Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY

shockonlip said:
"The heaviest load it carried was the No. 2 X-15 aircraft at 53,100 pounds."

>100,000 pounds still seems awfully big for a drop from a B-52,

I hear ya!
Click to expand...

Anyone got an XB-70 flight manual? ;)
 
Dynoman said:
Hypertech mentions that the picture in the design is the result of a collaboration between McAir and Pratt & Whitney in the 1958-1963 time frame.
Click to expand...

The date assigned to ISINGLASS (or rather, "Model 192") in McDonnell's inhouse chronology is 1964, which corresponds to the first work on the project. If the work you refer to was conducted between 1958 and 1963, it certainly can't be about ISINGLASS.

We still have gaps in the McDonnell models list between 166-174 and 178-187... The only identified projects that could fit the description are right before the ISINGLASS: Models 190 and 191A both correspond to a Multipurpose Strategic Reconnaissance Aircraft project, or MSRA, dated 1963 (and which was described in MCAIR Report No. A299, February 1964, not available online of course...).

But what of the 1958-1962 period? If Pratt & Whitney already worked on similar projects, what could these be? Perhaps the 1958 Model 132A/B/C, which consisted of conceptual manned test vehicles for the Dyna-Soar I, II and III programs. Another possible candidate could be Model 151, the better known ASSET program, which was developed from 1959 to 1963.

Well, just my two cents...
 
Here is the ISINGLASS project aircraft, via the CIA Project ISINGLASS Review document date 1965. Released via FOIA. Included is a reconnaissance version of the Model 122. The ISINGLASS vehicle was being developed as a manned and unmanned aircraft with the CIA favoring a manned version that would have the ability to be modified for unmanned operations.
 

Attachments

  • ISINGLASS 192.PDF
    133.3 KB · Views: 393
Sweet! Just in time for Thanksgiving, too. :) Thank you!

So, from looking at the cutaway, I take it they were planning on some kind of glide landing followed by water recovery for Model 122? It also looks to me like they considered a runway recovery option for Model 192 as well.

Was there any further data regarding the launch method? IIRC, air-launch by B-52 has been mentioned before in regards to ISINGLASS. Looking at the expendable booster attached to the vehicle, on pg.2, I take it the CIA was also considering a ground launch option too.

I have to wonder what kind of first-stage booster would've been used. A re-worked Minuteman stage, maybe?

So I'm looking at the launch weight and it looks to me like they're in the upper end of the BUFF's limits for the launch pylon. This was discussed earlier in the thread. This also brings to mind earlier discussion about whether ISINGLASS was instead a VTHL design.

Also, I noticed on pg.1, the moldline of the manned 192 variant seems to have a slight notch toward the nose. Also, this seems to correspond with the camera bay in the unmanned nose section on pg. 5. Which is kinda odd because I don't seem to see that notch on page 4's illustration, even though it's listed as unmanned, too.

IIRC, Prof Czyz's Model 192 desk model also had a notched nose as well.

We now have this little bit of declassification on ISINGLASS thanks to Dyno and FOIA. Perhaps the good Professor could help clear up some questions on this topic, now that it's somewhat safe to do so.

See, this new data helps clear up a lot earlier questions on ISINGLASS. But I think there's going to be more questions now that the cat's out of the bag.
 
Moonbat...the document does list a heavily modified and dedicated B-52 as the launch platform for the Model 192. The document goes on to discuss the concerns of overflight in a denied area such as China and the USSR. However, the document states that there is no concern for pilot capture, interrogation or display, as an engagement at the vehicles mission altitude would result in complete vehicle breakup and in essence, no pilot. It does mention that an ejection system up to Mach 3 could be used and that concerns exist for pilot performance during flyout to the launch area due to extended periods of riding along under the pylon of a B-52.
 
Some other key points:

The Model 192 design was tested in wind tunnels with a L/D of 2.5- 3.0. Further "configuration optimization" would be necessary to obtain the required 3.0-3.5 according to the document.

Structural materials- thoria nose cap, leading edges made of columbium, the bottom surface made of T-D nickel. Rene 41 and beryllium would be made for the upper surface. The primary load carrying structure and fuel tanks are to be made from titanium.

Propulsion- RL-20 A-1 (as to date in this document)

Cameras- For one foot resolution (nadir, low contrast), 60 mile swath width, and 6500nm range, "reveals that the focal length of less than 50 inches would be needed to avoid extreme weight penalties..."

Optical issues for the camera windows remain a concern in this document.

Modified B-52H launch aircraft

Manned systems to include: X-band beacon, UHF, Tape recorder, Inertial Navigation Computer, Automatic Flight Control, ILS and TACAN, View Finder and Photo control system.
 
"Hmm...hmmm...may be too naive, but what if?" (post from first page)

Flateric...you win the guessing game! :)
 
I know. I ask a lot of questions. Well, again, thank you for this find. It's very fascinating all the same.
 
The two objects on the right side of this nose section, which are angled inward, are panoramic cameras. I don't know the dimensions here, but it is conceivable that they are modified KH-4 CORONA reconnaissance satellite cameras with a focal length of 24 inches. They would sweep back and forth as the vehicle overflew its targets. That's probably a decent way to do it, as opposed to a singular framing camera, because the speed was so high. It's hard to speculate more without the entire document.

Note that the pilot would have to sit farther back behind this compartment, and would be rather hard-pressed to see the ground...
 

Attachments

  • ISINGLASS PanCam.jpg
    ISINGLASS PanCam.jpg
    266.6 KB · Views: 735
Here's the other images. Nothing on cockpit layout for the manned version.

The ballistic version is confusing. Note that it shows two panoramic cameras at the back. But what is the pressurant and hydrogen peroxide for? Is this thing supposed to be boosted and then glide at hypersonic speeds over its target?
 

Attachments

  • ISINGLASS4.jpg
    ISINGLASS4.jpg
    412.9 KB · Views: 568
  • ISINGLASS3.jpg
    ISINGLASS3.jpg
    227.1 KB · Views: 566
  • ISINGLASS2.jpg
    ISINGLASS2.jpg
    282.8 KB · Views: 601
  • ISINGLASS1.jpg
    ISINGLASS1.jpg
    253.8 KB · Views: 651
blackstar said:
The ballistic version is confusing. Note that it shows two panoramic cameras at the back. But what is the pressurant and hydrogen peroxide for? Is this thing supposed to be boosted and then glide at hypersonic speeds over its target?
Click to expand...

Hydrogen peroxide is a propellant used for attitude control thrusters.
 
jjnodice said:
Hydrogen peroxide is a propellant used for attitude control thrusters.
Click to expand...

Gotcha! That makes sense.

Note that for that vehicle, this is apparently a top view, looking down on it. The camera mounting is a little odd. It would seem to make more sense to mount them perpendicular to the direction of flight, so they could take full advantage of the vehicle diameter and also scan to the left and right of the flight path.

Note also that the nose was supposed to be actively cooled.
 
I was thinking the same thing about a cockpit....given that the camera bay's forward location, the cockpit would have tobe pretty far aft.
 
For what it's worth, here are the manned (blue) and unmanned (red) versions overlaid to scale, with the inboard view of the payload section (green) to approximate scale. Presumably the manned vehicle would have a similar interior layout, giving an idea of the amount of space left over for propellant and cockpit.
 

Attachments

  • isinglasscompare.gif
    isinglasscompare.gif
    42.6 KB · Views: 1,013
Wow... the story slowly trickles out.

Now we just need a little more detail about the B-52 mods.
 
LowObservable said:
Now we just need a little more detail about the B-52 mods.
Click to expand...

Here's what I consider to be a big question: how do you drop something that incredibly heavy off of one wing and not immediately roll the aircraft onto its side? The control issues must have been daunting.
 
blackstar said:
how do you drop something that incredibly heavy off of one wing and not immediately roll the aircraft onto its side?
Click to expand...

Actually, that need not be too big of a problem. The only places to put the ISINGLASS on a B-52 are on top (unlikely), under a wing root like the X-15, or in a heavily modified bomb bay (maybe). Putting it under a wing root seems most likely . But evena beast like the ISINGLASS wouldn;t put *that* much of a roll torque on the vehicle, since it would be offset from the centerline only a dozen or so feet.

If the plane is flying straight and level at release, the controls woudl of course have to be trimmed to accompdate that roll torque prior to release. The same signal that releases the ISINGLASS clamps would be used to cause the controls to snap to a neutral position. With that, all that would be needed would be to counter the wing "spring" effect... the wing would be somewhat flexed, and would flex back. This would not impart much of a roll to the vehicle, but it might be a hell of a thump.

An alternative would be to actaully roll the B-52 *before* release. If the ISINGLASS is under the starboard wing, roll somewhat to starboard (right-wing-down). This would move the CG of the composite vehicle closer to directly under the CG of just the B-52. When the ISINGLASS is dropped, the change in effective CG location would be reduced, and thus the roll torque would be reduced. Lots of problems with that idea, though.
 
I envision every component of the B-52, down to and including the Elsan, going TWANG when they dropped that sucka.

Somehow I doubt that re-modifying the mothership back to a regular SIOP configuration was in the plan.
 
They did - including building and testing the engine, which was a half-scale SSME. Except that it was all secret, which permitted NASA to hand the SSME contract to the old gang at Rocketdyne.
 
blackstar said:
LowObservable said:
Now we just need a little more detail about the B-52 mods.
Click to expand...

Here's what I consider to be a big question: how do you drop something that incredibly heavy off of one wing and not immediately roll the aircraft onto its side? The control issues must have been daunting.
Click to expand...

The roll would actually help in the separation maneuver.
 
You're oversimplifying the physics I think as well, wouldn't the mother ship achieve a fairly impressive rate of climb almost immediately upon release?


Add in the roll, the yaw change as the frontal silhouette changes and the impressive THUMP through the airframe and you get one hell of a ride, no? :)
 
Gridlock said:
You're oversimplifying the physics I think as well, wouldn't the mother ship achieve a fairly impressive rate of climb almost immediately upon release?
Click to expand...

If you're dropping the payload, then a sudden jump up a few meters would only be a good thing.
 
LowObservable said:
I envision every component of the B-52, down to and including the Elsan, going TWANG when they dropped that sucka.

Somehow I doubt that re-modifying the mothership back to a regular SIOP configuration was in the plan.
Click to expand...

I'm reading between your lines and getting bomb bay conversion (cant say?)
 
Here's a silly little question. On the manned Model 192, which would be the more logical location for a cockpit?

Somewhere amidships or a little further aft towards the engine? The de-classed info we do have doesnt really show anything like a cockpit, so I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume it's embedded. Perhaps something not unlike the placement of the payload bay on the X-33's design?

Also makes wonder what kind of visibility issues you would get from that on landing. Some kind of CCTV setup maybe?
On this note, I also wonder about the tankage arrangement.

Also, now that I'm thinking about it, ISINGLASS kinda-sorta reminds me of McDonnell's Mach 12 demonstrator. See here, down at Reply 37.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2867.30.html

Not an exact match but similar nontheless.

,
 
XP67_Moonbat said:
Somewhere amidships or a little further aft towards the engine? The
Click to expand...

Right behind the camera equipment would be my guess. Do it that way and the hydrogen tankage can be largely un-interrupted; move the cockpit aft and now you have to split up the tanks. Additionally, the nose of the vehicle could be blown off as an escape capsule (speculation).

The size of the cockpit can be guesstimated by looking at my crappy little comparison drawing, and taking note of the length delta.
 
This is probably a non-starter, but is there any evidence that they looked into towing it to launch altitude?
 
Sorry for the delay in posting this document. This is the first 10 pages of the 52 page document entitled Summary Review of ISINGLASS Program. I will post the other pages shortly.
 

Attachments

  • ISINGLASS Review 65.pdf
    543.9 KB · Views: 193
Along Moonbat's line of thinking - the ISINGLASS/Model 192 seems to be quite far along in the development process to not have been tested to some degree - I wonder if the RL-10-powered "Mach 12 Demonstrator" actually did fly as a proof of concept?
 
The newly posted documentation makes it plain that the ISINGLASS would be carried under a B-52 wing. The LOX tank would be carried within the B-52... presumably the bomb bay. The hydrogen tank is external... possibly under ther opposite wing root from the ISINGLASS.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom