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

MX-2147 "Bald Eagle" High Altitude Reconnaissance Projects

boxkite

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
847
Reaction score
146
I'm looking for illustrations of the Fairchild M-195 (a competitor to Bell Model 67, Martin RB-57D and Lockheed CL-282). Who can help?
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
126
Ecce planum...
Source. Jay Miller's "U-2" Aerofax N.3
 

Attachments

  • M-195_jpeg.jpg
    M-195_jpeg.jpg
    36.7 KB · Views: 1,407

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
126
... er transparentia..

Same source
 

Attachments

  • M-195_side.jpg
    M-195_side.jpg
    42 KB · Views: 1,149

boxkite

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
847
Reaction score
146
Thanks a lot for the quick response.

Thomas
 

thewanderingmind

Werfless
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
???
Ecce planum...
???

Skybolt, I now know why you're classified "Dangerous." Anyone who can drop accurate Latin into the midst of a posting on secret aircraft projects definitely has much more knowledge than the rest of us! ;)
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,663
Reaction score
3,457
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790008829_1979008829.pdf
 

Attachments

  • Bell X-16,Martin-294 and Fairchild MX-2147.JPG
    Bell X-16,Martin-294 and Fairchild MX-2147.JPG
    125.7 KB · Views: 846
  • REX-I.JPG
    REX-I.JPG
    33.5 KB · Views: 747

Clioman

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
130
Reaction score
6
This is an excerpt from John L. Sloop's Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel, 1945-1959 (NASA SP-4404). Sloop was the first historian to describe Project Suntan in detail, including the fact that Pratt & Whitney built a hydrogen fueled-turbojet and flew it in a Martin B-57 test aircraft.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,348
Reaction score
3,359
Merged topics.

MX-2147 led to the RB-57D as an interim solution while the Bell X-16 (Model 67) was sidelined in favour of Lockheed's U-2.
 

Elgrecko

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I am looking for any and all information of this aircraft [Fairchild M-195]. I have looked at the drawings that have already been posted, but I can't make out the dimensions no matter how I try to sharpen the images. My ultimate goal is to scratch build a 1/72 scale model and really need more information than what I'm able to find on the net.

Thanx,
Ed
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,348
Reaction score
3,359
Sharpened the pic - looks like

Span = 90 ft
Length = 54 ft

Someone with the book can confirm.
 

jstar

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
179
Reaction score
77
Copies of the Jay Miller book on the U-2, with the original drawings, can be found for as little as $3.00 on the internet. Just bought one with the same purpose in mind.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,348
Reaction score
3,359
X-16 Patent drawings.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=qllzAAAAEBAJ
 

Attachments

  • X-16-Patent-1.jpg
    X-16-Patent-1.jpg
    44.2 KB · Views: 1,034
  • X-16-Patent-2.jpg
    X-16-Patent-2.jpg
    35.8 KB · Views: 885

jstar

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
179
Reaction score
77
Perhaps Orionblamblam has material on this or the entire MX-2147 project. He seem to have stuff on everything else!
 

Elgrecko

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello Jstar,

Keep us posted on your progress and I'll do the same.

Thanx,
Ed
 

Mark Nankivil

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,626
Reaction score
508

Attachments

  • Bell X-16 Artwork - 1.JPG
    Bell X-16 Artwork - 1.JPG
    205.3 KB · Views: 105
  • Bell X-16 Artwork - 2.JPG
    Bell X-16 Artwork - 2.JPG
    161.4 KB · Views: 108
  • Bell X-16 Artwork - 3.JPG
    Bell X-16 Artwork - 3.JPG
    210.9 KB · Views: 107
  • Bell X-16 Artwork - 4.JPG
    Bell X-16 Artwork - 4.JPG
    241 KB · Views: 107

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,663
Reaction score
3,457
Re: Bell X-16 Artwork

Great find my dear Mark.
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,235
Reaction score
450
Re: Bell X-16 Artwork

PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Looks nothing like any Bell X-16 variant I've seen...

Ditto. Are we positive it's meant to depict the Bell X-16? Or is it not purely an artist's imaginary design?
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,348
Reaction score
3,359
Re: Bell X-16 Artwork

The declassification notice implies its a painting of something, but we don't know how the seller came to the conclusion its the Bell X-16.
 

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,379
Reaction score
680

Attachments

  • 1-101Kd2s6VpKGf9uo9Sco0g.jpeg
    1-101Kd2s6VpKGf9uo9Sco0g.jpeg
    102.1 KB · Views: 140
  • 1-NjaLBZiDBXT51ILusQUQvA.jpeg
    1-NjaLBZiDBXT51ILusQUQvA.jpeg
    81.9 KB · Views: 100
  • 1-BEreCg7y0gjTXckxgCfRtw.jpeg
    1-BEreCg7y0gjTXckxgCfRtw.jpeg
    90.5 KB · Views: 91

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,235
Reaction score
450
It's not that I doubt the source you took these beautiful pictures from, but "Model 103" and "Model 105" really come as a surprise here.

In official Bell records, Models 102, 103 and 105 are all related to the B-63 Rascal tactical missile. Model 103 refers to B-63 training aids, while Model 105 refers to ground-handling equipment for the XB-63. What makes these designations even more dubious is the use of a 100+ designation (these ran from 101 to 130 and were reserved to equipments or modifications performed on existing types, not aircraft designs as such. Besides, why give these design variations new model numbers since the Model 67 already covered the MX-2147 (X-16) project?
 

sublight is back

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
778
Reaction score
58

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,348
Reaction score
3,359
Skyblazer said:
It's not that I doubt the source you took these beautiful pictures from, but "Model 103" and "Model 105" really come as a surprise here.

In official Bell records, Models 102, 103 and 105 are all related to the B-63 Rascal tactical missile. Model 103 refers to B-63 training aids, while Model 105 refers to ground-handling equipment for the XB-63. What makes these designations even more dubious is the use of a 100+ designation (these ran from 101 to 130 and were reserved to equipments or modifications performed on existing types, not aircraft designs as such. Besides, why give these design variations new model numbers since the Model 67 already covered the MX-2147 (X-16) project?


Its a mistake. All 3 drawings look like the same version. Most likely the drawings were labelled -102, -103, -105 but these are most likely drawing type designators.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,281
Reaction score
1,238
The first and second drawings look like different iterations of the same basic configuration -- there are differences in dimensions for the same structures, so they can't be the same exact design. Could the 102, 103 and 105 refer to sequential iterations of a single MX number design?
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
158
sublight is back said:
It is funny that these Lockheed drawings show what is STILL REDACTED in the document just released by the Air Force.


Why is it funny? The Air Force document may show something that is still considered sensitive. For example, it may show a camera system that is still in use on the U-2 or another system.


sublight is back said:

Why does it take a FOIA request to get it released after all these years, and why is it still redacted?


Because otherwise it will not be reviewed for declassification. Classified documents do not magically get released without a review process after some time period has passed. When a document is requested it may (or may not) go through a review process and be released in some form.
 

sublight is back

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
778
Reaction score
58
quellish said:
sublight is back said:
It is funny that these Lockheed drawings show what is STILL REDACTED in the document just released by the Air Force.

Why is it funny? The Air Force document may show something that is still considered sensitive. For example, it may show a camera system that is still in use on the U-2 or another system.

It's funny because it's stupid. Clearly the Lockheed drawing shows that they had access to the original diagram and noted the camera was a KA-1 or K-38, neither of which are classified. The over classification of documents from 1953 isn't cautious editing, it is unnecessary censorship.
 

aim9xray

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
564
Reaction score
194
Very interesting! A few thoughts...

- The MX-number is the Air Force's project number; there may be various contractor's project numbers attached to it.

- The Bell report number references D159; we already know that D159 was the Bell project number assigned in response to contract(s) issued under the Air Force MX project. Other Bell reports referenced include:

Detailed Specification D159-947-001
Aircraft Design (Includes all detailed drawings) D159-945-004
Preliminary Stress Analysis D159-941-001
Estimated Weight and Balance D159-942-001
Aerodynamic Criteria and Design D159-976-001
Performance D159-978-002
Stability and Control D159-978-003
Aeroelastic Studies D159-978-004
Preliminary Flutter Analysis D159-984-001

- The "model numbers" (Model 103, Model 105) referenced relate to different design permutations. IMHO, it appears that the "model numbers" are subordinate to the Bell D-number. (In other words, if this was Boeing, the report might refer to the "D159-105" instead of "Model 105"). Note that the model numbers are explicitly used in the report's body text (example follows)

"A reconnaissance aircraft weapons system capable of achieving range and altitude performance not possible with any current prototype or production aircraft has been designed for operational use in 1956. This aircraft, designated Model 105, is designed specifically for very-high-altitude operation at high sub-sonic speeds using presently available turbojet engines and conventional air-frame design and fabrication practice. A three-view of Model 105 is shown in Figure 1, while Figure 2 presents a cutaway profile showing the cockpit and pilot provisions, landing gear installation, aircraft equipment, airframe structural design, and provisions for the photographic reconnaissance equipment specified in Exhibit A of USAF Contract No. 33(616)-2160."

- The redaction of the camera equipment information is perhaps less puzzling if you note that the original declassification date of the document (from Secret, to Confidential, to Unclassified) was 31 December 1965. It's likely that the camera gear was in use at that time on the U-2 and therefore still sensitive. The original markups were probably replaced by blackouts when the PDF was generated in response to the FOIA request.

HTH!
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,893
Reaction score
232
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Skyblazer said:
It's not that I doubt the source you took these beautiful pictures from, but "Model 103" and "Model 105" really come as a surprise here.

In official Bell records, Models 102, 103 and 105 are all related to the B-63 Rascal tactical missile. Model 103 refers to B-63 training aids, while Model 105 refers to ground-handling equipment for the XB-63. What makes these designations even more dubious is the use of a 100+ designation (these ran from 101 to 130 and were reserved to equipments or modifications performed on existing types, not aircraft designs as such. Besides, why give these design variations new model numbers since the Model 67 already covered the MX-2147 (X-16) project?


Its a mistake. All 3 drawings look like the same version. Most likely the drawings were labelled -102, -103, -105 but these are most likely drawing type designators.

Wingspan, tailplane span, and wing sweep angle are different between the two plan views... ;)

cheers,
Robin.
 

aim9xray

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
564
Reaction score
194
Full drawings...
 

Attachments

  • MX-2147,_Page_14.png
    MX-2147,_Page_14.png
    37 KB · Views: 340
  • MX-2147,_Page_22.png
    MX-2147,_Page_22.png
    35.5 KB · Views: 347

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,348
Reaction score
3,359
The initial series started at Model 1 and was chronologically sequenced. It stopped at Model 69 in 1957.

Model 101 up were for modifications of existing aircraft and subcontracting work
 

circle-5

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
128
Thank you aim9xray. Because of your post, everything is falling into place in orderly fashion.
 

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,379
Reaction score
680
Dear aim9xray,
thank you very much for posting the drawings and clarifying us about the model and report numbers/designations. ;)
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,663
Reaction score
3,457
My dears and my friends,

we must don't forget the word "re-allocated",and that had been done many times by American,Russian
and UK companies.
 

Similar threads

Top