McDonnell-Douglas Hypersonic projects from the 60s and 70s

[KJ_Lesnick]

The Navy one, was that the Deck Launched interceptor I heard about before?

 

[archipeppe]

Not as good as Archipeppe's handiwork, but I do what I can. Enjoy!



PS- ZUJ for the McD TAV and Toss-Back concepts. W.I.P.

Ehi, they're really nice!!
What programme did you use to do them?

Anyway, they could eventually become a gooood source for some drawing of mine.....

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Plain ol' AutoCAD.

 

[archipeppe]

Plain ol' AutoCAD.

Aha...the good old one.
I continue to use 2002 Release both in 2D and 3D as well.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

AutoCAD 2009.

You know,with these new drawings Mark unearthed, I will probably add to the drawing already seen.

Now to name some sources

My main source is this very thread you're reading. My thanks to everyone that's contributed on here.

Paul Czysz's interview, BEYOND AURORA, from the late lamented www.americanantigravity.com, was another good source. Still available for download here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/1026001/Paul-Czysz-Hypersonic-Interview?autodown=pdf.

For my info on the HGV, I have to thank Andreas Parsch:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/hgv.html

And though I haven't finished them yet......

For the upcoming McD TAV, I'd like to thank the ever elusive Marcus Lindroos on behalf of the webarchive. MARCUS, WE MISS YOUR SITE DEARLY AND HOP YOU COME BACK:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070608073130/www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld057.htm

and for the Toss-Back Booster, look no further than our very own thread right here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4024.75.html

All good sources.

Thank you.

Moonbat

 

[Tuomasn]

Very nice Moonbat, though the side view of the GIUK gap interceptor still doesn't look quite right to my eyes
Also, wasn't it just concluded that the "General Dynamics HGV from the 1980s" is actually a McDonnell XLR129 powered hypersonic glider from 1958! (And thus it seems there are no actual HGV images in the public domain?)

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Shockonlip,

"All the afterburning turbojet/fans used in the HyFac study were conventional installations
where the airflow to the compressor increased in temperature and pressure. At about Mach
number 1.8, most compressors reach the point where the corrected speed for design efficiency
equals the machanical rotational speed limit of the compressor. At Mach numbers above this
point the mechanical speed is constant and the corrected compressor speed (N/sqrt(T/288K)
decreases. If there is a cryogenic heat exchange in the inlet between the inlet exit and
compressor entrance, then the temperature of the air entering the compressor can be kept at
that for best corrected speed, up to the Mach number limit where the heat exchanger can no
longer keep the temperature within limits. When such a turbojet is thermally integrated with a
rocket, there is no longer a transonic acceleration deficiency. This is not a classic definition of
a turbojet." I may also add, this is similar to what skylon is doing.

So basically this is a conventional turbojet/turbofan that's actively cooled and coupled with a rocket? What mach numbers could they get to before they'd have to switch over to rocket?

 

[quellish]

Were any these your possible RASCAL refs:
http://www.responsivespace.com/Papers/RS2%5CSESSION%20PAPERS%5CSESSION%208%5CLOPATA%5C8004P.pdf
http://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/1853/8372/1/AIAA-2005-3241.pdf

Sadly, no. The configuration I'm looking for is nearly identical to the McD concept in this thread, but has a canopy with circular portholes like SpaceShipOne/WhiteKnight. In place of the centerline ramjet is the RASCAL ascent rocket.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Oh, that ever-elusive HGV! When will it end?

Meteorit, my friend, you're absoulutely right. So....

CONFUSION ITEM No. 1:

A:The HGV has never been publicly seen.
B: Prof. Czsyz did just say that the "Sweetman Model" isn't at all what it's purported to have been all these years. But instead a model from McD filing cabinet, ca. 1958.

Which means we've been misled since 1987 on that item. Either that or somebody dusted the model off and set it out for the 1987 AF Convention where Sweetman could see it. Disinformation perhaps.

I wonder what Bill Sweetman's thoughts are on this. We should find him and ask him.

I got something else thats been bothering me too.

CONFUSION ITEM No. 2:

Why did Bill Rose in SP: Military Space Technology, portray the Incremental Growth Vehicle (IGV) as Project ISINGLASS? It's the IGV. We've discussed it here on this forum before. Scott even posted the AWST article detailing it the other day.

Why is Bill Rose so convinced that the IGV is Project ISINGLASS? Is there more to this?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Why did Bill Rose in SP: Military Space Technology, portray the Incremental Growth Vehicle (IGV) as Project ISINGLASS? It's the IGV. We've discussed it here on this forum before. Scott even posted the AWST article detailing it the other day.

Why is Bill Rose so convinced that the IGV is Project ISINGLASS? Is there more to this?

Picture 3 is what Bill Rose depicts as the "Aerospaceplane project from the early 70's". According to his book "SP: Military Space Technology", this was supposed to be a revival of Rheinberry using airbreathing propulsion.

(I'm not going to hate on Mr. Rose. While his books are informative, his info does sometimes seem a bit dubious. Canadian Arrow's SpaceShip One taking the X-Prize, anybody? And considering SP: M.S.T. didn't have a bibliography, you have to wonder.)

I pointed out this thread to Mr. Rose, who sent me this reply and authorized quoting him:

Firstly, the comments regarding the Canadian Arrow project details in MST
are a puzzle to me. My relatively brief entry was precise and completely
accurate and there is nothing dubious about the info, as suggested by the SP
member.

The Arrow represented the most ambitious proposal for a (recent) development
of the basic V-2 design, but the people behind this project finally dropped
out of the race. As you know, the honour of becoming the first private
citizen in space went to Mike Melville of Scaled Composites - which was
clearly stated in my book. There is nothing that says that the Canadian
Arrow took the X-Prize, as it obviously didn't!

Two things missing from MST were the credits, which were intended to go at
the start of the book, but didn't appear on the final printed copy (don't
ask me why) and a bibliography, which, to be honest, I don't regard as very
important.

Background information (for MST) came from many sources. I used numerous
reference books, which most of the more experienced forum members would be
familiar with. There were also publications like Spaceflight and various
aerospace magazines. The amount of material I studied can only be described
as substantial, with a lot of library special orders.

The bulk of the other background material was sourced directly from
contractors, agencies like NASA and the military. Finally, there are my
private contacts which are not for disclosure.

Roughly speaking, my budget for research was about double that of the
previous book.

The content, size and completion date for a book like MST will be specified
in the publisher's contract and all these factors can lead to things being
left out or changed at the editing stage.Unfortunately, with books and
magazine articles, there is never the option to go back and improve your
work. ...

MST was never going to be perfect. There are obvious gaps in the detail and
undoubtedly errors due to non-availability of certain information. Without
trying to state the obvious, I would also mention that there are times when
you find yourself brushing up against areas that are classified and this can
generate certain problems for any writer.

The book was written a couple of years ago and should it ever be updated, I
would make several minor changes, but in overall terms, I feel the content
is fairly solid and an honest attempt to outline the topic in a reasonably
interesting way.

The Isinglass drawings were most definitely not based on the IGV, despite
the similarity. Unfortunately there is a caption problem with these drawings
and I would now add additional information about the IGV, which I did not
have at the time.

Because of the reliability of my source for Isinglass, I think it is pretty
fair outline for the original proposal, although it is based on details
provided to me and the illustrations are to some extent speculative.

With a book like MST, information you've requested continues to arrive long
after the publisher's deadline. Last month I received documentation from
NASA in response to a long standing FOIA. ...

The same goes for McDonnell hypersonic vehicle projects, which were far more
extensive than I realised while writing the book. Now, I have some very
interesting info for future use.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Well good to see Mr Rose has cleared that up. I'll have to get a future edition.

For today I give you this. Enjoy!

DISCLAIMER: The dimensions on the TAV come from the webarchive of Marc Lindroos's old page. Starting with that as reference, I approximated the dimensions for Toss-Back Booster. As we've so far not seen solid unclassified info on the Toss-Back, I made a guess. Input from the forum is always welcome.

Moonbat

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

And here's the class picture

 

[hesham]

Hi,

the McDonnell-Douglas 8 mach hypersonic model of 1972.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720015247_1972015247.pdf

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

I think that might be a wind tunnel model of a proposed Shuttle first stage.

Moonbat

 

[archipeppe]

Well good to see Mr Rose has clear that up. I'll have to get a future edition.

For today I give you this. Enjoy!

DISCLAIMER: The dimensions on the TAV come from the webarchive of Marc Lindroos's old page. Starting with that as reference, I approximated the dimensions for Toss-Back Booster. As we've so far not seen solid unclassified info on the Toss-Back, I made a guess. Input from the forum is always welcome.

Moonbat

Really good!!
Is the first time I see something rather dimensioned about TAV.

 

[mz]

You have mixed and matched several different projects from 1956 to 1972. NOTE None of the McDonnell Aircraft Engineering or McDonnell Missile Engineering Divisions ever designed a hypersonic wing-body glider except as a strawman to destroy. Bill Sweetman did NOT take the XLR-129 powered glider that is from the top of a file cabinet at McDonnell St. Louis, circa 1958. I'll have to make a note of the different pictures and tell you what they are. Included in your pictures are a USAF Mach 6 rocket accelerated SLBM interceptor launched from a C-5 circa 1974, a USAF Mach 4.5 turboramjet interceptor circa 1972, a USAF Mach 6 turboramjet interceptor circa 1972, a XLR-129 powered hypersonic glider with a 25,000 nautical mile glide range circa 1958 and others. If I can ever figure out how to paste pictures can give you a snapshot of the best hypersonic design team from 1956 to 1972, with Lockheed as a very close competitor.

I hope you can post, this is extremely interesting!
The internet and press is full of circulating myths, it would be great if someone with real knowledge was able to put them to rest.

 

[hesham]

I think that might be a wind tunnel model of a proposed Shuttle first stage.

Moonbat

Oh sorry,

you are right my dear XP67_Moonbat,I will post the it to US Shuttle projects topic.

 

[Tuomasn]

So was the MDC "Toss-Back" part of the TAV studies?

Another note on the 1958 hypersonic glide vehicle: I remember there was some discussion sometime somewhere of the strange "thing" on the upper front fuselage, which has also been reproduced on Moonbat's images. IIRC someone wondered if it was maybe an inlet or what. Mark's painting shows what looks like a cockpit on about the same location, so the oddness on the model might be related to it. It even makes me think the "cockpit part" has fallen off the scale model at some point over the years.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Good question, man. I was wondering the same thing about the Toss-Back myself. I think the only ones on here who would know for sure are Prof. Czysz and AIRROCKET who posted the Toss-Back stuff on here a while back.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4024.75.html

Also, I still remember the discussion on here about the "cockpit" part.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,382.0.html

I did bring it up because I was always curious about that too.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

The GIUK Interceptor, was there ever any mention of what kind of engines were to power it?

 

[shockonlip]

The GIUK Interceptor, was there ever any mention of what kind of engines were to power it?

There is another thread on some of these concepts:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5836.msg47268.html#msg47268

 

[HyperTech]

The pictures are on a file cabinent just outside of an office. Although taken not too laong ago, the model originated in the 1958 to 1963 time frame. At that time ther was NO DARPA it was ARPA. And GD or no other company was involved except P&W. Attached is a small scale model from that period.

 

[flateric]

What a beauty from any angle! Thank you for sharing, HyperMan!

 

[Orionblamblam]

With the better rez photos, it looks pretty certain that that is a recon bird of some kind... three optical windows protected by a ramp. Perhaps related to the BoMi/RoBo series or the WS118P, all of which called for hypersonic, suborbital recon systems that would eb virtually indistinguishable from the modrn CAV concept.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Outstanding picture and many thanks for sharing it with us, HyperTech! Now my question is how Bill Sweetman, noted author, mistook McDonnell's 1958 hypersonic design as somebody else's handiwork. nevertheless, it's a good design, in any era.

Moonbat

PS- I soooo want that model. Very nice

 

[LowObservable]

Did Sweetman ever describe it as a GD design?

 

[flateric]

yes, did he in fact?

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Yeah he did. Mark Wade's site says so: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hgv.htm .

Wade's site is a good reference so I'm not inclined to think that he droppped the ball on this one.

Andreas Parsch's website even said the same thing until Professor Czysz recently said other otherwise on here.

Andreas has since corrected this and the model picture is no longer on there. Take a look: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/hgv.html

So here's what I'm wondering....

Was Bill Sweetman fed a line of s**t as disinformation back in '87 at the AFA convention? Or was the 1958 model set out just as a somehow handy example to give Sweetman a general idea of how the otherwise black HGV would look like?

Also, I'm seeing GD/Convair as the manufacturer on one site and Lockheed as another one.

Either way something's off.

Moonbat

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Andreas Parsch's website even said the same thing ...

... because Bill Sweetman, and Mark Wade's Encyclopaedia Astronautica, were my only reference sources for HGV .

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

It's all good. Nobody coulda known. Professor Cszyz cleared up a lot. But with new answers come new questions.

 

[LowObservable]

"Many thanks to Bill Sweetman for pointing out the existence of this project."

Does not say that Sweetman ID'd the model as being GD or from AFA. And it fairly clearly is not at AFA.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

See, that's what I'm getting at. Something's off here.

 

[antigravite]

Re: McDonnell-Douglas Hypersonic projects from the 60s and 70s ---> early 1990s

Does anybody know if there was a relation between this old 1950's era model presented at AFA and the so-called Hypersonic Glide Vehicle (HGV) "project" which occasionnaly surfaced as a program distinct from NASP. I have always been confused by how these projects BGV, HGV, Have Space (?) were related.

See below for more. (...) indicates text cut for clarity.

- - - - - - - -

SBIR RFP sampled and tracked back from 1990:

AF90-179 : RFP (extract) : "ICBM Penetration Aid Technologies"
OBJECTIVE: Develop hardware and analysis capabilities to support penetration aid technologies.
DESCRIPTION:
a. Develop an ablative pyrotechnic heat shield material to enhance visible and IR optical signatures. (...)
b. Develop new methodologies for RCS, IR and visible optical wake/plume signature prediction capability. (...)
c. Develop new methodologies for RCS prediction of bodies with protuberances and electrically non-homogenous materials. Improvements and upgrades on state-of-the-art computer codes in the areas of robustness, versatility, speed, and accuracy are expected. The offerers are expected to be familiar with the BSD mission and generally the capabilities of large ABM radars. Current specific treat information will be available after contract award. The codes developed should be applicable to both conical ballistic RVs and shaped bodies such as Maneuvering Reentry Vehicles (MARVs) and Hypersonic Glide Vehicles (HGVs).
d. Develop new methodologies for incorporating RF antennas into RVs and penetration aids. (...)

AF90-144 : GRANT
REHN CORP
(...)
Title: RETRODIRECTIVE FLIGHT TEST ARTICLE INSTRUMENTATION ANTENNA
Topic #: AF90-144 Office: SAMTO/Wi3MC ID #: 39750
A FAMILY OF ELECTRONICALLYSTEERED CIRCULAR PHASED ARRAY ANTENNAS ARE CONFIGURED FOR USE
ON SPINNING RE-ENTRY VEHICLES (RV). THIS TECHNIQUE ALLOWS RVs FROM SIX INCHES TO TEN FEET
DIAMETER TO ACHIEVE GREATLY INCREASED PERFORMANCE COMPARED TO PRESENT SYSTEMS:
CONTINUOUS RANGE SAFETY ACHIEVED THROUGHOUT RV FLIGHT; SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER DATA RATES
FROM IMPROVED DATA MONITORING; REQUIRED SPATIAL COVERAGE WITH SIMPLE BEAM-POINTING
MECHANISMS. A NOVEL RF COMPUTATION CIRCUIT ALLOWS A LOW SIDELOBE RADIATION PATTERN TO
BE GENERATED AND DE-SPUN SUCH THAT THE ARRAY HIGH GAIN BEAM IS ALWAYS POINTING AT A DATA
COLLECTION STATION. THIS TECHNIQUE, PROVEN ON THE NAVY'S AEGIS IFF SYSTEM, IS ADAPTED FOR
ENHANCEMENT OF RV FLIGHT TESTS. ALSO CONSIDERED IS THE UTILIZATION OF TDRS AS THE DATA
COLLECTION STATION IN ORDER TO PROVIDE CONTINUOUS LINE-OF-SIGHT COMMUNICATION WITH THE RV.
SUITABILITY OF CIRCULAR PHASED ARRAYS TO ENHANCE THE DATA COLLECTION FROM THE PLANNED
NATIONAL AEROSPACE PLANE (NASP) AND THE HYPERSONIC GLIDE VEHICLE (HGV) IS ASSESSED.

 

[flateric]

ONCE MORE
THIS MDC CRAFT WAS NOT PRESENTED AT AFA CONFERENCE
ALL PHOTOS WERE MADE AT MCDONELL DOUGLAS FILE CABINET MANY YEARS BEFORE

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

I concur. An esteemed fellow member has already established this fact us.

 

[antigravite]

OK sorry guys for the confusion.

 

[Dynoman]

G. Daniel Brewers "Hydrogen Aircraft Technology" page 255 describes the Manned Hypersonic Test Vehicle (MHTV) that proceeded design work on the MHCV. This aircraft appears to have been designed/developed as a scramjet powered aircraft, with an initial variant incorporating an Aerojet LR-87 for early development flights. It was to be air launched from a B-52 and obtain Mach 6.

It has the same name as the title of Paul Czysz charts at the beginning of the thread.

The entry can be found at Google-books below:

http://books.google.com/books?id=hf-iyU2R7eIC&pg=PA264&lpg=PA264&dq=hypersonics+brewer&source=bl&ots=lLgU3qEJ-Z&sig=a0CY72xgDopCc_SlAU0duoBgBRg&hl=en&ei=ugexSpuABZCStgfU76iuCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=mhtv&f=false

 

[Tuomasn]

Another image of the Mach 12 HSVS from Paul Czysz's presentation (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,382.msg90874.html#msg90874). Have I understood correctly this is a "cruiser" and the rocket engines are for takeoff help and not for orbital capacity?

 

[airrocket]

Hi Meteorit,

I believe the vehicle you have pictured has the two XLR motors. Just got back from UK after being stranded there for the last week. If no one else replies with specifics on this soon I will look it up later this week or ask P.C. directly. If memory serves me correct this may have been rocket only... either way rocket only is always used as accelerators or above M12 with airbreathers in mid super to hyper range. I've been focused on the FDL-7 based SBW deep cooled rocket (DuPont) designs recently will need a memory refresher to verify your cruise concept.

 

[robunos]

Found on page 96 of the document linked to at the link below :-

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730005251_1973005251.pdf

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4636.msg125200.html#msg125200

An image of the XLR129, [captioned XRL129,] with an SSME for comparison...


cheers,
Robin.