McDD (Boeing) NASP-derived vehicles


Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
1 April 2006
Reaction score
Excerpt and drawings from some Boeing AIAA papers. DF stays for Dual Fuel
The Mach 10 aircraft concept which became
the vision for Hyper-X, features a lifting body configuration with an over-andunder
turbine based combination cycle (TBCC) engine
system. For this system, four hydrocarbon-fueled, lowspeed
turbo-ramjet engines are integrated inside the
vehicle, directly above three high-speed, hydrogenfueled
scramjet engines. This 61 m-long aircraft was
sized for an operating radius of 8500 nautical miles
(nm). The low-speed engines are used initially for takeoff
and acceleration to Mach 4. The high-speed engines
are then used for acceleration to and cruise at Mach 10.
Following the high-speed cruise mission, the aircraft
returns to base sub-sonically using the low-speed
engines. During return, it is refueled using KC-10
tanker aircraft. (!)
(All of the engine design and
performance information, employed in the definition of
this Mach 10 aircraft, was provided by Pratt &
The airframe structure, materials, thermal protection
system (TPS), vehicle management system, and
subsystems for the Mach 10 aircraft are described in
References 2,3 and 4. The fuselage is based on a cold,
integral structure, in which the cryogenic hydrogen
tanks are integral with the airframe. The tanks/fuselage
are built-up with graphite-epoxy frames and skins, and
the skins are covered with TPS. The TPS consists of
Tailorable Advanced Blanket Insulation (TABI) on the
upper surface of the aircraft (similar to the Shuttle
Orbiter) and Internal Multi-Screen Insulation (IMI) on
the lower surface. IMI is a developmental TPS, which
consists of carbon/silicon-carbide (C/SIC) outer panels,
intermediate ceramic screens, separated by ceramic
spacers, and an internal layer of advanced polyimide
foam (APF). The intermediate ceramic screens are
coated with a noble metal to reduce their emissivity.
The wings and vertical tails are constructed of titanium
matrix composite material and have zirconium diboride
leading edges. The nose consists of a hydrogen-cooled
NARloy-Z structure.
With this aircraft concept serving as a vision vehicle,
the Hyper-X (X-43A) was conceived to demonstrate, in
flight, the performance of an airframe-integrated,
scramjet powered vehicle. Also, Hyper-X II (which
later evolved into the X-43B) was conceived as a
follow-on step to demonstrate a larger, more flightweight,
scramjet powered aircraft. These flight
research vehicles became part of NASA’s Advanced
Space Transportation Program (ASTP), and a third
vehicle, the X-43C, was added to serve as an
intermediate step between the X-43A and X-43B. In
addition, a large-scale flight demonstration vehicle is
being considered as part of the ASTP hypersonics
investment strategy. This vehicle could lead to a future
hypersonic aircraft or 3rd generation, air-breathing,
reusable launch vehicle.


  • Boeing-DF-10s.jpg
    21.7 KB · Views: 656
  • df103v.jpg
    42.9 KB · Views: 671
  • Cruiser&Space-Launch-Vehicl.jpg
    27.6 KB · Views: 599
  • DF-9.jpg
    36.4 KB · Views: 626
Scott, thanks. So, when we talking about MDC NASP-derived strike stuff, we are talking about this one, yes?
While we're on the subject of US hypersonic programs, does anyone know the current status of X-43B, X-43C and X-43D? I've had conflicting reports on whether they are dead of alive. It seems at least the X-43C was superseded by the X-51A.
Both B&C vehicles were cancelled in March 2004.
Not sure of -D.
McDonnell Douglas NASP-derived vehicles


  • naspderived-all-s.jpg
    145.4 KB · Views: 580
  • naspderived-s.jpg
    238.2 KB · Views: 440
Carrier based hypersonic vehicle? :eek:
What is the landing speed for this arrow shaped vehicle?. What is the distance it needs to land?. I always have read that pure delta aircraft are not the best choice for carrier ops...(Dassault Rafale is canard configuration, Douglas Skyray is not a pure delta, Dassault Mirage III and IV Navalized designs were never purchased)

What's a Cruiser? What's its role: military or civil? If it a bomber?
As Scott stated before in NASP thread, MDC Phantom Works NASP-derived Mach 10 hypersonic cruiser is what later became Boeing's Dual Fuel concepts (DF-7/-9/-10) after merging.


  • Boeing-DF-10s.jpg
    21.7 KB · Views: 257
The X-43A Flight Research Program: Lessons Learned on the Road to Mach 10 300+ pages - about 3 Mb PDF
by Curtis Peebles, author of Dark Eagles: A History of U.S. Black Aircraft Programs
Wuahaha! Familiar name arises again - and now much earlier than Copper Canyon / NASP, now it's 60s.

'Other viewpoints on the efficiency of step-by-step research vs. a focused project like the HRE include those of A. DuPont of Garrett. He designed the HRE (Hypersonic Research Engine for X-15A-2) and was its first project engineer at Garrett, and believed that the HRE went a long way in proving that scramjets were a reality, even though the engine never flew."
Dark mysteries indeed...

and it's Curtis PEEBLES. Pebbles hung out with Bam-Bam. (Of course Peebles might like that too, who knows.)
LO, don't forget, it's me, most famous name mangler on the forum. Corrected.
Quite an interesting reading...

"Both McDonnell Douglas and MicroCraft suggested recovery methods, with the
focus on retrieving the Mach 5 vehicle. Because of the X-43A’s small size, neither
contractor proposed using recovery parachutes. There simply was not enough room inside
the vehicle for the parachutes to fit. Instead, Reukauf later recalled, McDonnell Douglas
suggested flying the X-43A to a water landing in an area that was relatively shallow. The
vehicle would splash down and sink to the bottom. The U.S. Navy would then send
trained seals for the recovery. The marine mammals would swim down, find the vehicle
on the seafloor, and attach a line to it. The X-43A could then be brought to the surface.
The Navy had considerable experience and success using seals for such recovery work.
As the McDonnell Douglas team was not selected for the contract, their approach was
never examined in any detail.

MicroCraft also proposed a recovery scheme, but instead of a splashdown, skids
would be fitted to the X-43A for a runway landing. MicroCraft engineers wanted to
protect the scramjet engine from damage on touchdown, so an unusual design was
offered. Rather than long skids that extended from the bottom of the X-43A, engineers
proposed very short skids mounted on top of the vehicle. The X-43A would roll inverted,
the skids would extend, and the vehicle would make a touchdown.
A limited amount of work was done on refining details of a Mach 5 vehicle
recovery for about six months. Engineers were faced with a number of higher-priority
issues, and, as Reukauf recalled, “nobody really wanted to mess with the landing concept
very much.” However, Boeing (which had merged with North American by this time)
had a considerable desire to land one of the X-43As, and pressed hard to keep the
recovery option alive.

NASA engineers did talk with the U.S. Navy about possible recovery efforts. By
this time the Navy test range off the California coast had been selected for the Hyper-X
launches, and San Nicolas Island was a suitable candidate for the recovery site. Hyper-X
project engineers asked Navy officials if, after getting the Mach 5 vehicle to San Nicolas
Island, they could then land it on the base runway. Navy officials granted permission for
NASA to use the runway, but specified several major limitations. First, the Navy insisted
that NASA guarantee the X-43A would land on San Nicolas Island, making it clear that
the X-43A could not splash down in the ocean surrounding the island since the area
contained a marine mammal sanctuary. (This stipulation would have eliminated the
McDonnell Douglas recovery proposal.)
The Navy no longer used the waters around San Nicolas Island for operations, as
anything splashing into the ocean created enough noise to disturb the whales, sea lions,
and elephant seals that inhabited the area. If a marine mammal were to be hit by the X-
43A, Reukauf recalled “that would be a major problem.” He added, “I came away from
that meeting feeling like they [the Navy] didn’t care if we wiped out their cafeteria which
was just off the end of the runway, but that we better not get in the water.”


  • Slide_fur_seal.JPG
    74.5 KB · Views: 539
Another snippet from the NATO brief on the X-43. Nice shots of the internals and the airborne separtion sequence:
Topic is locked for pruning of off-topic posts. Not interested in partisan US political jibes.

Posting will be re-enabled later.
AIAA paper on a hypersonic launch vehicle. I'm placing it here due to current lockout restrictions on the X-43 derivatives thread. Moderators, feel frre to merge this when the thread is unlocked. Thanks. :)

Attached is another larger three-view of the DF-10 Mach 10 cruiser from Duel-fuel lifting body configuration development ( from 1996. Notice it lacks the linear aerospike rocket engines.


  • DF-10.jpg
    209.9 KB · Views: 662
Interestingly Mach 10 cruise/space access vehicle study ( contains a two-stage launch vehicle based on the same generic configuration, with rockets. So we have a cruiser, a TSTO and an SSTO variant of the same basic design.
Well, rarely do we see such a plain fair description=)

The X-43A vehicle is a subscale version of proposed hypersonic reconnaissance strike aircraft.

X-43A Fluid and Environmental Systems:
Ground and Flight Operation and Lessons Learned
Michael Jacob Vachon,* Thomas J. Grindle,† Clinton W. St. John,‡ and David B. Dowdell§
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California, 93523
flateric said:
As Scott stated before in NASP thread, MDC Phantom Works NASP-derived Mach 10 hypersonic cruiser is what later became Boeing's Dual Fuel concepts (DF-7/-9/-10) after merging.

Hit some DF-7 info by accident.
AIAA paper 99-4931
Gregory E. Moster and John G. Martin

So it served as the basis for X-43. Just posting it here since there's so little mention of it in the forum and also this is the only document that comes up when searching DF-7 on NTRS.
Overall, I can find little mention of the DF series.

DF-9 is mentioned as a possible suborbital launcher to a space tether by John E. Grant of Boeing:
DF-9 - Horizontal takeoff, horizontal land concept, but that's quite far off.
– Developed by Boeing for NASA LaRC
– Derivative of DF-7 hypersonic cruise airplane concept


  • DF-7_2.png
    25.8 KB · Views: 492
The X43A-LS aircraft is a Mach 10 Lifting Body Demonstrator Subsonic testbed Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV). The X43A-LS is available for AAC flight control development and ground station test facility that has been used at Eglin AFB.



  • X43A LS.jpg
    X43A LS.jpg
    237.6 KB · Views: 473
Related, but nothing new:
In the mid 90s the name Global Reach was associated with this effort
Found another pic of the subsonic demonstrator at EAA Air Venture 2000.


  • Capture+_2018-02-26-13-30-10.png
    549.5 KB · Views: 335
  • 28424302_10213863371451813_870449890660442517_o.jpg
    237.6 KB · Views: 207
A blast from the past!

It's possible that you've heard a little about AI and machine learning. The LoFlyte demonstrator had a "neural net" flight control computer that was part of the pre-history of AI (and that was in turn preceded by "adaptive" flight control systems that went back to Honeywell experiments).

And what's that on the left-hand podium?
Top Bottom