Nov 052012
 

A concept for a solar powered blimp that actually seems practical, from Toronto’s “Solar Ship” company:

[youtube wf_2E2IPk1M]

It’s a heavier than air inflatable aircraft, using a lifting body/stubby flying wing configuration filled with helium. This not only gives it a lot of lift at low speed, it also presents a fairly large flat upper surface for mounting solar panels.

Interestingly, it’s more than just vaporware… they’ve flown prototypes:

[youtube w4vG4jmqPn4]

[youtube 8S8EpQumH8A]

The basic concept is not new… the Aereon Corporation was formed in 1959 to build hybrid airships that used buoyancy and aerodynamic lift, and the first of the Goodyear Inflatoplanes was built in 1956. On the whole, though, this seems like a promising concept. Night flying might be an interesting experience in a solar powered hybrid blimp, though…

 Posted by at 10:03 am
Nov 032012
 

Standard Aircraft Characteristics sheets describing the Boeing XB-52 as of December 1949. This was not the B-52 as it was actually built… a number of design changes were yet to come. Most notable is that the wing is much closer to the nose. The cockpit in fact extends aft beyond the leading edge of the wing root.

SAC sheets used to be produced in large numbers to describe in concise form not only the aircraft the USAF was flying, but aircraft it was hoping to fly. These sheets would be produced by the USAF or by the contractors; contractors would often produce SACs describing conceptual or preliminary designs. There does not seem to have been a central clearinghouse for them… they were produced and distributed with no readily apparent rhyme or reason.

More images and data on this design are HERE.

 Posted by at 12:21 am
Nov 012012
 

A photo from the recent Air Force Association Technology Expo 2012 shows a large display model of the F-35 with weapons bays loaded with Lockheed-Martin “Cuda” air-to-air missiles:

A Lockheed Martin model shows how its “’Cuda” concept for a small AMRAAM-class radar guided dogfight missile could triple the air-to-air internal loadout on an F-35. The missile is about the size of a Small Diameter Bomb and fits on an SDB-style rack.

I’ve not seen anything on this missile before (at least not under the name “Cuda”). So off to Google I went… and came away equally unenlightened. About the only relevant thing I could find was that Lock-Mart took out a trademark on “CUDA” for a guided missile in 2011.

 Posted by at 9:53 am
Oct 302012
 

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.

 Posted by at 9:55 pm
Oct 302012
 

Sandy trashed the flimsy tent that had been covering the Shuttle, and appears to have ripped the tip off the vertical stabilizer.

Space Shuttle Enterprise Damaged by Hurricane Sandy

I guess it’s a good thing that Enterprise wasn’t taken somewhere like the USAF Museum in Dayton, where it would be in a good solid hangar.

This isn’t the first time Enterprise has gotten damaged in NYC on the barge ride in it mashed into a bridge, banging up a wingtip:

Wasn’t enough ‘space’: Enterprise damaged on barge journey

I wonder if the rudder damage will be fixed in the same way the wingtip damage was fixed… by painting it.

 Posted by at 3:46 pm
Oct 262012
 

As it turns out, the Obama Administration knew that the Benghazi consulate was under terrorist attack pretty much as it happened, and watched in real time via overhead drone and did approximately nothing… apart from telling CIA operators who were right there to “stand down.” This is of course a Very Bad Thing, but one can legitimately ask “well, what could they have done?” There are of course answers… since a drone was overhead watching the attack, it’s not unreasonable to wonder if there was an *armed* drone overhead. A Maverick or a Hellfire missile launched from a drone would have made a mess of the attackers. A few F-18’s from an aircraft carrier would have made even more of a mess of them, though it might’ve taken a few hours to get on site (certainly not seven, of course). And an AC-130 or a few B-52s would have done yet more to bring the assault to a close. American troops did arrive at the Benghazi airport something like four hours after the attack began, but got held up by – essentially – bureaucracy on the ground.

Still, any such assault is best countered not with bombs and missiles from the air, but bullets and grenades from ground level. And that means troops, well armed and fully equipped. Since the Administration refused to fully support the defense of the consulate before the attack, they were quite unprepared, and backup was quite some time away via transport helicopters.

Which brings me to Hot Eagle.

A decade ago, there was a low-level, minimally funded series of minor studies at the DoD and among contractors for a Small Unit Space Transport and Insertion (SUSTAIN) concept. In short, SUSTAIN called for shooting a platoon of Marines or Special Forces hundreds or thousands of miles through space with rocket propelled vehicles.

The idea was not new… it stretches back to at least the 1950’s, when the US Army examined the use of Redstone rockets to launch “pods” with soldiers. And of course there was the Douglas Astronautics ICARUS/Ithacus, a modification of the ROMBUS SSTO vehicle meant to launch 1200 fully armed Marines halfway across the planet (both of these were described much more fully HERE). Every few years the idea pops up again, gets studied, someone points out how fabulously expensive it would be, and the idea fades.

One of the main complaints is that for all the massive development effort and cost, what you’d likely wind up with is something with the carrying capacity of a current transport helicopter, something like a Black Hawk or, just maybe, a Chinook. And extracting the vehicle is another problem, as with most designs it would expend the bulk of its rocket fuel just landing. So, you’d take the most expensive transport aircraft ever developed, use it to deliver a very small number of troops, and then very likely simply throw the vehicle away… stranding the troops where you dropped ’em. It becomes easier to see why the concept never seems to get anywhere.

Anyway, during the SUSTAIN efforts, the vehicle itself was studied under the codename “Hot Eagle.” While a few fairly crude preliminary concepts were shown publicly, if detailed design work was done it hasn’t come to light. Most of the designs were necessarily simple… little more than cylindrical cargo sections with rounded nosecones, propellant tanks, rockets and fins. Landing would generally be by rocket, either in a horizontal attitude like a Harrier, or vertically like the Delta Clipper.

Some designs called for the vehicle to be able to partially self-extract… it would launch vertically, fly horizontally, catch a cable trailing behind a cargo plane such as a C-17, and would then be towed like a kit to a safe landing and recovery area. But this would be a challenge, especially if the vehicle had used up all its propellant or been poked full of bullet holes.

So, back to Benghazi.

The idea occurs that a Hot Eagle or two could be carried by aircraft carriers, or even by cruisers or destroyers. Had there been such in the Med – and I’m pretty sure there were – a Hot Eagle or two could have been launched from within a few thousand miles of the consulate, and would get to the vicinity of the consulate in  just a few minutes. Drones in the air would provide information on the state of affairs… whether the Hot Eagles could, say, land in the consulate courtyard, or whether the troops would do better to bail out 10,000 feet up and parachute in, either letting the Hot Eagle plummet into the Med, or land (autonomously, or under remote control) somewhere else. The troops would then support the consulate against the attackers.

While that is going on, larger numbers of troops would fly in via more conventional means. In this case there’d be no need for the Hot Eagle to extract the troops… within a few hours helicopters would be on scene ready to help.

There is no serious likelihood that development of a system like this would ever be anything but “US FedGuv Expensive.” But once developed, there are reasons to assume why the individual vehicles themselves might not be *so* expensive that throwing them away would be insane. While necessarily hypersonic, they are not *orbital,* and thus aerothermal heating becomes a much easier issue to deal with. Flight duration would be mere minutes; the vehicle need not even be pressurized, if the troops have basic pressure suits. Construction would include a lot of cheap aluminum and less cheap but still unspectacular carbon fiber. The rockets would most likely burn jet fuel and liquid oxygen, making them compact, well understood and rugged… copies of any of a number of Russian engines would work, though I’m sure Xcor would be able to come up with something even better. Inflatable structures, deployable Rogallo-type wings and other cost-and-complexity-saving measures could make the craft eminently expendable.

As more information comes out about Benghazi and the administrations odd response to it (and to the family members of the victims), such as lying about what the attack was even bout, the more it looks like the Administration wanted to use the attacks right from the beginning for some obscure political purposes. Consequently, had Hot Eagles been available, it’s questionable whether they would have been allowed to be used. But administrations come and go; weapons systems last for decades.

 Posted by at 9:30 am
Oct 252012
 

This one, based on the same crude mockup, moved the pilot lower. It is much more like the HL-10 as actually built, with no disruptions to the basic lifting body mold line. It does have a quite different window arrangement, however.

Curiously, it seems that seating for more crew than just the pilot was considered. This indicates that this planning wasn’t just for a purely research vehicle, but an orbital vehicle intended to transport a crew.

 Posted by at 12:10 am