I think there should be an X24-A parked in every driveway.
Has anyone done a HL-10 Lifting body?
- Thread starter DarkHelmet
- Start date
OhioAstromech
Well-Known Member
We need a group of dedicated Lifting body fans to go to the USAF Museum with camera's, measuring tape, profile gages, and calipers.
Document every part of the lifting bodies there and generate dimensional drawings to assist in making 1/32 scale models from.
Scot
Document every part of the lifting bodies there and generate dimensional drawings to assist in making 1/32 scale models from.
Scot
Bradleyfett
Sr Member
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the HL-2):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HL-20_Personnel_Launch_System
As-yet-unrealized crew vehicle concept that is a direct desendant of the lifting body designs. It hasn't flow yet, but the full sized mockup makes for some really cool pictures.
Mark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HL-20_Personnel_Launch_System
As-yet-unrealized crew vehicle concept that is a direct desendant of the lifting body designs. It hasn't flow yet, but the full sized mockup makes for some really cool pictures.
Mark
feek61
Sr Member
Never been a big fan of the conceptual HL-20. Scot, I would love to document the lifting bodies . . . distance is a problem!! :lol BTW, did you get any photos of the back of the X-24's?
Lifting Body Picture(s) of the Day: The HL-10
1968
1969
It always amazies me how many different looks the shape of this thing has. If you didn't know better you would think the above photos are of 3 different but similar aircraft.
Lifting Body Picture(s) of the Day: The HL-10
1968
1969
It always amazies me how many different looks the shape of this thing has. If you didn't know better you would think the above photos are of 3 different but similar aircraft.
Last edited:
OhioAstromech
Well-Known Member
This is as good as it gets.
Sorry.
I need them to allow me to get up on the XB-70's wing so I can take a picture of the top view.
Scot
Sorry.
I need them to allow me to get up on the XB-70's wing so I can take a picture of the top view.
Scot
feek61
Sr Member
Thanks Scot, I was really curious how they did the engine compartment coverting the SV5J into the X-24A. Originally the SV5J was designed for a jet engine (and had an air scoop underneath). I can see by your photo (which I lightened up considerably) that they tried to make it look close. In fact the real one was much different. When I saw it I was surprised how open the entire back section was. You could litterally crawl into the back engine compartment with no trouble. The engine looked to be just stuck in there hung only on a tubular frame but not coverd within the body of the airframe at all. You could easily reach in and service the engine or in fact it would be a simple operation to change out the engine which I believe was frequently done. It looks like they have it a little more closed here in the photo below.
This is Scot's photo lightened-up to the max (same as the above photo):
This is the orignal X-24A engine compartment:
Sub-sonic flight configuration (notice the camera pointed down at the engine from the center stabilizer)
Here is the X-24 in the "shuttle-cock" configuration which was used for maximum stability in the transonic region. Look at how all of the guts are just hanging in there.
The X-24B but the back was virtually unchanged from the X-24A. This is a glide flight mission. Not sure that the control surfaces are set here in the pre-launch prep but they look close to flight settings for a glide mission. Notice how open it is back there.
This is Scot's photo lightened-up to the max (same as the above photo):
This is the orignal X-24A engine compartment:
Sub-sonic flight configuration (notice the camera pointed down at the engine from the center stabilizer)
Here is the X-24 in the "shuttle-cock" configuration which was used for maximum stability in the transonic region. Look at how all of the guts are just hanging in there.
The X-24B but the back was virtually unchanged from the X-24A. This is a glide flight mission. Not sure that the control surfaces are set here in the pre-launch prep but they look close to flight settings for a glide mission. Notice how open it is back there.
Last edited:
I'm really digging these, as well.
Some of these were flying when I was growing up, some were already past and in the picture books I used learning to read. A number of years ago, I used to drive to and from work right past March AFB when the B-52s still lived there. Not ugly, but they weren't exactly pretty; they looked very... businesslike -- in the same way that a pack of sharks is businesslike.
Last edited:
feek61
Sr Member
I remember watching the evening news and there would be video of these waves of B-52s in Vietnam dropping these massive loads of bombs from the bomb-bay and wing pylons (they would show that very frequently). I have loved the thing ever since. I always prefered the cold war silver versions instead of the camo versions from the war. Love those photos of the big silver plane with the hounddog missles under the wings!! I remember my first 1/72 scale model . . . it was awsome!!! Here are a couple of the B.U.F.F. with the X-38:
Looks like the above pictures could be straight from the 1960's but are in fact from 2001-2002. The X-38 flights were not high enough to produce contrails from the B-52 so they had tracking smoke which can be seen on one of the engines.
Looks like the above pictures could be straight from the 1960's but are in fact from 2001-2002. The X-38 flights were not high enough to produce contrails from the B-52 so they had tracking smoke which can be seen on one of the engines.
Last edited:
feek61
Sr Member
Lifting Body Picture(s) of the Day
Here are the wind tunnel test models of the HL-10. Below is the 28 ft. model in the final design configuration. It's interesting to note that this was actually bigger then the real aircraft
Here is also a full scale model but without the outboard control surfaces. They had not yet determined the best control surfaces but could get great data on the shape of the hull.
Here is the 5-foot model:
Here are the wind tunnel test models of the HL-10. Below is the 28 ft. model in the final design configuration. It's interesting to note that this was actually bigger then the real aircraft
Here is also a full scale model but without the outboard control surfaces. They had not yet determined the best control surfaces but could get great data on the shape of the hull.
Here is the 5-foot model:
Last edited:
OhioAstromech
Well-Known Member
I know this isn't a lifting body but it is too cool not to post.
Everyone has seen can see an SR-71 because all of them were put in different museums around the United States.
There is only one YF-12A that I know of.
Scot
PS. I have a photo of the Drone setting to the left of the YF-12A if you want to see it.
Everyone has seen can see an SR-71 because all of them were put in different museums around the United States.
There is only one YF-12A that I know of.
Scot
PS. I have a photo of the Drone setting to the left of the YF-12A if you want to see it.
feek61
Sr Member
Lifting Body Picture of the Day BONUS
Here is the M2-F2 at the Norair (the division of Northrop that built the M2-F2 and the HL-10) plant at its rollout. Notice the NASA emblem is missing on the nose portion. You can see in next photo where they reduced the size of the Northrop lettering, made it smaller and added the NASA meatball logo (you can still see where the original lettering was). By the time the M2-F3 was rebuilt the Northrop lettering was so small you could hardly see it (see bottom photos):
Here is pilot Bruce Peterson with the M2-F2 before he crashed it:
Nice shot of the clear nose from the side
Figure this one out:
This is an interesting photo of the M3-F3. This was during the rebuild and the structure appears to be complete but not ready for flight. This is the only series of photos that show the M2-F3 with the black nose. Notice there are none of the rescue and warning labels on the outside and also the ejection seat is not installed:
Pilot John Manke with the M2-F3, Notice how they have reinforced the nose with a center structure:
Nice photo of the M2-F3 on the dry lake bed:
Here is the M2-F2 at the Norair (the division of Northrop that built the M2-F2 and the HL-10) plant at its rollout. Notice the NASA emblem is missing on the nose portion. You can see in next photo where they reduced the size of the Northrop lettering, made it smaller and added the NASA meatball logo (you can still see where the original lettering was). By the time the M2-F3 was rebuilt the Northrop lettering was so small you could hardly see it (see bottom photos):
Here is pilot Bruce Peterson with the M2-F2 before he crashed it:
Nice shot of the clear nose from the side
Figure this one out:
This is an interesting photo of the M3-F3. This was during the rebuild and the structure appears to be complete but not ready for flight. This is the only series of photos that show the M2-F3 with the black nose. Notice there are none of the rescue and warning labels on the outside and also the ejection seat is not installed:
Pilot John Manke with the M2-F3, Notice how they have reinforced the nose with a center structure:
Nice photo of the M2-F3 on the dry lake bed:
Last edited:
feek61
Sr Member
From one engineer to another!!!
Here is James "Scotty" Doohan (from Star Trek in case you live under a rock) with pilot/engineer Bruce Peterson in front of the M2-F2. Yes the guy who crashed the M2-F2. This was in April of 1967:
Here is Bruce in December of 1997 in the cockpit of the refurbished M2-F1 (which was made from plywood):
Bruce lost an eye from complications from the M2-F2 crash. He died on May 1st, 2006
Here is James "Scotty" Doohan (from Star Trek in case you live under a rock) with pilot/engineer Bruce Peterson in front of the M2-F2. Yes the guy who crashed the M2-F2. This was in April of 1967:
Here is Bruce in December of 1997 in the cockpit of the refurbished M2-F1 (which was made from plywood):
Bruce lost an eye from complications from the M2-F2 crash. He died on May 1st, 2006
Last edited:
Similar threads
