• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

McDonnell-Douglas Hypersonic projects from the 60s and 70s

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,169
Reaction score
26
+1. Multiply all masses by 2, increase all dimensions X 1.26 (cube root 2), replace 5 x RL-10s by 1 x XLR-129, clean up nose to reflect better fit of cockpit in basic allbody shape, SUPER SHAZAM!
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
89
I do not think I have seen this particular document here before, though the same design already appears in another post.

Actively cooled hypersonic aircraft

STUDY OF A FAIL-SAFE ABORT SYSTEM FOR AN ACTIVELY COOLED HYPERSONIC AIRCRAFT, VOLUME I, TECHNICAL SUMMARY
by C. J. Pirrello and R. L. Herring
McDonnell Aircraft Company

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760023110_1976023110.pdf
 

Attachments

mz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
683
Reaction score
1
Stargazer2006 said:
I do not think I have seen this particular document here before, though the same design already appears in another post.

Actively cooled hypersonic aircraft

STUDY OF A FAIL-SAFE ABORT SYSTEM FOR AN ACTIVELY COOLED HYPERSONIC AIRCRAFT, VOLUME I, TECHNICAL SUMMARY
by C. J. Pirrello and R. L. Herring
McDonnell Aircraft Company
That is mind bogglingly large, I don't think I've ever seen anything like that.
 

airrocket

Dreams To Reality
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
291
Reaction score
2
Website
RetroFlight.com
I am disillusioned when I see all the work done on hypersonic R&D during the 60's-70's and the best the USA can do in the 21st century with our supercomputers is the X-51. And it has crashed 2 out 3 flights. Even more atonishing to me is that the X-7 did Mach 4.31 way back in 1950's with a prop engine drop plane.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,011
Reaction score
180
Somewhat understandable, but perhaps it helps to remember, that construction of the F-104 was started with
in 1952 ... and with regards to maximum speed, it might still top the F-22 or F-35. So, no progress in fighter
design ? And the drop plane, well, just use a C-130J (or an A400M !) and your quite near the '50s with this regards.
To my opinion, hypersonic flight regularly came (and comes) on the agenda, but seldom with a high priority.
Financial constraints have become larger, so our patience has to become larger, too ! ;)
 

DSE

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
454
Reaction score
8
airrocket said:
I am disillusioned when I see all the work done on hypersonic R&D during the 60's-70's and the best the USA can do in the 21st century with our supercomputers is the X-51. And it has crashed 2 out 3 flights. Even more atonishing to me is that the X-7 did Mach 4.31 way back in 1950's with a prop engine drop plane.
What makes you think the "supercomputers" are actually an absolute plus? They and the codes which run on them are just tools. Tools in fact which still have a lot of limitations. Yes they produce solutions to the problems which have been posed, however the real issue is how does the problem as posed relate to real life? I fear more and more the newer crop of engineers are composed more and more of "analysts" who can run the codes, but have no real experience how it relates to real life and really don't have a good grasp of the fundamentals in many aspects. Part of the problem is industry and government. Just look at job listings and much of what you see specifies code jockeys, not real engineers imo.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,098
Reaction score
353
DSE said:
airrocket said:
I am disillusioned when I see all the work done on hypersonic R&D during the 60's-70's and the best the USA can do in the 21st century with our supercomputers is the X-51. And it has crashed 2 out 3 flights. Even more atonishing to me is that the X-7 did Mach 4.31 way back in 1950's with a prop engine drop plane.
What makes you think the "supercomputers" are actually an absolute plus? They and the codes which run on them are just tools. Tools in fact which still have a lot of limitations. Yes they produce solutions to the problems which have been posed, however the real issue is how does the problem as posed relate to real life? I fear more and more the newer crop of engineers are composed more and more of "analysts" who can run the codes, but have no real experience how it relates to real life and really don't have a good grasp of the fundamentals in many aspects. Part of the problem is industry and government. Just look at job listings and much of what you see specifies code jockeys, not real engineers imo.
:-[
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,619
Reaction score
33
airrocket said:
I am disillusioned when I see all the work done on hypersonic R&D during the 60's-70's and the best the USA can do in the 21st century with our supercomputers is the X-51. And it has crashed 2 out 3 flights. Even more atonishing to me is that the X-7 did Mach 4.31 way back in 1950's with a prop engine drop plane.
What the X-51 is doing and what the X-7 did aren't even close to the same thing. They had scramjets in development back then and they couldn't make them work. It turns out hypersonic scramjet aircraft are that difficult to develop. If they were easy, they actually would have been successfully flying them back then.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,098
Reaction score
353
Sundog said:
airrocket said:
I am disillusioned when I see all the work done on hypersonic R&D during the 60's-70's and the best the USA can do in the 21st century with our supercomputers is the X-51. And it has crashed 2 out 3 flights. Even more atonishing to me is that the X-7 did Mach 4.31 way back in 1950's with a prop engine drop plane.
What the X-51 is doing and what the X-7 did aren't even close to the same thing. They had scramjets in development back then and they couldn't make them work. It turns out hypersonic scramjet aircraft are that difficult to develop. If they were easy, they actually would have been successfully flying them back then.
They never actually tried to fly a scramjet. Does anybody know how much (if any) scramjet work they did in wind tunnels? What was the fastest they ever got one working (if at all)? They were also limited by material to a degree back in those days.
 

fossil

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
What about this project

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-05zzzc.html
 

DSE

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
454
Reaction score
8
fossil said:
What about it? Once you get past the PR hype you might not deem it so successful.
See AIAA 2006-8119, Flight Results from a Program to Develop a Freeflight Atmospheric Scramjet Test Technique R. O. Foelsche, S. A. Beckel, A. A. Betti, G. T. Wurst, R. A. Charletta, and R. J. Bakos.

"The dynamic pressure is shown to be higher than desired, due to the lower flight altitude coupled with near-target
flight Mach. This meant the engine, fueled at preset constant flowrate, would operate leaner than desired." About 60% of the desired f/a.

"however, unexpectedly the vehicle did not experience positive net acceleration resulting in a continuing slow decrease in flight Mach. .... the engine produced thrust; however, drag was greater than thrust. Shortly into the experiment at increased fueling the gas generator inlets first spilled out sideways and into the supersonic inlets, and subsequently they unstarted. During unstarted operation the vehicle decelerated much more quickly but the combustor was observed to stay lit.

....A residual coning disturbance that started during booster burn-out decayed while the engine was thrusting up to the time the GG inlets unstarted, and then the vehicles experienced large and rapid wobbling motions (coning). An azimuthal map of forebody cone pressures indicates the inlets did not all experience pressure rises at the same time, rather as the pressure rose in front of the 0o inlet it fell in front the 180o inlet, and vice versa, and this pressure imbalance amplified the flight disturbance.... With the imbalanced forebody pressure being driven by unsteady inlet unstart, this passively controlled fin-stabilized vehicle could not re-stabilize and recover steady engine operation while being fueled at fixed flowrate, while continuing to decelerate. "
 

XP67_Moonbat

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
11
Kno what? I want to go back to the subject of those 60's & 70's projects. Particularly about the HSVS.
 

Meteorit

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
428
Reaction score
5
XP67_Moonbat said:
Kno what? I want to go back to the subject of those 60's & 70's projects. Particularly about the HSVS.
Seconded :)
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,005
Reaction score
964
Hi,


here is a MD advanced hypersonic fighter concept;

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a221970.pdf
 

Attachments

XP67_Moonbat

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
11
Nice find! It's high time we had something new in this thread. :D
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,005
Reaction score
964
XP67_Moonbat said:
Nice find! It's high time we had something new in this thread. :D

Thank you my dear XP67_Moonbat
 

XP67_Moonbat

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
11
I think I saw that on Scott's page as a General Dynamics project.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,005
Reaction score
964
From ; Аэрокосмическое обозрение №06 (67) 2013


here is some MD hyprsonic concepts in colors.
 

Attachments

pedrospe

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
264
Reaction score
10
Very nice images hesham,thanks for sharing.




best regards


Pedro
 

XP67_Moonbat

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
11
I can only what aerospace goodies are left undiscovered that Prof C didn't talk about. That man and his knowledge were a national treasure.
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,532
Reaction score
159
Good Day All -

There's no one specific X-24C thread that I can find and of the threads that mention the X-24C, this seems the best fit for these McDonnell Douglas images. The three photos are from a collection donated to the Museum by a retired McAir Engineer. Not sure of this was tunnel tested as part of McAir's own hypersonic projects or done as a contract. Note the dates on the 2nd and 3rd images.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,552
Reaction score
62
Dear Hesham,

the illustration #3 is a mine one.
You can spot that the publisher has already respected the copyright (even with my name tranlsated in Russian!.

Ciao
Giuseppe


hesham said:
From ; Аэрокосмическое обозрение №06 (67) 2013


here is some MD hyprsonic concepts in colors.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,098
Reaction score
353
One can't help but wonder, with all this hypersonic work by McD, did they ever fly anything, will we ever hear about it, and is Boeing doing anything with it?
 
Top