McDonnell Aerospace Plane

K

KJ_Lesnick

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
13 February 2008
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
106
According to Paul Czysz, he claimed that McDonnell Aerospace had an aerospace plane that probably first flew in 1963 and entered service in 1964 flying until at least 1979. I was told the plane had a smaller payload than the Space-Shuttle. It to the best of my knowledge was a single-stage to orbit design, although Czysz seemed to suggest it was a twin-stager.

Considering that McDonnell allegedly had developed scramjet designs which it tested in wind-tunnels allegedly up to Mach 22 from the 1958 to 1963 period, it is likely they used such an engine on this plane. I assume they had a variable-cycle design that could function as a ramjet and a scramjet not to mention some kind of cycle that would allow it to operate on the ground with allegedly the same degree of ease as a B-52, but I actually don't know what they did use.

Did they use LH2 for fuel, if not how did they manage to get the fuel in the scramjet to "burn fast enough" which allegedly was a problem with scramjets.


BTW: While a different design, was the 1986-era NASP design to have had close to or the same payload capacity as the Space-Shuttle?


KJ_Lesnick
Let's hope I don't get a heart-attack, disappear, contract some incurable disease or who knows what else...
 
He claimed when and where? Your statement "McDonnell allegedly had developed scramjet designs" makes me think that you was reading ATS forum too much lately...and I'm absolutely sure in your good health in the nearest future. Many words, no facts, sorry.

1986 duPont design (so-called Government baseline) could not lift *itself* to the LEO with landing gears added, not talking of some 'payload'.
 
I think it was a link.
It was actually posted on a thread on this site... the aerospace forum.
 
If you mean links to Czysz articles at http://www.americanantigravity.com/, there's NO SIGN of him CLAIMING that Macair HAS EVER BUILT one of myriad hypersonics projects they were working on in 60s.
 
yeah actually all he ever says is that the FDL vehicles were the most promising and those shuttle predecessors could have been built in the sixties , but he never actually confirms the existence of any of these babies
 
Actually in one of his articles he did say that some kind of aerospace plane entered service in 1964. He said that there were a certain number of planes and spares and they flew a certain number of missions over a 15 year period. He also stated that he did not need magic, just 1964-era technology.

Out of curiousity, what kind of payloads were these vehicles going for? I would assume they were less than the Space Shuttle?


KJ_Lesnick
BTW: How did the NASP (1986-1994) compare to the Space-Shuttle in terms of capacity if it was made into an actual design?
 
KJ_Lesnick said:
Actually in one of his articles he did say that some kind of aerospace plane entered service in 1964. He said that there were a certain number of planes and spares and they flew a certain number of missions over a 15 year period.
Click to expand...

And I saw this video once where they dissected an alien. . .
 
KJ_Lesnick said:
Actually in one of his articles he did say that some kind of aerospace plane entered service in 1964. He said that there were a certain number of planes and spares and they flew a certain number of missions over a 15 year period. He also stated that he did not need magic, just 1964-era technology.
Click to expand...

KJ, exact citations? Copy-paste? Can we all learn a habit of taking things seriously!
 
flateric said:
He claimed when and where? Your statement "McDonnell allegedly had developed scramjet designs" makes me think that you was reading ATS forum too much lately...and I'm absolutely sure in your good health in the nearest future. Many words, no facts, sorry.

1986 duPont design (so-called Government baseline) could not lift *itself* to the LEO with landing gears added, not talking of some 'payload'.
Click to expand...

FWIW, on NTRS:

Title:
Air augmented convertible scramjet engine study (the duPont jet engine)
Online Source: Click to View PDF File [PDF Size: 5.1 MB] http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19790077356
[/t][/t]
Author:
Dupont, A. A.; Gaede, A. E.; Weisman, F. A.
Collection:
NASA
NASA Center:
NASA (Unspecified Center)
Publication Date:
Apr 15, 1972
Publication Year:
1972
Document ID:
19790077356
Accession Number:
79N76864
Subject Category:
AIRCRAFT PROPULSION AND POWER
Report/Patent Number:
NASA-CR-112094
Contract/Grant/Task Number:
NAS1-11467
Publication Information:
Number of pages = 113
Language:
English
Subject Terms:
AIR; EJECTORS; ENGINE CONTROL; FREE FLOW; HEAT EXCHANGERS; HYDROGEN; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PERFORMANCE PREDICTION; PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION; PROPULSION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE; SUPERSONIC COMBUSTION RAMJET ENGINES; WEIGHT ANALYSIS
Accessibility:
Unclassified; Publicly available; Unlimited; No Copyright
Document Source:
CASI
Updated/Added to NTRS:
May 13, 2008
 
Would the Toss-Back Booster fall under this category? Of all the FDL-7 studies from MacAir, that concept has always been my favorite. I wish there was more on that one.
 
Yes, they did fly something, but it's a Lot less dramatic than what people think. It was simply a small hypersonic test reentry lifting body shape (and a very simple one at that). Look into the ancestors of the current CAV (HTV-2). I have drawings and some papers showing. It was called AmaRv, it was basically a small bi-cone with a flattened rear fuselage underside with 2 ventral flaps and 2 small yaw side flaps. It was only 82 inch long. It was launched by an Atlas or a Titan rocket (can't remember which one exactly, but probably an Atlas). There were several flown hypersonic reentry maneuverable vehicles during the 1960's and beyond, all of which small unmanned vehicles. I had fun making a list of those a few years ago. One of which which most if not all people here have not heard about and which i stumbled upon in 1999 or 2000 during my long research on any lead i could find related to Aurora and on a whole lot of other hypersonic projects prior to (FDL series and so on) and beyond (MDD hypersonic airbreathing cruise airplanes, rocket planes, spaceplanes) and so on was a small test project called RAM-C. There were at least 3 flights of that one and two different versions. It was also a small bi-cone but with a fatter, shorter design than AmArv.
 
Greetings All -

Nice looking model - damage looks easy to repair:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/VINTAGE-MCDONNELL-DOUGLAS-NATIONAL-AERO-SPACE-PLANE-DESK-DISPLAY-FACTORY-MODEL-/230766128299?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35babbacab

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
I'm thinkin' that this ain't exactly the most accurate description:

There's a few very small scratch, scuff, smudge marks on various areas of this model. The model and stand show some very minor dirt, smudge and scratch marks on each. Please note that the model itself has some very small parts of it's rear stabilizers, rear wing section, which have worn off over the years. (pictures above) The metal peg which connects to the underside of the model has a slight "bend" on it. This may have come from the factory this way or, has just been bent slightly over the years. The model and stand are in excellent to near mint condition for being approximately thirty two (32) years old.

Errrrrmmmm...
 

Attachments

  • aero13.jpeg
    aero13.jpeg
    63 KB · Views: 138
Has everybody forgotten the use of the word "vintage"??

1920s is vintage. Also applies for the "golden age" monicker.
1930s in vintage. Also applies for the "golden age" monicker.
1940s is vintage. Probably also applies for the "golden age" monicker.
1950s is vintage. Also applies for the "silver age" monicker.
1960s, I suppose, is becoming vintage by now. Also applies for the "silver age" monicker.

But a 1980s desktop model?!? C'mon...
 
Very true. I don't think the term NASP appeared any earlier than 1986, maybe even 1988.
 
Yet another model supposedly belonging to General Curtis Lemay (November 15, 1906 – October 1, 1990).

The seller claims that he received the model(s) from the Lemay family. In the 22 years since the death of Curtis Lemay, could another member of the Lemay have modified the model?
 
Was the National Aero-Space Plane project a cover for the development of a hypersonic strike or reconnaissance platform? Seems odd to develop a civilian hypersonic transport when supersonic transport was too expensive for most airline passengers.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom