You are not logged in.
China’s mystery reusable spaceplane lands after 276 days in orbit
https://spacenews.com/chinas-mystery-re … -in-orbit/
NASA’s Quesst Mission: X-59 Quiet Supersonic Technology Aircraft Gets Its Tail
https://scitechdaily.com/nasas-quesst-m … -its-tail/
Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-05-09 06:54:25)
Offline
Foreign nations perhaps seem to have their 'X' type ideas
but in the USA when the Left hand does not know what the Right hand is doing maybe the public and uninformed officials might say they seen a UFO Alien or UAP?
In commerce and civilian airline news
Boeing and NASA partner with Alaska and other airlines on eco-friendly X-66A aircraft
https://www.geekwire.com/2023/boeing-na … ines-x66a/
Daily Memo: Why Boeing’s TTBW Is Unlike Any Other X-Plane
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ … er-x-plane
(Subscription)
the latest in this pioneering series, will take the X-plane program into yet another new realm —sustainable aviation
The old Aeronautics–U.S. Army Air Forces–U.S. Air Force supersonic research project
video
Supersonic: the Bell X-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dTQFw5KeXU
old 2006 article on Hypersonic tests
https://www.space.com/1988-air-force-pl … hicle.html
Northrop Grumman X-47 is a demonstration unmanned combat aerial vehicle. The X-47 began as part of DARPA's J-UCAS program, and is now part of the United States Navy's UCAS-D program to create a carrier-based unmanned aircraft.
https://web.archive.org/web/20081224135 … il/j-ucas/
Dynetics X-61 Gremlins is an experimental unmanned aerial vehicle designed by Dynetics.
https://www.airforce-technology.com/pro … r-vehicle/
Northrop Grumman X-47B is a demonstration unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) designed for aircraft carrier-based operations. Developed by the American defense technology company Northrop Grumman, the X-47 project began as part of DARPA's J-UCAS program, and subsequently became part of the United States Navy's Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration (UCAS-D) program. The X-47B is a tailless jet-powered blended-wing-body aircraft capable of semi-autonomous operation and aerial refueling
http://www.popsci.com/look-autonomous-d … t-fuel-sky
Orbital Sciences X-34 was intended to be a low-cost testbed for demonstrating "key technologies" that could be integrated into the Reusable Launch Vehicle program. It was intended to be an autonomous pilotless craft powered by a "Fastrac" liquid-propellant rocket engine, capable of reaching Mach 8
The two demonstrators remained in storage at Edwards Air Force Base until they were temporarily moved to Mojave, California
http://www.airliners.net/photo/NASA/Orb … 1327060/L/
Lockheed Martin X-44 MANTA (Multi-Axis No-Tail Aircraft) was an American conceptual aircraft design by Lockheed Martin that has been studied by NASA and the U.S. Air Force. It was intended to test the feasibility of full yaw, pitch and roll authority without tailplanes (horizontal or vertical). Altitude control relies purely on 3D thrust vectoring. The X-44 MANTA design was based on the F-22, except without a tail and incorporating a full delta wing. The X-44 MANTA would have a greater fuel capacity than the F-22, due to its larger delta wing design. The MANTA was designed to have reduced mechanical complexity, increased fuel efficiency and greater agility. The X-44 MANTA combined the control and propulsion systems, using thrust vectoring
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … t/x-44.htm
Boeing X-45 unmanned combat air vehicle is a concept demonstrator for a next generation of completely autonomous military aircraft, developed by Boeing's Phantom Works. Manufactured by Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, the X-45 was a part of DARPA's J-UCAS project.
The X-45A introduced yaw axis thrust vectoring
Boeing Phantom Ray is an American demonstration stealth unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) developed by Boeing using company funds. The autonomous Phantom Ray is a flying wing around the size of a conventional fighter jet, and first flew in April 2011. It will conduct a program of test flights involving surveillance, ground attack and autonomous aerial refueling missions.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100310081 … 8b_nr.html
European Commission recommends funding Hydis2 hypersonic interceptor study
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/euro … ptor-study
Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-08-04 20:01:21)
Offline
Air Force pulls off first AI flight in pilotless plane
https://www.stripes.com/branches/air_fo … 42189.html
Air Force researchers are touting the achievement of the first unmanned flight using artificial intelligence algorithms after a successful three-hour sortie by an XQ-58A Valkyrie.
Offline
X-59 gets a Patriotic makeover
Offline
Mission Update
China Spaceplane
https://twitter.com/OrbitalFocus/status … 5409347587
Additional objects with satellite-like characteristics accompanied the first two spaceplanes into orbit
The five items accompanying the current one are the CZ 2F upper stage and the 'standard' four items of debris
As yet here is nothing else
Offline
I see a lot of tail-less designs listed in post 52 above. Here is some food for thought from an old retired engineer with heavy-duty experiences in aerodynamics and flight vehicle design:
The trend once again in recent decades is tail-less aircraft, much as it was in the 1950's widely, and even in the 1940's by Northrup with its flying wings. It was a fad then, and largely still is, today.
They get away with it today with sophisticated computer controls. But there is a limit, independent of the computer, to what can be done any flight control computer, and that limit was found in the 1940's and 1950's, before there ever were any flight control computers.
What they do now (and did back then) with these tail-less designs is get more aerodynamic efficiency by deleting the drag of the tail, and then cover up the poorer flying qualities with the fancy computer controls. Actually, you can still achieve decent flying qualities without the computer control, but it requires what is known as a reflexed airfoil profile, to zero the basic pitching moment of the airfoil. That very severely limits what you can otherwise incorporate into the design.
However, computer control or not, you cannot stall a tail-less design, whether a flying wing or a blended wing body. Without the tail surface either aft or forward of the main wing, there is no means to exert the control force required to get out of the stall. It foes into deep stall, and usually just tumbles.
This has been known experimentally since the in-flight stall and fatal crash of the XB-35 flying wing bomber back about 1946 or 1947. Its Air Force test pilot that day was Glenn Edwards, for whom they renamed Muroc Dry Lake to Edwards Air Force Base. He was told not to stall the airplane by Northrup, but he did anyway, and he died for doing it.
The same effect plus an erratic unreliability in the hydraulics powering the flight controls, is why the F-7U Cutlass was never successful as a carrier fighter for the Navy, and why its nickname among its pilots was "widowmaker". The F-8U Crusader that replaced it served for 3 decades. It had a tail.
This effect is also why the Navy did not accept tail-less designs for carrier operations for decades afterwards. Deltas, yes. Tail-less, no. The A-4 Skyhawk had a delta wing and was very successful, but it also had a horizontal tail for lots of control authority! Delta and tail-less are not necessarily the same thing. You demonstrably need beaucoups of control authority to make carrier landings. Tail-less does not have it. It cannot.
There were several delta wing Air Force airplanes that had no separate horizontal tails, and they were mostly successful, the F-106 being the best of them. None of them had to make carrier landings, though. And the F-106 was an interceptor, not a dog-fighter. It was not ever called up to make drastic maneuvers. Just speed.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-01-05 11:23:25)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline