Project ISINGLASS & Project RHEINBERRY

xstatic3000 said:
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?
Click to expand...


There were ground test articles - that was covered in the P&W book - but probably nothing more.
It would be very interesting though if some of the modifications to B-52H 60-0036 and 61-0021 to support TAGBOARD predated the TAGBOARD program. Unlikely though
 
I couldn't help but draw a parallel between this and an image from the X-24C L301 documentation:

image012.jpg
 
I have not built a model in decades, but if this gets to the point where someone can generate a respectable conversion kit for a B-52...
 
You know....I'm lookin back at the Mach 12 Demo. It's a completely different beast than ISINGLASS. Different purpose, different weight, different engine count.

One thing that did occur to me are it's dimensions. They're roughly similar to MODEL 192.
 
LowObservable said:
I have not built a model in decades, but if this gets to the point where someone can generate a respectable conversion kit for a B-52...
Click to expand...

Why do you think that elsewhere on this forum I recently asked if anyone had any really good diagrams of the B-52?

Hmmm...
 
XP67_Moonbat said:
Also makes wonder what kind of visibility issues you would get from that on landing.
Click to expand...

If the cockpit was directly behind the camera compartment, then the pilot *might* have been able to look directly through the camera windows. Perhaps aided by a mirror/periscope setup, CCTV cameras, something. But it seems an obvious way to go, since it would likely land at a substantial angle of attack.
 
GeorgeA said:
The "M2" operational objective system that drove the HYFAC research requirements was a Mach 12 strategic recon/strike aircraft, runway-launched, with two XLR-129-class engines for takeoff and a scramjet system for cruise.
Click to expand...

What was the time frame for this?
 
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?


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? :)
Click to expand...

A lot depends on the weight carried and the required launch point, Mach and q. If one is pushing the weight limit of the modified BUFF, then a significant fuel load imbalance may be needed to balance the load. This complicates the post drop dynamics. The second Hyper-X Mach 7 mission had this to deal with while balls to the walls Definitely not trivial. Oh yeah, captive carry trials or launch aborted missions add a whole other set of fun to deal with.
 
Thanks to you both!

Now, and I'm just wondering here, would ISINGLASS have used fuel cells for onboard power?
 
Not much to look at here. Maybe Archipeppe or someone can do an improved version.
 

Attachments

  • Isinglass dwg.jpg
    Isinglass dwg.jpg
    36.5 KB · Views: 848
We all realize that we now know what the mysterious desktop model from a few pages up is, right?
 
XP67_Moonbat said:
Not much to look at here. Maybe Archipeppe or someone can do an improved version.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that I'd put the pilot that close to the upper skin of the vehicle, which would be very hot. I suspect he'd be a little farther down.
 
XP67_Moonbat said:
Not much to look at here. Maybe Archipeppe or someone can do an improved version.
Click to expand...

I'm glad for the confidence and your hand-mande drawing is cute and clear.
To start working on I need of a greater scan of such drawing.

Thanks in advance.
 
LowObservable said:
We all realize that we now know what the mysterious desktop model from a few pages up is, right?
Click to expand...
yezzz!!! wonder how did he left the location alive and with camera left intact)
 
blackstar said:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1602/1

A bat outta Hell: the ISINGLASS Mach 22 follow-on to OXCART
by Dwayne Day
Monday, April 12, 2010

Soon after the U-2 was flying in the latter 1950s, the CIA began work on a successor that eventually resulted in the A-12 OXCART, better known because of its more prominent offspring, the SR-71 Blackbird. The May 1960 shootdown of Francis Gary Powers over the Soviet Union threw ice water on plans to send more manned reconnaissance aircraft over the Soviet Union. Even though CIA officials talked about OXCART missions over the USSR, some of them even flying missions coordinated with satellites far overhead, both politics and the perceived vulnerability of the OXCART to sophisticated defense prevented this from ever happening. But by the mid-1960s the CIA began looking at a potential replacement for the OXCART, a Mach 22 rocket-powered glider known as ISINGLASS.
Click to expand...

I was a big fan of this article Dwayne, might you be considering an update now that the Isinglass configuration is known??
 
The GHOST ROCKET BLOG is no more! :'(

http://ghostrocket.blogspot.com/2011/11/isinglass-precedents-and-successors-ii.html
 
Google cash has about all the stuff that was there including illustrations
Blog author was a frequent visitor to SPF...just wonder what caused him to kill the blog
if you are reading this post...can you shed the light on?
 
flateric said:
Google cash has about all the stuff that was there including illustrations
Blog author was a frequent visitor to SPF...just wonder what caused him to kill the blog
if you are reading this post...can you shed the light on?
Click to expand...

Sadly a lot of the information is missing - many of the posts are available up until the "See More" link on the Monthly Archive Pages :'(

Additional: many of the lost posts were those with long URL Titles. Google Cache does not seem to appreciate verbosity.
 
Greetings All -

An article interviewing Paul Czysz:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1026001/Paul-Czysz-Hypersonic-Interview

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
So...it's been a year since we got our first decent look at ISINGLASS. I'm guessing that's all we're getting for now. However, has anything at all similar been released on RHEINBERRY?
 
Slightly off-topic... one little question that's been bugging me for months:

How do you pronounce ISINGLASS? Is it like "is in glass" [izinglas] or "I sing lass" [aisinglas]?
 
Hi,


I'm not sure this direct link has ever been posted here before:


http://www.nro.gov/foia/docs/foia-isinglass.pdf


It's all about Isinglass. NRO FOAI approved for release material dated "23 June 2010"
No picture, no plans, no drawings, no blueprints. Just plain dry'n raw, historical material, many of them.
 
LowObservable said:
And here I was planning to work today...
Click to expand...

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22isinglass%22+site%3Anro.gov&hl=en
 
Just obtained some newly declassified documents on this subject that shed both light and confusion on the project. Nothing major (no pictures or line drawings), but they are interesting. Some info on the origins of the program and who thought what.

The confusion is that I have one undated document that indicates that RHEINBERRY was a McD proposal for an air-launched boost-glide system that had much promise, and ISINGLASS was a canceled GD program. See earlier confusion in this thread (and on Wiki) about whether or not ISINGLASS was a GD program or McD.

Now the document could be wrong, but I suspect that what happened is that there was a GD proposal for an A-12 successor aircraft and it initially was designated ISINGLASS. There was also a McD proposal for an air-launched boost-glide vehicle that was designated RHEINBERRY. I suspect that the GD proposal got rejected, and then the McD proposal was renamed ISINGLASS and continued for several years before getting killed. Switching code names for programs is not uncommon during this period. Sometimes things got code names for a short time until the administration was shuffled around and they got a new name.

I keep forgetting what I know about these programs, so I'll have to look over the documents closely and determine if anything they say is really new.
 
We could sure use Prof. Cszyz's input right about now. :'( I'm sure he'd definitely know which project was which.
 
The doc confirms that there was a push for McDonnell Isinglass to be transferred from NRO to the Air Force around 1967.

http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/NROStaffRecords/808.PDF

The transfer and cancellation was documented by Dwayne Day in 2010:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1602/1

McDonnell Douglas took the ISINGLASS proposal to the Air Force, but according to Cunningham they were uninterested because it was a “not-invented-here” idea. “They didn’t even want to hear it, basically.” The project died in 1967 or soon thereafter, although Pratt & Whitney’s engine work continued. A brief Air Force effort to resurrect ISINGLASS occurred near the end of 1968, but it failed.
Click to expand...
 
Excellent find!

Information on Project Rheinberry (Advanced Aircraft Program) as a follow-on to Isinglass.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom