MX-2147 "Bald Eagle" High Altitude Reconnaissance Projects

[boxkite]

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]

Ecce planum...
Source. Jay Miller's "U-2" Aerofax N.3

 

[Skybolt]

... er transparentia..

Same source

 

[Matej]

MX-2147 model

 

[boxkite]

Thanks a lot for the quick response.

Thomas

 

[thewanderingmind]

???

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!

 

[Skybolt]

Ago gratias multas 8)

 

[hesham]

Hi,

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

 

[Clioman]

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.

 

[Triton]

Model of Bell MX-2147.

Source: http://users.dbscorp.net/jmustain/x16.htm

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

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]

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)]

Sharpened the pic - looks like

Span = 90 ft
Length = 54 ft

Someone with the book can confirm.

 

[Elgrecko]

Overscan,

That's enough to get me started.

Thanx,
Ed

 

[jstar]

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)]

X-16 Patent drawings.

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

 

[jstar]

Perhaps Orionblamblam has material on this or the entire MX-2147 project. He seem to have stuff on everything else!

 

[Elgrecko]

Hello Jstar,

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

Thanx,
Ed

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

X-16 drawings and basic data


http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-BELL-X-16-ORIGINAL-MASTER-AIRCRAFT-DESCRIPTIVE-DATA-/301018325741?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item46161722ed


(Lockheed report on a competitor)

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Bell X-16 Artwork

Greetings All -

On EPay is this artwork for the Bell X-16:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-50s-USAF-BELL-X-16-ARTIST-RENDERNING-PROTOTYPE-SPY-AIRPLANE-U-2-COMPETITION-/111385475143?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19ef177847

I don't recall seeing a tailless variant but interesting nonetheless.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[hesham]

Re: Bell X-16 Artwork

Great find my dear Mark.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Re: Bell X-16 Artwork

Looks nothing like any Bell X-16 variant I've seen...

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Bell X-16 Artwork

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)]

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]

Bell’s Model 103, first , and Model 105, second, along with a schematic of the Model 105’s interior with the camera bays redacted. Bell art.

Source: War is Boring - Before the U-2 Spy Plane, There Was the X-16

 

[Stargazer]

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_]

X-16 drawings and basic data


http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-BELL-X-16-ORIGINAL-MASTER-AIRCRAFT-DESCRIPTIVE-DATA-/301018325741?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item46161722ed


(Lockheed report on a competitor)

It is funny that these Lockheed drawings show what is STILL REDACTED in the document just released by the Air Force. Why does it take a FOIA request to get it released after all these years, and why is it still redacted?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

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]

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]

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.

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_]

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]

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]

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.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

OK - so they are Model 67-102, Model 67-103, Model 67-105 perhaps.

 

[aim9xray]

Full drawings...

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Hmm. Seems I was wrong then! Drawings seem pretty clear on the model numbers.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

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]

Thank you aim9xray. Because of your post, everything is falling into place in orderly fashion.

 

[fightingirish]

Dear aim9xray,
thank you very much for posting the drawings and clarifying us about the model and report numbers/designations.

 

[hesham]

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.