A 1967 North American concept for a hypersonic (Mach 6) passenger transport. Sadly, no further data. If anyone has more – such as a diagram – I’d love to see it.
Aug 012013
Jul 102013
Lockheed artwork of a Mach 6 hypersonic transport, circa 1979. Fuel would have been liquid hydrogen. A report on this, with some quite good drawings, is available as Air Doc 3.
Jul 032013
You can now purchase a printed version of Aerospace Projects Review issue V3N3 through MagCloud. Two options: just the printed version, and the printed version with a digital download (PDF).
See:
Jul 022013
At last: issue V3N3 of APR is now available. The first article covers the proposed use of bombers, specifically the B-52 and B-70, as launch platforms for the Dyna Soar manned military spaceplane.
The second article is on the Martin Astrorocket, a series of early-sixties design studies of reusable low-cost manned launch systems for the USAF.
The next article covers the development of the Douglas XC-132 turboprop transport/tanker plane throughout much of the 1950’s. This would have been by far the biggest turboprop plane the us would have built… had it been built. Article contains a number of good photos of the full-scale mockup.
Next is an article on the A-12 Avenger II stealthy strike plane for the US Navy. This article includes info and drawings on the Northrop competitor, as well as a number of rarely seen and all-new detailed diagrams of the A-12.
A brief article on a trio of Grumman designs from the 1989-1993 time period, VTOL lift-fan combat aircraft, including the Future Attack Air Vehicle (FAAV).
Last but not least, an article describing a trio of seemingly unrelated – yet possibly related – designs: a “landing boat” for Project Orion, a lifting body design for the Apollo program, and a fighter jet designed to be launched via booster rockets. Included is information on the logistics Landing Vehicle, General Dynamics’ equivalent of the Douglas ICARUS/Ithacus troop transport rocket.
And two “Aerospace History Nuggets,” a Ryan concept for a VTOL jetliner and a concept from Bell for linking two helicopters together to forma single heavy lifter.
Here’s the complete issue V3N3 layout:
It is available in three formats. Firstly, it can be downloaded directly from me for the low, low price of $8.50. Second, it can be purchased as a professionally printed volume through Magcloud; third, it can be procured in both formats. To get the download, simply pay for it here through paypal.
——–
———
To get the printed version (or print + PDF version), visit my MagCloud page:
http://scottlowther.magcloud.com/
——————
Also available: the V3N3 Addendum. This contains 30 pages formatted for 11X17. Includes larger and improved versions of all the CAD diagrams produced for V3N3, including:
- 1/72 versions of the A-12 diagrams
- Scans of the original A-12 diagrams
- 1/144 versions of the XC-132 diagrams
- 1/288 versions of the XC-132 antecedents
- 1/250 versions of the Dyna Soar/bomber launchers
- 1/72 versions of the Landing Boat, “Space fighter” and Apollo lifting body
- 1/200 version of the Nova/LLV
The V3N3 Addendum can be downloaded for only $3.00!
——–
———
Feb 112013
From sometime around 1963, a few photos of wind tunnel models at NASA-Langley. Shown are a range of Dyna Soar models, from pre-Dyna Soar “HYWARDS” concepts to the initial Boeing 844 design to the final Boeing Model 2050E configuration.
Feb 012013
Long before the “Aurora” was flying across the pages of sensationalist magazines at Mach 6+, NASA was studying a range of hypersonic research aircraft. While the designs different, sometimes wildly, there were occasional configurations remarkably like the hypothetical “Aurora.” Some would argue that that means that the “Aurora” was derived from this earlier NASA work, but a more reasonable supposition is that those who envisioned “Aurora” were drawing upon public representations of the earlier NASA work in order to dream up what Aurora must look like.
One such design that is very representative of the iconic “Aurora” image is this Hypersonic Research Airplane configuration from 1973, shown here as a drawing and as a NASA-Langley subsonic wind tunnel test model. The aircraft was powered by liquid rocket engines in the tail and an underslung scramjet pod. It had a cockpit that would raise up at low speed so the pilot could see to land, but was otherwise a very clean configuration.
Nov 062012
In the mid 1960s, supersonic transports were just around the corner. And the trends in aviation development showed the aircraft designers and air travel planners that hypersonic transports were less than two decades away. Consequently, all the major aircraft designers in the US devoted effort to designing passenger transports that could carry paying customers at Mach 5 or greater. But a combination of politics (the OPEC oil embargo as well as a wider economic downturn, as well as largely trumped-up ecological concerns) and technological issues managed to assure that SSTs were never developed beyond the Concord stunt. And if a jetliner couldn’t get to Mach 1, it surely couldn’t get to Mach 5.
But in 1966, these issues were not yet seen, so Convair was busy designing a whole range of hypersonic transports. They might have missed out on the first generation of SSTs, but they were not going to miss out on the HSTs.
Oct 252012
A 1954 NACA-Langley concept for a hypersonic research airplane, which eventually led to the X-15. Apart from the X-tail and the use of three rocket engines, the configuration is remarkably similar to the X-15 in general terms.
Oct 162012
A mid-1970’s graphic from the collection of a former NASA-Langley engineer shows the development schedule for “HTDA.” This I think stands for “Hypersonic Technology Development Aircraft,” and was to be a Mach 5+ airbreathing lifting body research plane that looks strikingly like the supposed “Aurora spyplane” that was so popular in the 1990’s. HTDA airframes 1 and 2 were most likely pure rocket vehicles, with a scramjet being integrated onto airframe 3.
Oct 112012
A 1959 Boeing concept for an airbreathing HTOL booster for Dyna Soar. Compared to the other pure-rocket VTO boosters, this would have been a monster… far bigger, far heavier, far, far more expensive. Which almost certainly explains why not only did such a booster not get serious study further down the line for Dyna Soar, it didn’t even rate detailed diagrams in the reports.
Staging would have been an interesting show.
NOTE: The isometric artwork for baseline concepts 4-7? Not available, sadly.