The McDonnell Douglas Model 176 developments

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
26 May 2006
Messages
33,027
Reaction score
12,606
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740077882_1974077882.pdf
 

Attachments

  • MD 1.JPG
    MD 1.JPG
    19.3 KB · Views: 801
  • MD 8.JPG
    MD 8.JPG
    24.7 KB · Views: 161
  • MD 7.JPG
    MD 7.JPG
    29.9 KB · Views: 630
  • MD 6.JPG
    MD 6.JPG
    32.3 KB · Views: 139
  • MD 5.JPG
    MD 5.JPG
    23.4 KB · Views: 240
  • MD 4.JPG
    MD 4.JPG
    19.3 KB · Views: 230
  • MD 3.JPG
    MD 3.JPG
    23.4 KB · Views: 237
  • MD 2.JPG
    MD 2.JPG
    22.7 KB · Views: 262
And;
 

Attachments

  • MD 16.JPG
    MD 16.JPG
    23.8 KB · Views: 158
  • MD 15.JPG
    MD 15.JPG
    36.8 KB · Views: 148
  • MD 14.JPG
    MD 14.JPG
    31.2 KB · Views: 140
  • MD 13.JPG
    MD 13.JPG
    18.5 KB · Views: 145
  • MD 12.JPG
    MD 12.JPG
    19.9 KB · Views: 516
  • MD 11.JPG
    MD 11.JPG
    22.1 KB · Views: 513
  • MD 10.JPG
    MD 10.JPG
    20.2 KB · Views: 127
  • MD 9.JPG
    MD 9.JPG
    23.4 KB · Views: 137
nice find Hesham

that was preferred Shuttle for "Cislunar Application of the Space Shuttle Orbiter"
the Idea: refuel the Orbiter in space, launch it to Moon Orbit. in cargobay a Lunar lander.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4011.0.html
 
That's a nice little spaceship, but what hit me was the thing looks like a big flying rocket propelled Sabot shoe with wings and fins, LOL :D Awesome!
 
That date is surprising... seems a bit early, no ? I would have thought later in the 1960's... I thought such a sophisticated shape and concept had taken years of refinements; and in 1961 the space race and lifting body research had barely started; if not at all.

Fantastic stuff and a truly amazing rocketplane.
 
That date is surprising... seems a bit early, no ? I would have thought later in the 1960's...

The stamp isn't the clearest ever but the '1' can't be a 7 nor 9, possibly a 4? It could be stamped incorrectly of course ! Here it is monochromed and adjusted for contrast:

View attachment 670423
Thank you. Well to me it reads like 1951, which makes even less sense... ! Zooming on the number it really looks like a "5". So I am at lost.
 
That date is surprising... seems a bit early, no ? I would have thought later in the 1960's...

The stamp isn't the clearest ever but the '1' can't be a 7 nor 9, possibly a 4? It could be stamped incorrectly of course ! Here it is monochromed and adjusted for contrast:

View attachment 670423
Thank you. Well to me it reads like 1951, which makes even less sense... ! Zooming on the number it really looks like a "5". So I am at lost.
I must admit when I first saw it I read '51 but had dismissed it and presumed it was a '61 with a dry-ink '6'

Could it possibly be not even a date but a reference number? I have seen many McDonnell prints with the D4C (catalogue?) refrerences on them (although this is clearly not D4C).


scratch that - the date is correct !

table header.jpg table entry.jpg
 
Last edited:
So this really is a space fighter? very cool, any ideas on the mission requiring 12 men and 5000lbs of equipment?
 
So this really is a space fighter? very cool, any ideas on the mission requiring 12 men and 5000lbs of equipment?

Presumably, crew exchange for a manned space station. There were so many concepts around this time it's probably impossible to associate this vehicle with any one station design.
 
So this really is a space fighter? very cool, any ideas on the mission requiring 12 men and 5000lbs of equipment?

Presumably, crew exchange for a manned space station. There were so many concepts around this time it's probably impossible to associate this vehicle with any one station design.
Note that the diagram includes "Weapons." It looks like a long-ish duration manned satellite inspector/interceptor. There were a number of such designs around that time, though again 1961 does seem a bit early.
 
So this really is a space fighter? very cool, any ideas on the mission requiring 12 men and 5000lbs of equipment?

Presumably, crew exchange for a manned space station. There were so many concepts around this time it's probably impossible to associate this vehicle with any one station design.
Note that the diagram includes "Weapons." It looks like a long-ish duration manned satellite inspector/interceptor. There were a number of such designs around that time, though again 1961 does seem a bit early.

True. But the armed satellite inspection/interceptor and passenger versions appear to be separate.
 
That date is surprising... seems a bit early, no ? I would have thought later in the 1960's...

The stamp isn't the clearest ever but the '1' can't be a 7 nor 9, possibly a 4? It could be stamped incorrectly of course ! Here it is monochromed and adjusted for contrast:

View attachment 670423
Thank you. Well to me it reads like 1951, which makes even less sense... ! Zooming on the number it really looks like a "5". So I am at lost.
I must admit when I first saw it I read '51 but had dismissed it and presumed it was a '61 with a dry-ink '6'

Could it possibly be not even a date but a reference number? I have seen many McDonnell prints with the D4C (catalogue?) refrerences on them (although this is clearly not D4C).


scratch that - the date is correct !

View attachment 670425View attachment 670426

April 17, 1961. WOW. Five days after Gagarine - and that thing surely is a bit more sophisticated than, say, a Vostok or a Mercury capsule.
 
I just realized that ISINGLASS / RHEINBERRY was the same Douglas, but Model 192 - and it all started in 1963 when Convair brought back FISH / KINGFISH to try and screw Lockheed in revenge for their 1959 defeat related to the A-12 OXCART. We have a (stupendous) thread for this: Convair went airbreathing / rocket mix up to Mach 9 and 130 000 feet; Douglas then came out of nowhere and beat them into a pulp with Model 192, all-rocket to Mach 22 and 200 000 feet.

So if Model 192 was started circa 1963, it is rather logical that Model 176 was a bit earlier, and thus 1961 makes sense.

Now what's really amazing is such an advanced aerodynamic shape at a time when Dryden lifting bodies hadn't even started yet (M2-F1 glider towed by a cadillac) started in 1962

For some unknown reason (perhaps related to Lockheed StarClipper, L-301, FDL-5 / FDL-7 and others) I assumed Douglas own advanced studies happened in the second half of the 1960's.

(I thought about Alpha Draco, but that was McDonnell, not yet merged with Douglas...)
 
Last edited:
I just realized that ISINGLASS / RHEINBERRY was the same Douglas, but Model 192 - and it all started in 1963 when Convair brought back FISH / KINGFISH to try and screw Lockheed in revenge for their 1959 defeat related to the A-12 OXCART. We have a (stupendous) thread for this: Convair went airbreathing / rocket mix up to Mach 9 and 130 000 feet; Douglas then came out of nowhere and beat them into a pulp with Model 192, all-rocket to Mach 22 and 200 000 feet.

So if Model 192 was started circa 1963, it is rather logical that Model 176 was a bit earlier, and thus 1961 makes sense.

(I thought about Alpha Draco, but that was McDonnell, not yet merged with Douglas...)
Weren't the 122, 176 & 192 all McDonnell?
Remember that the unmanned boost glide vehicle related to ISINGLASS was the (Y variant?) Model 122, which spanned from 1957 through to mid-sixties (and a little beyond?) edit: late-sixties, including the Alpha-Draco (B) & BGRV (E).
Model No. 192 was assigned in 1964 according to the 1974 project numbers list which is floating around.
 
Last edited:
McDonnell and Douglas how I hate you and your merge up... @Dew's right of course. Born in the 80's when they were already one and the same... to me they are like Tom&Jerry: unseparable. Before 1967 they were not...
D'oh !
 
It looks that front section with pilot's cabin was to separate in the case of emergency and be rescued by parachute. Can you enlarge front section for better view? (I am just curious because I am a parachute engineer). Irek
 
btw the jpg was taken from Orionblamblam's blog some time ago and the pdf was made from the images (see post #15) that I'd emailed him asking if he knew more.

Anyhoo - does anyone happen to have a copy of NASA docs:
  • 19880073728 "Summary of aerodynamic studies for the McDonnell Model 176" 1964
  • 19680081244 "Heat-transfer characteristics of the upper fins of the AFFDL-McDonnell Unmanned Supersonic Test Vehicle /USTV/ at Mach 10" 1968
  • 19700079521 "Static-force tests on the AFFDL- McDonnell Unmanned Supersonic Test Vehicle /USTV/ at supersonic Mach numbers" 1968
(the USTV being the FDL-7MD)
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom