US Lifting Bodies Studies - START (ASSET/PRIME), FDL, X-24, etc.

[Desert Dawn]

Folks,

Looks like PlanetSpace is making some moves. Be interesting to see to how far they can keep it going with their effort. And it's always nice to see an FDL shape take flight.

http://www.planetspace.org/lo/index.htm

Moonbat

The problem with trying to build and fly a 40 plus years old FDL-7 derivative design for paying space tourists is that it is akin to aeronautical archeology.

Imagine if people had decided to fly a replica of the Wright Brothers aircraft in the 1950`s and presented it like `cutting edge` technology or a `good business plan` and had flown it for paying customers. That would have been called non-sense.

They have also only met the first 5 Nasa milestones that were requested from them if they wanted their spaceplane to be accepted for transport to the ISS (a competition they now lost) : They only made it to the wood mock-up stage with truck tires taken from the local dump.. While there were at least 30 Nasa milestones to meet (including of course cutting metal and making the actual super alloy skin and structures, and test flights (several of those). Needless to say, they never made a single part that i know of for the full-size vehicle project. And now they are going to fly 1/4 size R/C models... (why...? It`s been all done by Dale Reed in the 60`s...). Well.. I have my little idea about this, and it is not the one you think.

Although we have yet to see spaceplanes fly with cooled or insulated metallic skin protection, the cutting edge today for space tourism airplanes are Burt Rutan`s SpaceShip One and SpaceShip Two. You build you spaceplane with modern materials (carbon fiber), your assembly and building are ULTRA simple (you just TAPE the whole thing together (!!), molds are very easy to make (no expensive, very complex stiffened metal panels, no complicated internal cooling channels and retainer clips), the heat shield is jokingly simple (and high tech too: an ablative coating made with silk from a South America spider, which works)(unlike the old X-15 ablative system), an innovative hybrid rocket system and simple ablative rocket nozzle, and a truly revolutionnary aerodynamic system for a low temperature reentry, safe and simple. Pure genius.

Now i can`t wait to see what Burt will come up with when they will make the boost-glide version of their SpaceShip Two.

 

[Desert Dawn]

Hi,

the Lockheed space vehicle project of 1968 was described as "a breakthrough
in the design of the space re-entry vehicles.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968%20-%200064.html

It`s called MRS : Manned Reusable Spacecraft. It was an earlier, smaller (about 46 feet long) and failed proposal that preceded the version seen in the mock-up that the Wright Patterson Labs built of the larger 63 feet plus Lockheed design. The problem was that not only you had to carry those large fold-out variable geometry wings all the way to orbit, but you also had carry the extra dead-weight of the (not so small) jet engine that was used for landing only.. Plus this version was too small and could not carry much internal fuel.

 

[Desert Dawn]

The variable geometry switchblade wing permitted landing with heavy loads returning from space

Many of the FDL and McD ILRV designs utilized switchblade wings. There were many more FDL lifting body configurations tested than pictured. I have many photo's of such however they are not yet for public consumption.

Flateric.....very impressed with your historical knowledge. I must say this forum is more grounded than others I have visited.

The problem with switchblade wings if they are 'used to land with heavy loads returning from space' is that, although it makes sense in the case of the FDL-7 C/D and FDL-7 Model 176 which were to be used as crew rescue and crew transport vehicles for the MOL space station where they had to carry 12 to 13 persons back to Earth, it does not make much sense at all for the FDL-5 (unless it was used as a contingency for a launch abort, in which case i say this is overkill, too much dead weight to carry all the way to orbit), or... to snatch 'someone else`s satellite' and bring it back to Earth maybe...?

I say the fold-out wings (at least on FDL-5) were there actually to get more control during landing (to get a more stable platform for the pilot), and to get a slower landing speed. The FDL-5 A was known to be unstable below Mach 1.5. So, that`s the reason the fold-out wings were there in his case.

 

[Desert Dawn]

This is an update of my results for identifiying the AF-FDL shapes on this picture.

I have technical paper references, or picture or drawing for each of them, except for the two shapes located in the back row, at the right (the spatular nose aircraft and the X-20-like derivative).

Also, the only reference i have on the finless FDL-6 shape is this photo. All the others i have identified so far.

I will post more about the later version FDL-5 later on. This was a 4 engine version (the two fairing bumps you see on the rear fuselage are covering two of these engine nozzles).

Now i'd like to get my hands on more material on Wadd II, i have very little on it, anyone who's got drawings or photos, please email me, i would like to make a model of it eventually, to complete my AF-FDL resin model kit collection of lifting bodies (which keeps growing)(more news about those soon).

 

[Desert Dawn]

Fathers of the AF-FDL shapes, standing in front of the FDL-5 manned spacecraft mock-up.

The gentleman in the middle is Al Draper.

I'll get the name of the two others soon (somewhere in my pile of papers).

One of the other engineers in the photo worked on the FDL-5 shapes (Goetsche, if i remember well).

 

[zhuravlik]

I've just scanned this photo from "Macchine bizzarre nella storia dell'aviazione" II vol. by Giorgio Evangelisti.
The caption says that, after its first flight, the Martin X-24B lands on a dry lake.
But it doesnt says anything about that fence or panel visible right ahead the fin root.
What is this?

 

[kenneth]

in reply 43 there is a reference to the Martin SV-25 designed by Multhrop. are you sure of this designation SV-25?

 

[zhuravlik]

Mmmmh, isn't SV-5?
http://xplanes.free.fr/x24/x24-11.htm

 

[Desert Dawn]

Ok, here I have the names.

The gentleman on the left is William H. Goesch. In the middle is Alfred C. Draper, and to the right is Melvin L. Buck.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740003718_1974003718.pdf

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Configuration development study of the X-24C hypersonic research airplane

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790007769_1979007769.pdf

I heard Geocities is going bye-bye this summer and I saw this on there. So I figured I may as well post it while its still around. Enjoy.

Here's the Geocities page itself:
http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/xplanespdf.htm

I think we should save these links on behalf of all SPF users. Mods, what do think?

Moonbat

 

[airrocket]

The problem with trying to build and fly a 40 plus years old FDL-7 derivative design for paying space tourists is that it is akin to aeronautical archeology.

The MCD FDL-7 based lifting bodies are "back to the future" as in intense 60's design study which was and is advanced beyond what we do present day. The all weather TPS also well beyond our current composites technology. Most of the old MCD engineers are of a dying or dead bred who unfortunately have taken a great wealth of knowledge to the grave. Knowledge that we can not afford to duplicate today.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

NASA study for an HL-10 type lifting body/Saturn 1B combo.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710064943_1971064943.pdf

 

[Desert Dawn]

The problem with trying to build and fly a 40 plus years old FDL-7 derivative design for paying space tourists is that it is akin to aeronautical archeology.

The MCD FDL-7 based lifting bodies are "back to the future" as in intense 60's design study which was and is advanced beyond what we do present day. The all weather TPS also well beyond our current composites technology. Most of the old MCD engineers are of a dying or dead bred who unfortunately have taken a great wealth of knowledge to the grave. Knowledge that we can not afford to duplicate today.

** Most of that data is still available (and it getting declassified, albeith slowly, and if you are a US engineer who works for the industry, you can easily get access to all of it if you need it for any current aerospace project (or even for non-aerospace projects)(and contrary to what i had been told 14 years ago by one of the famous persons involved with the FDL shapes that "all those who worked on the FDL-5, FDL-7 now passed away" (turns out i found two of them who are very much alive and quicking (and still publishing), including the person who had told me that), and have since been updated, improved upon, or squarely replaced by new, better technologies. Believe me, spent 14 years researching it. The FDL-7 derivative for space tourism is based on technologies that have long been outdated. And i am do not make any comparison between the Space Shuttle and the FDL-7 and so on. To give you an exemple, one thing which is already a bit old already: the X-33 considerably improved upon the metal shingle outer skin panels of the FDL-7, FDL-5 & all by installing them in a losange pattern, and without those draggy and problematic external retaining straps, and with considerable improvements on the stand-on posts as well and better sealing. The material for the metal skin panels for the X-33 was also more advanced than that of the FDL-7, FDL-5, FDL-6 (which would have DEEPLY oxidized after ONE SINGLE REENTRY (in the case of the X-20 Dynasoar)(and just a handfull of flights with the FDL lifting bodies) and that's even WITH the PROTECTIVE CARBIDE COATING !! That's telling how the technology was still not mature. (You should see the pictures showing the level of depletion of some of the metals in those alloys). When you basically have to put new skin panels after each flight or every 4 or 5 flights, it was not really practical. Also, leading edge skirts and nose coatings were subject to cracking, some of which could have proven catastrophic, these coatings have been much improved today with new research (see Indian ceramics research for di-boride materials for more details)(from the Elsevier website), they have wide-ranging applications, what was once the prerogative of classified hypersonic programs is now widespread in fields such as foundry, armour, rocket nozzle coatings, etc.

Did you ever ask yourself why we are not seeing more FDL shapes flying ? Last i checked the Europeans, the Italians, the Chinese, The USAF, Nasa, and Scaled Composites all stayed away from lifting body shapes. There are very good reasons for that (though i am sure if someone threw a few hundred of millions at it, they could probably solve some of those problems. Take a look at the X-37 project from the USAF. If they wanted a lifting body, they would have built one. If you take a look at new cermet materials, you will get an eyefull, and you will not lament the passing of the 1960's metal skin panels concepts.

Now i'm not saying they could not improve on it with new alloys and coatings (think TAV and NASP), but the 1960's concepts were awfully complex and costly compared to what can be done today with the new materials. It find it funny that the FDL-7 C/D version that got sold by an old hand to the wannabe space tourist co. is that it is neither the best variant nor the one that was classified.. (the FDL-7 Model 176 was the later variant, and even the FDL-7 MA was designed as a later variant (!) if a remember well . Even the
FDL-7 Model 176 version that i modelled on my website was not the ultimate version (there was a B version which was more elongated and more classified, and then there is still more stuff, such as Rheinberry... Could explain why they sold them the older, outdated version of all the FDL-7 series..)


Ceramics of the Space Shuttle are outdated, yes, since it is a material that was designed in the 1960's !! (but certainly not the NEW cermets of today ! It's like light and day).

Website: Picturetrail.com/stratospheremodels

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

How about Isinglass? Did it have any special TPS as well?

 

[Desert Dawn]

You could ask MDD-Boeing and see if you get better luck, or make an FOIA.

It would not have been much different since it was the same time period and FDL-5,6,7 were already the cutting edge at that time. I think the project is just more classified only because it was sponsored by the CIA and was for reconnaissance.

 

[antigravite]

Bouncing back on Low Observable's comments (ISINGLASS stuff)
In the mid-late 1960s, Lockheed completed for the AFRPL a small shuttle study based on the FDL-5 configuration.
Much was advertised, and the whole thing became known as MRS.
These shots come from a confidential report issued in 1970, declassified in 1986.

The marketing effort for FDL-5A series might have come from ISINGLASS' demise. Although I'm not sure anymore as we know today that there was something around known as ISINGLASS-II whose timeline remains unknown (to me)...

Connections between ISINGLASS and MRS are, among others : timelines, XLR-129 engines reference, etc.

Hope this helps

 

[airrocket]

TPS...I like the MCD FDL series concept which utilized liquid filled tubing to cool the LE and sharp corners. Better coatings, metals, and composites certainly exist today, and X-33, SHARP was an improvement; however the concept of utilizing durable metallic shingles, and liquid cooled LE seems superior to anything flying today that I'm aware of. All the supersonic X-plane flights today have been expendable single use not re-useable...not very impressive. If we've developed better TPS then we must have overlooked how to apply it? I’ve flown FDL based designed RC and find the sharp LE, flat bottom X fin based designs to be stable. FALCON Black swift utilized similar platform, that machine really impressed me. DARPA seems to go way out on the propulsion envelope…perhaps to far out. AFRL seems more grounded in their propulsion approach. I can see FDL 7 linage in the X-51A profile. Would be interested in more information X-51A TPS.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Airrocket,

Did you get to help PlanetSpace on their remote control FDL? I thought that was pretty cool.

 

[airrocket]

Help Planet Space....I could only dream of such an opportunity. Nope just doing my own thing through Retro Flight. Using Pilot View FPV. Fly RC rocket from cockpit negates line site requirements.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7bf_1247248423
http://vcshobbies.com/product1836_lastcat242.ihtml

Don't tell the FEDS something as much fun as this would have to be confiscated.

 

[airrocket]

Well that didn't work ...just google this you'll find it.

Weaponized-RC-Planes

 

[Desert Dawn]

``TPS...I like the MCD FDL series concept which utilized liquid filled tubing to cool the LE and sharp corners.

I’ve flown FDL based designed RC and find the sharp LE, flat bottom X fin based designs to be stable. FALCON Black swift utilized similar platform, that machine really impressed me. ``

Not anymore. This is what the Falcon project looks like now:

(at least, what they are ready to publicly show us)

Stéphane.

 

[flateric]

1). This is HTV-3X Blackswift in it's final pulicily shown iteration (RIP 2008)
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1985.msg58012.html#msg58012
2). I'd be cautious saying that final iteration of HTV-3X would match externally FALCON HCV OV (Operational Vehicle)

 

[Desert Dawn]

1). This is HTV-3X Blackswift in it's final pulicily shown iteration (RIP 2008)
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1985.msg58012.html#msg58012
2). I'd be cautious saying that final iteration of HTV-3X would match externally FALCON HCV OV (Operational Vehicle)

I didn`t say so, that`s why i said 'what they are willing to show us publicly'
The final project`s real shape we don`t know, or we won`t know until the project stops evolving and gels into a final configuration and they tell us it's the final one (and even then, i'd wait 30 years down the line to see what declassified papers would come out and show us).

Here is the link:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/09/airforce_blackswift_092208w/

This is not the one i had in mind when i posted the pictures (which i found from another link a few days ago). I will try to find the original link, as it was the one that said the twin fin Blackswift shape was the one that was cancelled (and the new single fin double delta would be the one that is current).

 

[vulture]

Does anyone have images of the Lockheed Skunk Works L301/X-24C desktop model?
It was featured in a book by Dennis R. Jenkins - images provided by one Tony Landis.

Vulture

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Merged to existing topic. Vulture, check through this topic for Lockheed X-24 images / info.

 

[mz]

http://contrails.iit.edu/DigitalCollection/1967/AFFDLTR67-137.pdf

Assessment of the Factors Affecting Advanced Lifting Entry Vehicles
Alfred C. Draper
Melvin L. Buck
(those are two of the guys in the photo a few pages back)

I don't think this has been posted, at least didn't find it with search. A nice overview of general configurations and their L/D, temperature, internal volume and mass fraction properties...

It's an overview and hence not too in-depth, but that's good.
Attached are some pictures from the document, there are more in the pdf.

 

[flateric]

http://www.mri.psu.edu/Events/MaterialsDay/2004/kramer.pdf

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

The forebody with upturned wingtips catches my eye. Any idea if it is anything specific? Or is it just a generic concept?

 

[airrocket]

Wow that closely resembles the most recent iterations of my Hyper Hawk inward ATR design. See attachment of early concept iteration just remove the 2D center section volume wedge and there is a resemblance. Most strange I recently removed the two all moving vertical stabs blended and radiused the upper structure and adopted a FDL7-176 spatula style nose to test compression sharing concept this summer. While this most recent design iteration is still proprietary it has an uncanny resemblance to the Lockheed missile concept (minus the 2D volume center section wedge). I hope to unveil the HyHawk later this summer in sub-scale rocket thrust augmented RC RPV form through Retro Flight. Feed up with the FED and DOD proposal hassles and hoops…going Rogue.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Good work, Airrocket! I'm definitely feeling that.

 

[airrocket]

I wonder if the Lockheed missile utilized thrust vectoring I'm unable to discern control surface details so only guessing. I plan to utilize compression sharing for hands-off vertical transonic and M1.5 ascent and perhaps thrust vector for subsonic loiter, landing (recovery) and cruise. I assume the Lockheed missile mission would be oneway with no need for landing.

 

[Dynoman]

Great find flateric!
As soon as I saw it I thought of the Sortie type vehicle depicted in the two pictures above (137_02.png and 137_03.png). It shows a manned system with a 'hidden-line' drawing illustrating a break in the verticle stabilizer.

I'm wondering if that model was tested without the verticle stabilizer and is reflected in the unknownmissile picture. The 'inlets' reminded me of the manned FDL-5 cockpit windows.

The missile is shown above the launch aircraft, so I assume the vehicle will climb after launch.
I would think that the raised 'inlet' area would be better positioned on the bottom, or symetrically positioned on the top and bottom for uniterrupted flow, especially at hypersonic speeds.

 

[Byeman]

I always belived that ASSET prototypes was tightly connected with the "Winged Gemini" project, heavily sponsorized by USAF at that times.

In effect if you take an ASSET vehicle you may find out that it is a perfectly subscale model (1:2) of Winged Gemini, the thing takes more reason if you notice that McDonnell was in charge of production and development of both ASSET and Gemini.

Strangely the ASSET programme was always connected with X-20 Dynasoar project, neverthless the two vehicles had radical different configurations and not the same prime contractors as well (McDonnell vs Boeing).

You are making the connections the wrong way. ASSET existed before Gemini in support of Dynasoar. The fact that the configuration of ASSET was different than Dynasoar and had different contractors is not relevant. Testing materials does not require the same contractor or vehicle.


Mercury > Mercury Mark II > Gemini > Winged Gemini
ASSET ^

 

[quellish]

The forebody with upturned wingtips catches my eye. Any idea if it is anything specific? Or is it just a generic concept?

I am pretty sure I recognize it as a post AMaRV RV, though the name of the program I can't recall.
Semi-related:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12061&page=89

The unknown lockheed missile, I think, maybe be a hypersonic strike missile they were shopping around in the late 80s. Not to be confused with the boost-glide weapon that was an anti-airfield weapon (see http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=3721.0 )

 

[Desert Dawn]

http://www.mri.psu.edu/Events/MaterialsDay/2004/kramer.pdf

Nice ones Flateric. The Lockheed vehicle illustration strongly mirrors the Flying Wind tunnel concept though they are obviously two different projects from different companies (but perhaps with the same ancestor).

Nice one with the model of the General Dynamics HGV.

 

[Desert Dawn]

Great find flateric!
As soon as I saw it I thought of the Sortie type vehicle depicted in the two pictures above (137_02.png and 137_03.png). It shows a manned system with a 'hidden-line' drawing illustrating a break in the verticle stabilizer.

I'm wondering if that model was tested without the verticle stabilizer and is reflected in the unknownmissile picture. The 'inlets' reminded me of the manned FDL-5 cockpit windows.

** No relation.

The missile is shown above the launch aircraft, so I assume the vehicle will climb after launch.
I would think that the raised 'inlet' area would be better positioned on the bottom, or symetrically positioned on the top and bottom for uniterrupted flow, especially at hypersonic speeds.
[/quote]

 

[blackstar]

Anybody got a copy of this (the pdf only shows the first page):

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMISPHST08_1877/PV2008_2611.pdf

FDL-5A
Precursor to High Performance Lifting Entry Spacecraft
An Historical Review
Carl F. Ehrlich, Jr.


I'm doing a follow-up to my ALSV article and the FDL-5A shape was one of the vehicles considered around this timeframe.

 

[Triton]

Douglas M2-F2 lifting body factory model found on eBay.

URL: http://cgi.ebay.com/Rare-Douglas-M2-F2-NASA-Lifting-Body-Factory-Model_W0QQitemZ330426015043QQihZ014QQcategoryZ86954QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp3286.m7QQ_trkparmsZalgo%3DLVI%26itu%3DUCI%26otn%3D3%26po%3DLVI%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D9018972234331503403

 

[RanulfC]

http://www.mri.psu.edu/Events/MaterialsDay/2004/kramer.pdf

Old topic a bit but something that caught my eye here was the bottom pic of an "unknownlockheedmissile" which pretty much fits the FDL-5/7 mock-up images and it got me thinking...
I KNOW all the info says the flat surfaces on the mock-up are windows, but something about them always bothered me. Mostly I suspect the "angle" they are at, especially given the overall "nose-high" landing mode always shown for the design. Combined with the ninefingers models model and now this pic it occurs to me: What if they weren't 'windows' but intakes?
Sure having your intakes on the upper surface actually costs you some perfomance, (and makes rapid changes of AOA a stone-..er.. bear ) but this isn't actually (from what I've been reading on the subject in various places) as critical for a hypersonic cruise vehicle. Manned or unmanned.

Am I crazy? (Ok, any more than NORMAL maybe... )

Randy