X-55 top speed 55 years ago today.

[anonymous-user]

Well yesterday.

Pretty amazing M6.7! Maybe that manned record will never be broken on earth as any future recon aircraft are likely to be unmanned?

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSh...

[RicksAlfas]

An amazing machine. Only 56 years between these two!

[Eric Mc]

X-15 of course

The Space Shuttle exceeded Mach 6.7 regularly as it came back from orbit. It initially encountered the upper atmosphere at around Mach 22 and was flying using its aerodynamic controls (elevons, rudder etc as opposed to its attitude thrusters) at speeds in excess of Mach 10.

However, one could probably argue that the Shuttle was (to copy from Buzz Lightyear), falling with style rather than flying.

This is my model of the X-15 I built a couple of years ago.

[url]
|https://thumbsnap.com/Bpk9KEmw[/url]

Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 4th October 12:50

[Simpo Two]

El stovey said:

Pretty amazing M6.7! Maybe that manned record will never be broken on earth as any future recon aircraft are likely to be unmanned?

Wasn't the X-15 more part of the early space programme than PR?

[Eric Mc]

Not really. The X-15 was specified before there really was a space programme as such. The original specifications for what became the X-15 were set out in 1955.

[Simpo Two]

Eric Mc said:

Not really. The X-15 was specified before there really was a space programme as such. The original specifications for what became the X-15 were set out in 1955.

But I doubt for reconnaissance as El Stovey suggested; they had the U2 for that. Can't see an X-15 having much endurance!

[anonymous-user]

Simpo Two said:

Eric Mc said:

Not really. The X-15 was specified before there really was a space programme as such. The original specifications for what became the X-15 were set out in 1955.

But I doubt for reconnaissance as El Stovey suggested; they had the U2 for that. Can't see an X-15 having much endurance!

Sure but recon is likely where any advantages in hypersonic aircraft are now. Quickly getting to a site that a satellite can’t quickly photograph for whatever reason amd it’s less likely that aircraft will be manned in future.

[Tony1963]

I think there are enough satellites and drones to cover most eventualities.

And an X-15 would’ve taken, at a guess, days to prepare for flight.

[Eric Mc]

Simpo Two said:

Eric Mc said:

Not really. The X-15 was specified before there really was a space programme as such. The original specifications for what became the X-15 were set out in 1955.

But I doubt for reconnaissance as El Stovey suggested; they had the U2 for that. Can't see an X-15 having much endurance!

Definitely not for reconnaissance. The aim of the programme, as originally envisaged in 1954/55, was to explore flight regimes at speeds from Mach 3 to (hopefully) Mach 8. They wanted to test controllability, including an early version of fly by wire and aerodynamic heating. The original partners in the programme were the USAF, the US Navy and the NACA. The pilots selected to fly the X-15 came from all three of these organisations. The NACA became NASA in 1958, the same year the X-15 was rolled out, so it never carried NACA markings.

The programme matured over time and most of the original goals were met - although not the Mach 8 target though. The airframe turned out to be incapable of dealing with temperatures above Mach 4.5).
From about 1964, the X-15 began to be used as a scientific platform onto which various engineering and scientific experiments could be grafted - such as extreme high altitude infra red observations or carrying different materials aloft to see how they coped in a near vacuum or at extremely high speeds.
The normal length of each X-15 was around 8 to 15 minutes, depending on the flight profile. It took about an hour for the X-15 to be carried up to the drop altitude and location by the B-52 mothership.

Three aircraft were built, one was lost in a fatal accident. The other two survived and are both on display, one at the National Air and Space Museum, Washington DC and the other at the USAF Museum, Dayton, Ohio.

[anonymous-user]

Tony1963 said:

I think there are enough satellites and drones to cover most eventualities.

And an X-15 would’ve taken, at a guess, days to prepare for flight.

I’m not saying the x-15 was for recon but any future aircraft traveling over Mach 6 used by the military is likely to have some reconnaissance use and also likely to be unmanned.

So my point is that the M6.7 manned flight record is unlikely to be broken.

I’m well aware the x-15 wasn’t for reconnaissance.

[Eric Mc]

The problem with sustained hypersonic flight is that you cannot do it with rocket power. The X-15 only had a few minutes of powered flight. Most of its flight was as a glider. For sustained hypersonic flight you need a Scramjet - and these are proving very difficult to build and make reliable.

The other problem with hypersonic flight is maintaining attitude control, especially when changing direction.

[Tony1963]

I wonder how far the Reaction Engines Sabre engine will go.

[Simpo Two]

Eric Mc said:

The programme matured over time and most of the original goals were met - although not the Mach 8 target though.

Ah well they didn't have Tom Cruise in those days!

It's probably true to say that the faster you try to shove atmosphere out of the way, the more fuel you use - so in reality these things are going to be limited by commercial economy and the eco brigade.

With a boat you solve the problem by planing on the surface, so the parallel here would be to plane on the top of the atmosphere...

[Eric Mc]

Or just give up and go into orbit.