X-67 ELMORS (fictional X-Plane)


ACCESS: Top Secret
24 March 2007
Reaction score
I just wanted to show something that came from my mind and my hands. :-[ It's my graduation project.
I wanted to do a new navy/fighter bomber like A/F-X but this competition here:
changed my mind. :-\ So, as much as I enjoy Scifi, I wanted to do a VERY real design.

My entry was Number 90. It was too complex to be made into a model by fantastic-plastic :( but is just enough for the geeks in secret projects. :) Here the link to all the images: (if someone does not find it)

I have 60+ pages of material written for it. :-X A video will be added to youtube as soon as I finish the animation. ::)

I have included the first image, the rest can also be found on this link:http://picasaweb.google.com/lantinian/X67ELMORS


P.S. It does have canards. 4 of them! OMG! :eek:
Well, In that case there was no way to use tails.

P.S.S. I have desided to include all the pictures as attachments


  • Cover_Slide.jpg
    296.1 KB · Views: 246
  • Slide01.jpg
    374.2 KB · Views: 147
  • Slide02.jpg
    379.1 KB · Views: 117
  • Slide03.jpg
    350.3 KB · Views: 125
  • Slide04.jpg
    347.7 KB · Views: 108
  • Slide06.jpg
    318 KB · Views: 57
  • Slide07.jpg
    349.2 KB · Views: 70
  • Slide09.jpg
    311.9 KB · Views: 60
Hmm, It's me again.

I would appreciate feedback structured either as:

1. WOW......


2. Why on earth have you done this, that way?


P.S. Bonus picture (sorry titles in BG)


  • Slide13.jpg
    347.4 KB · Views: 67
  • Slide11.jpg
    307.8 KB · Views: 64
  • Saturn V.jpg
    Saturn V.jpg
    102.6 KB · Views: 113
Some very unusual and innovative solution there. I have two questions to you:

1. What is the empty weight/fuel ratio of the vehicle before the start, considering the various mission profiles?

2. Why are the solar panels on the opposite side of the air brakes? Won't they be burned during reentry?
Thank Matej.

1. What is the empty weight/fuel ratio of the vehicle before the start, considering the various mission profiles?

Because it's a conceptual design I have not bothered to keep track exactly how much fuel I have on board as part of the whole weight. If I have even attempted to do so, it would be like saying that its real and it really works.
So What I have done (like the X-33) to integrate some concept, technologies and researches that will potentially yield a usefull piece of hardware in the next 2 decades. Stuff that will reduce fuel consumption:
1. Air breathing engines. According to NASA, this ability will make SSTO spacecraft 5 times lighter.
2. Linear Aerospike Nozzles. The aerospike engines are claimed to have 25-30% increased efficiency over rocket engines at low altitude if the later were designed for space use.
3. Use of wings to generate lift. It is not unknown that half the magic behind modern aircrafts range is the wing.
4. Advanced Engines. I have come up with a unique concept called PDRE (Pulse Detonation Rocket Engine). Later on, I found that NASA has a similar idea and a similar program running by the same name. Doh!
6. Common Engine and RCS (Reaction Control System) fuel. Every drop of fuel is available by every exhaust nozzle on the aircraft.
5. New fuel: Based on some calculation I made, I have decided that using Liquid Methane/Liquid Oxygen combination will help me lower the size of the tanks by at least 3 times as opposed to Liquid Hydrogen/Liquid Oxygen. I can show those later on, if anyone asks.
6. Plasma shield based on a certain receach by a certain New York institute.
7. Use of fuel modules in a similar fashion to today's drop tanks used by fighters.
8. Mission profile that takes maximum use off all those above.

In short. I have tried to make the aircraft efficient. Far from an airplane but much more than even X-33. I have attached 2 images of the oxygen and methane tanks. The red are the methane and I have shown only a 1/4 of them.


  • Tanks_Methane_Hull.JPG
    21.4 KB · Views: 42
  • pde-performance.gif
    18.3 KB · Views: 36
  • Tanks_Oxygen_Hull.JPG
    43.9 KB · Views: 41
2. Why are the solar panels on the opposite side of the air brakes? Won't they be burned during reentry?

The Solar Panel are on the inside of the panels as see on the pictures. The outside of the panels does have the old fashion tiles thermal protection system (TPS). I have used it only because its better looking texture than the metallic TPS on the X-33.

The panels can open during reentry to help slow the vehicle down. However neither part of the aircraft gets exposed to the heat as it is protected by the plasma heat shield which has taken the shape of the aircraft. This may not be very accurate but its better looking anyway than just a simple plasma cone starting from the tip of the plasma torch at front.

The vehicle has thermal protection system for the event of a failure by the Plasma Torch. In the brief moments that the lasers take over the job of creating the plasma field, the vehicle must be protected to a degree.

My only regret about the rear panels (very last addition to the design) is while the vehicle has landed on the moon it cannot use them as solar panels, as the solar panels are on the inside. I have an idea about that for the fictional full scale production model.


  • image0.jpg
    77.1 KB · Views: 36
  • M09_Earth_Reentry.JPG
    22.3 KB · Views: 37

Similar threads

Top Bottom