NASA/Langley Hypersonic Configurations of 1960s,1970s & 1980s

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
26 May 2006
Messages
32,495
Reaction score
11,579

Attachments

  • Hypersonic-1.JPG
    Hypersonic-1.JPG
    29.7 KB · Views: 1,156
  • Hypersonic-2.JPG
    Hypersonic-2.JPG
    28.8 KB · Views: 1,054
  • Hypersonic-3.JPG
    Hypersonic-3.JPG
    42 KB · Views: 1,043
  • Hypersonic-4.JPG
    Hypersonic-4.JPG
    36.7 KB · Views: 1,035
Last edited:
Hi,

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19651025/61/2
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    98.3 KB · Views: 818
  • 2.png
    2.png
    153 KB · Views: 299
'Hesh , that top picture you posted is the Space Fighter that Scott wrote about 4 years ago.

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=15631
 
Here's our thread on that fighter.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14547.0.html
 
Hi,

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19700622/23/2
http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19700622/24/2
http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19700622/25/2
 

Attachments

  • 3.png
    3.png
    91.4 KB · Views: 258
  • 2.png
    2.png
    263.8 KB · Views: 265
  • 1.png
    1.png
    185.4 KB · Views: 294
Hi,

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19590420/48/2
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    161.3 KB · Views: 322
Hi,

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19620423/14/2
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    213.8 KB · Views: 280
From my dear Scott's site;

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=34931
 

Attachments

  • hypersonic-test.jpg
    hypersonic-test.jpg
    205.9 KB · Views: 256
Hi,


 

Attachments

  • 17.png
    17.png
    514.1 KB · Views: 240
  • 19.png
    19.png
    455.9 KB · Views: 262
Last edited:
From L+K 2/1971,

what was this one,a hypothetical or real design ?.
 

Attachments

  • 2   2-1971.png
    2 2-1971.png
    177.7 KB · Views: 262
From NASA report of 1987,

I don't or I can't ID this hypersonic Model ?.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    391.7 KB · Views: 195
  • 2.png
    2.png
    49.5 KB · Views: 254

C.1960 NASA Langley Hypersonic Wind Tunnel Model

A rare object of design and production these NASA wind tunnel models mark an era of technological wonder. This aluminum model was acquired from an old auction at Langley where testing on supersonic transport, space shuttles, and air craft were conducted. These models are quite scarce and are defining objects in transport history for both land and space travel.
This particular model was most likely tested in the smaller wind tunnel chamber as shown in the photo set listed where a technician would set it up and conduct research. From the wing design it falls in place with the late 1950-1960 canard placement what was being tested for the X pane series and also hypersonic testing and SST research. Measures 10” and made of solid aluminum. back spins on a threaded support and has a 6” x 6” steel display base.

1642897222696.png

1642897232914.png
 
Last edited:
Here is an Egyptian report from 2011.
 

Attachments

  • SELECTION_AND_OPTIMIZATION_OF_HYPERSONIC.pdf
    10.4 MB · Views: 34
Last edited:
From Hearing 1963,

here is a HTOL,I don't know if it is a proper topic to put it here
or not ?.
 

Attachments

  • 55.png
    55.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 132
From Hearing 1965,

who can ID these four hypersonic projects ?.
 

Attachments

  • 58.png
    58.png
    620.8 KB · Views: 148
From Hearing 1965,

who can ID these four hypersonic projects ?.
Colour pictures of the one shown top right were included in an AFMC look-back article as 'Advanced Interceptor'
Jim Goodall vaguely associates them with the X-24c (!?) in his 75 years of Skunkworks book (same picture as the one you posted I think) but doesn't positively identify them (inferring Lockheed studies?); a NASA logo a-la-YF-12C visible on the tail of the smallest.

The attached picture is from a similar era NASA authorization hearing document. 1967 I think. Trying to re-locate.
 

Attachments

  • Possible Hypersonic Aircraft Configurations.jpg
    Possible Hypersonic Aircraft Configurations.jpg
    121 KB · Views: 135
the fourth one may be a fighter ?.
tidied up (a bit) and the image description included:

Advanced Mach 5 Military Configuration.jpg
Advanced Mach 5 Military Conf Desc.jpg

ADVANCED MACH 5 MILITARY CONFIGURATION
Figure 14 is a sketch of an advanced configuration, now in the analysis stage, for application
to future military missions which may require extremely high altitude performance and extended
ranges in conjunction with reduced radar cross section. This concept used JP fuel for turbojet
operation and hydrogen for ramjet cruise. This configuration may undergo extensive modifications by
the time it reaches the wind tunnel stage.
There are various types of military applications of hypersonic aircraft which would not require
the long life of a transport airframe. Hot structure or metal heat shield TPS could do the
job in these cases.
 
the fourth one may be a fighter ?.
tidied up (a bit) and the image description included:

View attachment 698330
View attachment 698331

ADVANCED MACH 5 MILITARY CONFIGURATION
Figure 14 is a sketch of an advanced configuration, now in the analysis stage, for application
to future military missions which may require extremely high altitude performance and extended
ranges in conjunction with reduced radar cross section. This concept used JP fuel for turbojet
operation and hydrogen for ramjet cruise. This configuration may undergo extensive modifications by
the time it reaches the wind tunnel stage.
There are various types of military applications of hypersonic aircraft which would not require
the long life of a transport airframe. Hot structure or metal heat shield TPS could do the
job in these cases.

@Tophe are you here ? you gonna love this one.
 
From Hearing report.
 

Attachments

  • 13.png
    13.png
    1 MB · Views: 86
  • 14.png
    14.png
    4.2 MB · Views: 93
I never would have suspected a twin-boom arrangement…something goes askew—I’d expect one to break off at speed.
 
From this report,

please note the picture # 30 ?.
 

Attachments

  • 20.png
    20.png
    44.8 KB · Views: 42
  • 21.png
    21.png
    37.1 KB · Views: 42
  • 22.png
    22.png
    453.5 KB · Views: 44
  • 23.png
    23.png
    32.7 KB · Views: 48
  • 24.png
    24.png
    47.2 KB · Views: 43
  • 25.png
    25.png
    50.9 KB · Views: 40
  • 26.png
    26.png
    259.7 KB · Views: 40
  • 27.png
    27.png
    192.1 KB · Views: 41
  • 28.png
    28.png
    283.1 KB · Views: 41
  • 29.png
    29.png
    27.7 KB · Views: 56
  • 30.png
    30.png
    365.4 KB · Views: 54
  • 50.png
    50.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 65
From Aeronautics 1971,

the second picture as I remember,someone asked me in this forum
about it before ?.
 

Attachments

  • 20.png
    20.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 44
  • 21.png
    21.png
    536.7 KB · Views: 47
Hello again,

To clarify, I presume the second concept was also subject to similar requirements besides fuel?

Additionally, were any remarks made on range? (Unfortunately I am unable to access the pdf; the link appears to no longer have it)

You want the working link,honestly my dear PaulMM showed me before,how to bring
the source again,but I forget the way ?.
 
Back
Top Bottom