on the battlefield?

    • By Sturgeon
      An interesting read, in which he suggests operationally IFRing F-35s with V-22s, and creating a V-22 AWACs.
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Just about everyone has heard of the (in)famous F-35B VTOL aircraft, along with its predecessor the Harrier. The Soviets also dabbled in vertical takeoff aircraft throughout the latter half of the Cold War. However, did you know that during the 1960s, NATO seriously considered developing a supersonic VTOL strike fighter? It was thought that airbases would become unusable after the first hours of the war, so having a VTOL strike aircraft would allow NATO to continue striking at Soviet ground forces.
      Numerous designs were proposed. One of the most sane the P.1154.

      (a conceptual image of the P.1154)
      The connection between the P.1154 and the Harrier (via the Kestrel prototype) is easy to see. The P.1154 was itself developed from the earlier P.1150, the original contender for the NATO strike aircraft competition. Like the Harrier, the P.1154 uses a single engine to provide thrust for both vertical takeoff and horizontal flight. This is in contrast to most designs of the era, which used dedicated lift jets. Though the P.1154 was never built, it was a major technological step in the development of VTOL aircraft.

      The Mirage IIIV is clearly derived from the highly successful Mirage III airframe. However, it can be seen that lift jets have been added in the fuselage aft of the cockpit. No less than eight (!) lift jets are located in the fuselage, in addition to the single main engine. This would certainly have been a maintenance and reliability nightmare, especially in the austere environment of an ongoing (possibly nuclear) conflict. Unlike the P.1154, the Mirage IIIV actually made it to flight status, with two prototypes undergoing testing during the 1960s.

      The West German VJ101 was an attempt to convert the F-104 Starfighter into a VTOL aircraft. Like the Mirage entry, the VJ101 had lift engines (two in the central fuselage). However, it also had pairs of engines in swiveling pods on the wingtips, which could vary their angle to direct thrust downward or forward (similar to the Bell D-188A. Like the IIIV, the VJ101 made it to flight, and was tested extensively (it has been claimed that the aircraft was capable of supersonic flight without afterburner). With six engines, including four in moving nacelles, the VJ101 would also have been difficult to maintain and keep active.

      The G.95/6 was the Italian entry (read more about it here). It was the ultimate development of the G.95 VTOL design, which went through several iterations (the G.95/3 resembles a VTOL F-101). In terms of layout, it was closest to the Mirage IIIV, with main engines for forward thrust (two of them) augmented by multiple lift jets (six in this case). Like the other VTOL aircraft, it would have been difficult to maintain, produce and keep reliable. Additionally, like the French and German designs (and the Yak-38), it would have suffered all of the drawbacks associated with lift jets, namely that they are dead weight for 90% of the flight.
      The failure of the NATO Supersonic VTOL program of the 1960s shows the difficulty in making VTOL practical for a military aircraft. It would take until the 1970s for a subsonic VTOL combat aircraft to be successful (the Harrier), and until the 2010s for a supersonic VTOL aircraft to become workable.
  • Create New...