NF-104 rocket engine question

Does anyone know where the Rocketdyne LR121/AR-2-NA-1 H2O2/Kerosene
rocket engine used on the NF-104 came from?
Was it built specifically for that aircraft, or was it something left
over from another aircraft or missile program?

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
Does anyone know where the Rocketdyne LR121/AR-2-NA-1 H2O2/Kerosene rocket
engine used on the NF-104 came from?
Was it built specifically for that aircraft, or was it something left over
from another aircraft or missile program?

Pat

Did you check Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_NF-104A

Alan Erskine wrote:
Does anyone know where the Rocketdyne LR121/AR-2-NA-1 H2O2/Kerosene rocket
engine used on the NF-104 came from?
Was it built specifically for that aircraft, or was it something left over
from another aircraft or missile program?

Pat


Did you check Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_NF-104A

Yeah, and a lot of other sites, but none of them say exactly what the
origin of the engine is.
"AR" in the designation may mean "Auxiliary Rocket" as in something used
for rocket assisted takeoff to replace JATO bottles.
The drawing of the plumbing of the engine in the Pilot's Manual shows
it's fairly sophisticated in design, using turbopump feed for the
propellants rather than simpler pressure feed:
http://www.nf104.com/manPics/18.jpg
It can also can be smoothly throttled from 3,000 to 6,000 pounds thrust,
so it is a pretty involved design.
http://www.nf104.com/manPics/17.jpg
http://www.nf104.com/manPics/19.jpg
The H2O2/kerosene propellants are a bit odd for a American rocket
engine, and I wonder if this is based on a British rocket engine, as
they were fond of that propellant combo.
The 6,000 pounds max thrust is identical to the smaller combustion
chamber of the twin-chambered Armstrong Siddeley Stentor rocket engine
as used on the Blue Steel stand off missile:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Siddeley_Stentor
.... and it used H2O2/kerosene for propellants.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

The 6,000 pounds max thrust is identical to the smaller combustion
chamber of the twin-chambered Armstrong Siddeley Stentor rocket engine
as used on the Blue Steel stand off missile:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Siddeley_Stentor
... and it used H2O2/kerosene for propellants.

A variant of this is another contender:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Spectre
...although it generates 8,000 pounds thrust, it is throttlable.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
Alan Erskine wrote:

Did you check Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_NF-104A
Yeah, and a lot of other sites, but none of them say exactly what the
origin of the engine is.

Did you email the Dryden flight research centre at Edwards?

Alan Erskine wrote:
Yeah, and a lot of other sites, but none of them say exactly what the
origin of the engine is.


Did you email the Dryden flight research centre at Edwards?


I don't want to bother them if I can find it on my own.
Besides, it's kind of fun trying to track it down.
Another one that would be fun to dig up more on info on was the
UDMH/N2O4 (or N2O?) powered "Megaboom" large booster for a rocket sled
that showed up on eBay several years back.
About all I can find on it is that it was made by Aerojet General, and
was used to drive five chimpanzees and one dummy to Mach 1.68 while they
were exposed to the airstream for ejection seat research (for Gemini?).
This resulted in seriously injured chimps with second degree burns from
air friction: http://tinyurl.com/62pl8l

"Stapp, J. P., J. D. Mosely, &C. F. Lombard 1962 "MEGABOOM" LINEAR WINDBLAST
TESTS ON SUBJECTS AND PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT. (Northrop Space Laboratories,
Hawthorne, Calif.) Contract AF 41(657)405, Proj. No. 7930; NSL 62-52;
15 March 1962
ABSTRACT: Rocket sled experiments exposed five chimpanzees and one dummy to
windblast up to Mach 1.68. Standard restraints and garments proved
inadequate
and extensive injuries established the need for improvement. Stagnation
pres-
sures up to 42 psi resulted in injuries from violent displacements
within inade-
quate restraints. Stagnation temperature up to 424 degrees F caused second
degree burns to exposed body surface. High velocity air penetrated
wounds and
body apertures, causing extensive trauma. Experimental restraints and
garments
proved adequate for stagnation pressure of 36 psi and temperature of 336
degrees
F. (AUTHOR)"

The chimps do not sound like a pretty sight to see at the end of the run.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

Did you email the Dryden flight research centre at Edwards?

I don't want to bother them if I can find it on my own.

Well, I did find out a little more about the engine under the AR2-3
designation.
At one time it was tested on a F-86F to boost performance.
The rocket was mounted in a pod under the fuselage, and allowed the F-86
to climb to 30,000 feet in only 24 seconds, as well as making it
supersonic in level flight. It reached a max altitude of 70,840 feet
during tests: http://sabre-pilots.org/classics/v21rocket.htm
This would have given the Sabre the ability to do very quick response
missions to intercept incoming enemy bombers, as well as the altitude
performance to deal with high altitude enemy reconnaissance aircraft,
like the Yakovlev Yak-25RV "Mandrake".
It was leftover rocket engines from this program that ended up in the
NF-104.
Although the rocket equipped F-86F proved easy and safe to fly and
maintain, I imagine that by the time it would have entered service it
would have been superseded by more advanced jet fighter designs that
could equal its performance without the need for rocket boosting.
It's surprising that the rocket was mounted on a F-86F rather than a
F-86D, whose nose radar would have given the aircraft night and
all-weather performance.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
At one time it was tested on a F-86F to boost performance.
The rocket was mounted in a pod under the fuselage, and allowed the F-86
to climb to 30,000 feet in only 24 seconds, as well as making it
supersonic in level flight. It reached a max altitude of 70,840 feet
during tests: http://sabre-pilots.org/classics/v21rocket.htm
It's surprising that the rocket was mounted on a F-86F rather than a
F-86D, whose nose radar would have given the aircraft night and
all-weather performance.

It was only for the test though. Also, more advanced fighters with more jet
thrust would still not have been able to reach 70k feet; at 70k feet, the
Sabre (or other aircraft) could have dived on the enemy bombers, similar to
the 'Foo-Fighters' from Germany).

Alan Erskine wrote:
It was only for the test though. Also, more advanced fighters with more jet
thrust would still not have been able to reach 70k feet; at 70k feet, the
Sabre (or other aircraft) could have dived on the enemy bombers, similar to
the 'Foo-Fighters' from Germany).

The F-86F aircraft used for the test still exists BTW, it's in a
disassembled state at the moment awaiting restoration.
This at least explains where the engine came from; this was intended to
be a operational system at one time, so it was worthwhile for Rocketdyne
to design a engine for it.
That's what threw me about the NF-104... it was supposed to be a "cheap
and cheerful" conversion of a stock F-104 into the rocket-boosted
variant, so you wouldn't expect them to go to the effort to build a new
rocket engine for it, but rather use something off-the-shelf, as they did.
Hydrogen peroxide was probably chosen as being a safer oxidizer for the
ground crew to deal with than the alternatives like RFNA. Attachment of
the rocket booster and its propellant tankage system to a F-86 modified
to use it was only supposed to take around 30 minutes.
I did run into one other interesting thing during my hunt... one of the
early non-rocket equipped prototypes of the F-104 (YF-104A SN 55-2961)
ended up being used for in-flight tests of a reaction control system as
the JF-104A - I assume in support of the X-15 program; there's a photo
of it testing out its RCS he
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Pho...ML/E-6595.html
The Soviets tried modifying both a MiG-19 and MiG-21 into liquid fueled
rocket boosted variants for intercepting U-2s and high altitude
reconnaissance balloons:
http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v4/v4n1-2/balloons.html
In the case of the MiG-19 the engine and propellant tankage was mounted
under the belly (MiG-19SU/SM-50), and in the MiG-21 under the belly
(Ye-66) or in the vertical fin, like on the NF-104, but in a more
streamlined installation (Ye-50), combined with swept rather than delta
wings: http://www.aviastar.org/air/russia/mig-e50.php

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
The F-86F aircraft used for the test still exists BTW, it's in a
disassembled state at the moment awaiting restoration.
This at least explains where the engine came from; this was intended
to be a operational system at one time, so it was worthwhile for
Rocketdyne to design a engine for it.

Just found another goody; Rocketdyne built a 5,000 pound thrust
H2O2/JP-4 engine, (the AR-1) that got mounted on a couple of Navy FJ-4F
"Fury"s for tests (the Navy version of the F-86 Sabre):
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/fj4f.htm
This aircraft was probably what led to the Air Force sticking an
improved engine on their F-86F.
Here's a photo of the rocket-equipped FJ-4F in flight showing that it
apparently had a F-86D type radar nose over the intake:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...4F_NAN5-58.jpg
Although I'm a big aircraft fan, I'd never heard of either of these
conversions before.
Read between the lines here and the Air Force and Navy were in a
altitude record race with each other, using rocket-boosted jet aircraft.

Pat