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

[quellish]

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


cheers,
Robin.

Aren't those reversed?

 

[robunos]

I have no idea.......... :-[

I just grabbed the page image from the PDF referred to...


cheers,
Robin.

 

[quellish]

I have no idea.......... :-[

I just grabbed the page image from the PDF referred to...


cheers,
Robin.

I think the larger one is the 129, and the smaller is the SSME - the captions seem to be reversed.

 

[Grey Havoc]

So this (MDC?) project was intended as a Maritime Recon and Strike platform?

 

[jjnodice]

2. The Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2012 7-8:30 PM PST (10-11:30 PM EST, 9-10:30 PM CST) program welcomes DR. PAUL CZYSZ on advanced engineering, hypersonics and more.

Emeritus Professor, Retired Oliver L. Parks Endowed Chair, Department Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, Parks College of Engineering and Aviation, Saint Louis University. B.S. Aeronautical Engineering; Parks College of St. Louis University President of HyperTech Concepts LLC, Technology Group International, LLC and Energy Directions, a sole proprietorship. On the Board of Directory, Ice Management Systems, Inc., Temecula, California and the In-Space Operations Corporation, Arlington, Virginia. Head of the Wind Tunnel Technology Group, Gasdynamics Laboratory at MDC. There were numerous innovations in hypersonic testing techniques were pioneered by the group, including a Mach 10 to 16 contoured, parallel flow nozzle, modifications that increased usable run time fivefold, a thermal mapping system. 1968 he became the Deputy Study Manager for the NASA sponsored Hypersonic Research Facility Study (HYFAC), that determined the research requirements and facilities needed to accomplish the research necessary to lead to Mach 12 operational systems. Manager of the Computer Aided Design Engineering (CADE). These multi-technology aircraft sizing programs were tools used by advanced design. New approaches to apply the techniques to incomplete data sets. Manager of an Advanced Concepts Group. That group explored aircraft concepts with increased operational spectrums and new configurations. Lead the effort to develop the evaluation methods that could determine the payoffs for integrating advanced technology into combat aircraft. Although MCAIR was not successful in winning this effort, the AFTI-15 configuration eventually flew in 1989 as the Advanced STOL Demonstrator. Between 1978 and 1983 was on special assignment with a group that was to initiate new fighter technologies. Study Manager, Advanced Manned AeroSpace Systems. This organization was to restart the MDC manned spacecraft effort. That team won participation in Copper Canyon and the National AeroSpace Plane (NASP) regaining that position. In 1985 Mr. Czysz became the Principal Scientist of the NASP program. In 1985 was selected as a MDC Fellows. Retired from MDC on 21 May 91.​

Listeners can talk to Dr. Paul Czysz or the host using toll free 1 (866) 687-7223, by sending e-mail during the program using drspace@thespaceshow.com, thespaceshow@gmail.com, or dmlivings@yahoo.com. To use Skype from your computer with a headset, the I. D. is thespaceshow.​

I did not listen to this broadcast, but plan to download it from the archive located at www.thespaceshow.com

 

[flateric]

we can be proud by fact that Dr. Paul Czysz is Secret Projects Forum member

 

[jjnodice]

Unfortunately, the program with Dr. Czysz did not air. The host of the show has attempted to contact him and has not heard back. Hopefully all is well.

 

[flateric]

emailed him too. hope everything is OK with him

 

[jjnodice]

If you hear back, send the host an email letting him know (in the program listing I posted). It is rare for him to have a guest be unresponsive, so he is concerned.

 

[flateric]

no answer yet...(

 

[flateric]

Got the answer from Prof. Czysz. Due to some serious reasons I don't feel free to share publicly Paul won't be available
for interview till second week of February at the best.

All we should wish him good health.

 

[Stargazer]

McDonnell Douglas Model 125A is described as an "all-weather reconnaissance airplane project" of 1957.

I was wondering if maybe the attached recce project by McAir could be just that.

 

[sferrin]

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.

This one?

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2561.msg123213.html#msg123213

 

[quellish]

This one?

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2561.msg123213.html#msg123213

No

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

More hypersonics please.

 

[Orionblamblam]

SHAZAM!

 

[Orionblamblam]

SHAZAM again!

 

[Orionblamblam]

As modified and wind tunnel tested by NASA-Langley.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Further SHAZAMification.

 

[Sundog]

Awesome, thanks.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Thank you!

 

[Johnbr]

Cool info

 

[LowObservable]

+1. Multiply all masses by 2, increase all dimensions X 1.26 (cube root 2), replace 5 x RL-10s by 1 x XLR-129, clean up nose to reflect better fit of cockpit in basic allbody shape, SUPER SHAZAM!

 

[Stargazer]

I do not think I have seen this particular document here before, though the same design already appears in another post.

Actively cooled hypersonic aircraft

STUDY OF A FAIL-SAFE ABORT SYSTEM FOR AN ACTIVELY COOLED HYPERSONIC AIRCRAFT, VOLUME I, TECHNICAL SUMMARY
by C. J. Pirrello and R. L. Herring
McDonnell Aircraft Company

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760023110_1976023110.pdf

 

[Stargazer]

Also, more of the same design in this other report:

A FUSELAGE/TANK STRUCTURE STUDY FOR ACTIVELY COOLED HYPERSONIC CRUISE VEHICLES - SUMMARY, FEBRUARY 1976
Prepared by MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION for Langley Research Center

 

[mz]

I do not think I have seen this particular document here before, though the same design already appears in another post.

Actively cooled hypersonic aircraft

STUDY OF A FAIL-SAFE ABORT SYSTEM FOR AN ACTIVELY COOLED HYPERSONIC AIRCRAFT, VOLUME I, TECHNICAL SUMMARY
by C. J. Pirrello and R. L. Herring
McDonnell Aircraft Company

That is mind bogglingly large, I don't think I've ever seen anything like that.

 

[airrocket]

I am disillusioned when I see all the work done on hypersonic R&D during the 60's-70's and the best the USA can do in the 21st century with our supercomputers is the X-51. And it has crashed 2 out 3 flights. Even more atonishing to me is that the X-7 did Mach 4.31 way back in 1950's with a prop engine drop plane.

 

[Jemiba]

Somewhat understandable, but perhaps it helps to remember, that construction of the F-104 was started with
in 1952 ... and with regards to maximum speed, it might still top the F-22 or F-35. So, no progress in fighter
design ? And the drop plane, well, just use a C-130J (or an A400M !) and your quite near the '50s with this regards.
To my opinion, hypersonic flight regularly came (and comes) on the agenda, but seldom with a high priority.
Financial constraints have become larger, so our patience has to become larger, too !

 

[DSE]

I am disillusioned when I see all the work done on hypersonic R&D during the 60's-70's and the best the USA can do in the 21st century with our supercomputers is the X-51. And it has crashed 2 out 3 flights. Even more atonishing to me is that the X-7 did Mach 4.31 way back in 1950's with a prop engine drop plane.

What makes you think the "supercomputers" are actually an absolute plus? They and the codes which run on them are just tools. Tools in fact which still have a lot of limitations. Yes they produce solutions to the problems which have been posed, however the real issue is how does the problem as posed relate to real life? I fear more and more the newer crop of engineers are composed more and more of "analysts" who can run the codes, but have no real experience how it relates to real life and really don't have a good grasp of the fundamentals in many aspects. Part of the problem is industry and government. Just look at job listings and much of what you see specifies code jockeys, not real engineers imo.

 

[Grey Havoc]

You make a good point, I fear.

 

[sferrin]

I am disillusioned when I see all the work done on hypersonic R&D during the 60's-70's and the best the USA can do in the 21st century with our supercomputers is the X-51. And it has crashed 2 out 3 flights. Even more atonishing to me is that the X-7 did Mach 4.31 way back in 1950's with a prop engine drop plane.

What makes you think the "supercomputers" are actually an absolute plus? They and the codes which run on them are just tools. Tools in fact which still have a lot of limitations. Yes they produce solutions to the problems which have been posed, however the real issue is how does the problem as posed relate to real life? I fear more and more the newer crop of engineers are composed more and more of "analysts" who can run the codes, but have no real experience how it relates to real life and really don't have a good grasp of the fundamentals in many aspects. Part of the problem is industry and government. Just look at job listings and much of what you see specifies code jockeys, not real engineers imo.

:-[

 

[Sundog]

I am disillusioned when I see all the work done on hypersonic R&D during the 60's-70's and the best the USA can do in the 21st century with our supercomputers is the X-51. And it has crashed 2 out 3 flights. Even more atonishing to me is that the X-7 did Mach 4.31 way back in 1950's with a prop engine drop plane.

What the X-51 is doing and what the X-7 did aren't even close to the same thing. They had scramjets in development back then and they couldn't make them work. It turns out hypersonic scramjet aircraft are that difficult to develop. If they were easy, they actually would have been successfully flying them back then.

 

[sferrin]

I am disillusioned when I see all the work done on hypersonic R&D during the 60's-70's and the best the USA can do in the 21st century with our supercomputers is the X-51. And it has crashed 2 out 3 flights. Even more atonishing to me is that the X-7 did Mach 4.31 way back in 1950's with a prop engine drop plane.

What the X-51 is doing and what the X-7 did aren't even close to the same thing. They had scramjets in development back then and they couldn't make them work. It turns out hypersonic scramjet aircraft are that difficult to develop. If they were easy, they actually would have been successfully flying them back then.

They never actually tried to fly a scramjet. Does anybody know how much (if any) scramjet work they did in wind tunnels? What was the fastest they ever got one working (if at all)? They were also limited by material to a degree back in those days.

 

[fossil]

What about this project

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-05zzzc.html

 

[DSE]

What about this project

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-05zzzc.html

What about it? Once you get past the PR hype you might not deem it so successful.
See AIAA 2006-8119, Flight Results from a Program to Develop a Freeflight Atmospheric Scramjet Test Technique R. O. Foelsche, S. A. Beckel, A. A. Betti, G. T. Wurst, R. A. Charletta, and R. J. Bakos.

"The dynamic pressure is shown to be higher than desired, due to the lower flight altitude coupled with near-target
flight Mach. This meant the engine, fueled at preset constant flowrate, would operate leaner than desired." About 60% of the desired f/a.

"however, unexpectedly the vehicle did not experience positive net acceleration resulting in a continuing slow decrease in flight Mach. .... the engine produced thrust; however, drag was greater than thrust. Shortly into the experiment at increased fueling the gas generator inlets first spilled out sideways and into the supersonic inlets, and subsequently they unstarted. During unstarted operation the vehicle decelerated much more quickly but the combustor was observed to stay lit.

....A residual coning disturbance that started during booster burn-out decayed while the engine was thrusting up to the time the GG inlets unstarted, and then the vehicles experienced large and rapid wobbling motions (coning). An azimuthal map of forebody cone pressures indicates the inlets did not all experience pressure rises at the same time, rather as the pressure rose in front of the 0o inlet it fell in front the 180o inlet, and vice versa, and this pressure imbalance amplified the flight disturbance.... With the imbalanced forebody pressure being driven by unsteady inlet unstart, this passively controlled fin-stabilized vehicle could not re-stabilize and recover steady engine operation while being fueled at fixed flowrate, while continuing to decelerate. "

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Kno what? I want to go back to the subject of those 60's & 70's projects. Particularly about the HSVS.

 

[Tuomasn]

Kno what? I want to go back to the subject of those 60's & 70's projects. Particularly about the HSVS.

Seconded

 

[DSE]

OK. How about Hypersonic Technology - Approach to an Expanded program by Hearth and Preyss?
Just came across a yellowed photocopy of this in a pile of inherited material I was going through.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Thanks!

 

[hesham]

From NASA report:

Hypersonic Research Facilities Study Volume I

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710025908_1971025908.pdf

Also from that report;


The McDonnall Douglas Hypersonic research vehicles.