Anyone know what this Feb '68 CIA meeting with Kelly Johnson was (more specifically) referring to?
Some highlights:
Apologies if it's already been discussed and I've missed it
- Arrangements 'for *redacted* to visit the propulsion facility.. ..and witness some rocket motors in actual operation using OTTO II fuel.' (LPC initially quoted for engine/pumps)
- 'LAC existing plastics facility and specialists in platics frabrication from the OXCART program will be used to fabricate the wings and tail surfaces'
- Wind tunnel tests not 'believed to be required for separation'
- 'The construction was dictated by minimum radar cross section which led to a metal fuselage and a plastic wing and tail'
- Tank insulation will maintain fuel at a useable temperature prior to ignition for eight hours
- 200 watts to be made available by 'additional batteries in the payload area'
- U-2R modification include 'trapeze, pylon etc.' and include 'a built-in checkout capability for pre-launch confidence'
- program intended to take advantage of existing U-2R test operation at Edwards AFB. 'Specific government support limited to fuel and spares for the U-2R and the drones'
Indeed, elements certainly do, but from a U-2R ? Senior Bowl was underway by then (although it's booster motor was LPC?)Sounds a lot like TAGBOARD
- Hybrid? Rocket motor. (?)
No idea, but don't think so!Is this Aquiline related (competitor?)
..and used by Aerojet in a mod'd AQM-37 in the early '80's !:- Otto II fuel is US Navy torpedo monopropellant.
A84-17862#
SYNTHESIS AND PERFORMANCE OF AN AIR-TURBORAMJET-PROPELLED SUPERSONIC TARGET VEHICLE
(AIAA PAPER 84-0075)
A modified version of the AQM-37 target vehicle was used in this study in expectation that integrating an Air-TurboRamjet (ATR) propulsion subsystem would provide safety and performance benefits relative to the existing AQM-37A target. The ATR propulsion subsystem allows utilization of relatively benign fuel (OTTO II) in place of the inhibited red fuming nitric acid/mixed amine fuel NO. 4 (IRFNA/MAF no. 4) bipropellant combination used in the current version of the AQM-37. Otto II provides more than twice the currently delivered specific impulse. Performance evaluations of the ATR-propelled target vehicle designs show capability for sustained low-altitude flight at Mach 1.5 and a powered flight range of more than 200 NM cruising at Mach 3.0, 80,000 ft. altitude when launched at Mach 1.5. 50,000 ft. altitude.
LPC == Lockheed Propulsion Company (formerly Grand Central Rocket Company).
I don't know. But every takeoff has the U2 make a huge up angle and climb at an outrageous rate.How is that possible with a full fuel load?! I know it generates a lot of lift, but that seems like a ridiculous angle.
Almost anything is "relatively benign" compared to IRFNA.....and used by Aerojet in a mod'd AQM-37 in the early '80's !:- Otto II fuel is US Navy torpedo monopropellant.
A84-17862#
SYNTHESIS AND PERFORMANCE OF AN
AIR-TURBORAMJET-PROPELLED SUPERSONIC TARGET
VEHICLE
(AIAA PAPER 84-0075)
A modified version of the AQM-37 target vehicle was used in
this study in expectation that integrating an Air-TurboRamjet (ATR)
propulsion subsystem would provide safety and performance
benefits relative to the existing AQM-37A target. The ATR
propulsion subsystem allows utilization of relatively benign fuel
(OTTO II) in place of the inhibited red fuming nitric acid/mixed
amine fuel NO. 4 (IRFNA/MAF no. 4) bipropellant combination
used in the current version of the AQM-37. Otto II provides more
than twice the currently delivered specific impulse. Performance
evaluations of the ATR-propelled target vehicle designs show
capability for sustained low-altitude flight at Mach 1.5 and a
powered flight range of more than 200 NM cruising at Mach 3.0,
80,000 ft. altitude when launched at Mach 1.5. 50,000 ft. altitude.
- "Almost anything is "relatively benign" compared to IRFNA..."Almost anything is "relatively benign" compared to IRFNA...
OTTO II combustion products are highly toxic.
- "Almost anything is "relatively benign" compared to IRFNA..."Almost anything is "relatively benign" compared to IRFNA...
OTTO II combustion products are highly toxic.
Hahaha... That reminds me of something someone said on a rocket propulsion forum when hydrazine was mentioned:
"Hydrazine is NOT radioactive... Thats the nicest thing I can say about it."
- "OTTO II combustion products are highly toxic."
I thought the Navy's torpedo monopropellant was basically high test peroxide, is that old tech now? I'm assuming OTTO II is completely different if its combustion products are that toxic.
(Please forgive my ignorance. I'm not up on the latest torpedo tech!)
OTTO II is a liquid monopropellant. Means it will burn even in deep space. Also means that most conventional firefighting methods will fail if a fuel spill catches fire.- "Almost anything is "relatively benign" compared to IRFNA..."Almost anything is "relatively benign" compared to IRFNA...
OTTO II combustion products are highly toxic.
Hahaha... That reminds me of something someone said on a rocket propulsion forum when hydrazine was mentioned:
"Hydrazine is NOT radioactive... Thats the nicest thing I can say about it."
- "OTTO II combustion products are highly toxic."
I thought the Navy's torpedo monopropellant was basically high test peroxide, is that old tech now? I'm assuming OTTO II is completely different if its combustion products are that toxic.
(Please forgive my ignorance. I'm not up on the latest torpedo tech!)
Quote from wiki.Otto fuel II is a distinct-smelling (described by submariners as being similar in smell to wintergreen oil; i.e. sweet, fruity and minty),[citation needed] reddish-orange, oily liquid that is a mixture of three synthetic substances: propylene glycol dinitrate (the major component), 2-nitrodiphenylamine, and dibutyl sebacate.[4]
- "Almost anything is "relatively benign" compared to IRFNA..."Almost anything is "relatively benign" compared to IRFNA...
OTTO II combustion products are highly toxic.
Hahaha... That reminds me of something someone said on a rocket propulsion forum when hydrazine was mentioned:
"Hydrazine is NOT radioactive... Thats the nicest thing I can say about it."
- "OTTO II combustion products are highly toxic."
I thought the Navy's torpedo monopropellant was basically high test peroxide, is that old tech now? I'm assuming OTTO II is completely different if its combustion products are that toxic.
(Please forgive my ignorance. I'm not up on the latest torpedo tech!)
Like I said.- "Almost anything is "relatively benign" compared to IRFNA..."Almost anything is "relatively benign" compared to IRFNA...
OTTO II combustion products are highly toxic.
Hahaha... That reminds me of something someone said on a rocket propulsion forum when hydrazine was mentioned:
"Hydrazine is NOT radioactive... Thats the nicest thing I can say about it."
- "OTTO II combustion products are highly toxic."
I thought the Navy's torpedo monopropellant was basically high test peroxide, is that old tech now? I'm assuming OTTO II is completely different if its combustion products are that toxic.
(Please forgive my ignorance. I'm not up on the latest torpedo tech!)
Try fluorine. Or boron fuels. Beryllium too. IRFNA is peanut butter, compared to that trio.
Now that's an appropriate name. "Be careful, we may have a minor issue here, loading that missi-" - FOOF, there goes the crew, the pad, the rocket: leaving a smoldering crater in the ground.DiOxygen DiFluoride (aka FOOF)
Man, I would not want to fly anywhere near a thunderstorm in a U2...Studying Thunderstorms with NASA’s ER-2 Aircraft:
View: https://youtu.be/qFEtaGJ-ZAs?si=2j837eVbDv4KKg3E
- An updated avionics suite (communications, navigation, display, etc.) that modernizes the U-2's onboard systems to readily accept and use new technology.
- A new mission computer designed to the U.S. Air Force's open mission systems (OMS) standard that enables the U-2 to integrate with systems across air, space, sea, land and cyber domains at disparate security levels.
- New modern cockpit displays to make pilot tasks easier, while enhancing presentation of the data the aircraft collects to enable faster, better-informed decisions.
Where did you hear that?And the USAF are planning on getting rid of the Dragon Lady, that is IF congress gives it's approval or not, let's wait and see if it is the later. It will be interesting to see what happens and what replaces the DL, something along the lines of the SR-72 if it is still out there.
Where did you hear that?
Can't be Tagboard, too big & heavy for launch from U-2R.
Interesting tidbits -
- Plastic wings and tail
- Otto II fuel is US Navy torpedo monopropellant.
- Rocket motor. (?)
- Trapeze launch - U-2R fuselage top or wing super pod station.
- Max mission time to launch - 8 hours (cold soak requirement)
Is this Aquiline related (competitor?)
from FY 1970 FINANCIAL PROGRAM/FY 1971 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONSFORTUNE COOKIE:
A. On the basis of Ex Com approval for FY 1969 initiation of this drone program for the U-2's, the Agency is to provide material on the principal requirements assumptions for the cost estimates, such as the planned operational activity related to proposed quantities. In the event SAC also has a requirement for this drone, the Agency is to include both Agency and SAC under this account, in cooperation and coordination with Director D.
B. Any related Countermeasure R&D proposed funding is to be included under this account, rather than [redcated] NRO 25X1A
C. F.Y. 1970 Financial Program Recommendations:
Submit line entry requirements and costs in meaningful detail, such as quantity and costs of drone procurements, cost of drone mods, Elint system quantities and costs, test support, number and costs of technicians, spares costs, etc.
D. F.Y. 1971 Budget Recommendations:
Submit similar detail as that required for the F.Y. 1970 Financial Program Recommendations.
Some test projects were almost surreal. One involved a method for dropping propaganda leaflets from 70,000 feet. Another, called Fortune Cookie, called for launching modified AQM-37 supersonic drones from wing pylons. Under the initial concept, the rocket-powered drone would be equipped with a camera and recovered at the end of its flight. Later, it was proposed that an expendable drone would collect electronic intelligence data, which could then be relayed to the U-2 or another airborne platform within range. Although test results were promising, no operational missions were undertaken.
The Jan. 4 Elephant Walk included at least 8 U-2 Dragon Lady, at least 9 T-38 Talons, two KC-135 Stratotankers and a number of U-2 pursuit vehicles.
The Armored T-28 is best for hailstorms.Man, I would not want to fly anywhere near a thunderstorm in a U2...