X-20 DYNASOAR Info . . .
Dave F.
Dave F.
X-20 DYNASOAR Info . . .
- Thread starter Ez2cDave
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2009
- Messages
- 4,499
- Reaction score
- 2,975
Nice drawing . . . I converted it to B&W.
Dave F.
Dave F.
Agree!!
Maybe even
...
Maybe even
...
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2009
- Messages
- 4,499
- Reaction score
- 2,975
Roy Houchin was good enough to point out to me and I thought I'd share that the dynasoar vehicle proposed atop the Titan II did not have a humped back, the hump you see in these comparisons of 2035(titan II) and 2050 below is the ejectable portion, Note that the end of the glider portion is actually slanted forward slightly at the intersection of what is jetisoned on 2035, then you see the 2050E at the bottom which was the final orbital proposal for the Titan III that does have the hump well forward of where the fins start to angle upward. Also, the cockpit windows are different, and the glider would have had a boost/re-entry protective cover over the front cockpit glass on both that was only ejected on re-entry, so any model on a stack should not really have forward windows, note the minor differences in fin tip shapes as well.
You see that boost/re-entry cover in the mockup photo Dave shared above. Also, it's interesting that the drawing he shows above on one of the Titan II stacks, that drawing does not have a source on it and it shows the 2050E which is incorrect, the boeing drawing does show the 2035 on the titan II.
I also included George Gassaway's Drawing of one of his scale models, note the glider on his does have the straight back but interestingly has non angled out wingtips, which all of the drawings I've seen in actual documents show was not the case, almost all of the versions had about the same angle outward when viewed from the top. Of course a lot of this documentation we are now referring to has come about in the last 10 years or so from archives etc.
I also noticed in my book that one of the mockups was shown atop an Atlas A/B Centaur before the Air Force chose the Titan for suborbital tests. The assembly is on the side and it doesn't show any fins so hard to know what it would have looked like, I've never seen a drawing of this version.
You see that boost/re-entry cover in the mockup photo Dave shared above. Also, it's interesting that the drawing he shows above on one of the Titan II stacks, that drawing does not have a source on it and it shows the 2050E which is incorrect, the boeing drawing does show the 2035 on the titan II.
I also included George Gassaway's Drawing of one of his scale models, note the glider on his does have the straight back but interestingly has non angled out wingtips, which all of the drawings I've seen in actual documents show was not the case, almost all of the versions had about the same angle outward when viewed from the top. Of course a lot of this documentation we are now referring to has come about in the last 10 years or so from archives etc.
I also noticed in my book that one of the mockups was shown atop an Atlas A/B Centaur before the Air Force chose the Titan for suborbital tests. The assembly is on the side and it doesn't show any fins so hard to know what it would have looked like, I've never seen a drawing of this version.
Last edited:
This is really interesting stuff. I didn't realize that there was a design with and without an aft hump. Obviously, somebody went to the trouble to make a mock-up of each. I noticed that in the "SpaceShip Handbook" by Jack Hagerty & Jon Rogers they show a drawing by Roy Houchin that has the aft hump. Attached are some 2010 photos of my X-20 without the aft hump from Sandman. I believe the X-20 decals were from Sandman. I really like Frank's X-20 on the other thread. Makes me wonder if I should order an X-20 from Boyce.
Attachments
Similar threads
