Boeing X-20 'Dyna Soar'

Description

Manufacturer:	Boeing
Base model:	X-20
Designation:	X-20
Nickname:	Dyna Soar
Designation System:	U.S. Air Force
Designation Period:	1948-Present
Basic role:	Research
Crew:	1

Specifications

Length:	35' 4"	10.7 m
Wingspan:	20' 5"	6.2 m
Wingarea:	345.0 sq ft	32.0 sq m
Empty Weight:	10,830 lb	4,911 kg
Gross Weight:	11,390 lb	5,165 kg

Propulsion

Powerplant:

N/A - Glide only

Performance

Recent comments by our visitors

Dave Stern  Seattle, WA	Greetings. I write for QUEST Magazine on boost-glider, and lately, Martin-Bell's alternate 1958 Dyna Soar i studies. Martin-Bell competed with Boeing to gain the DS I contract. I have loads of material, photos, drawings, interviews, and material never seen or published in the public domain. However, i'm searching for the elusive 1958 & 1959 Dyna Soar i mockup photos of the Martin-Bell Dyna Soar I displayed to the USAF's "Source Selection Board," who visited the Martin-Baltimore plant to view the glider, the mockup cockpit, and the full size mockup of the big-fin Titan I booster. There was also an April, 1959 mockup...quite revised for which I have drawings, but not one mockup photo. I know photos and movies were made of it. Anybody have clues or copies of the Bell designed DS I boost-glider please do contact me. psidavid@yahoo.com. I have much aviation-aerospace material and can trade and give credit for copies of the photos. Good fortunes to all. D 04/16/2008 @ 18:26 [ref: 20568]
Chris Mikesh  Gambrills, MD	We just got word recently that Anigrand is producing a 1/72 Scale kit of the X-20. It will be carried in the USA by NostalgicPlastic.com for $41. It will be all resin with decals and instructions. Their product is very good, so this should be good too. There will also be a Titan II Rocket from them in the future with w/ docking collar for the X-20. No ETA - likely early 2008. See www.NostalgicPlastic.com "Coming Soon" for additional details. 10/05/2007 @ 12:21 [ref: 18111]
Chris Mikesh  Gambrills, MD	We just got word recently that Anigrand is producing a 1/72 Scale kit of the X-20. It will be carried in the USA by NostalgicPlastic.com for $41. It will be all resin with decals and instructions. Their product is very good, so this should be good too. There will also be a Titan II Rocket from them in the future with w/ docking collar for the X-20. No ETA - likely early 2008. See www.NostalgicPlastic.com "Coming Soon" for additional details. 10/05/2007 @ 12:21 [ref: 18110]
Jeff Forward  Woodland, CA	My grandfather worked for North America Aircraft, as well as the Bureau of Naval Weapons and several other companies and civilian divisions of the Navy. In reviewing some of his notes, he apparently worked on the Dyna-soar project during the 1950s and 1960s. He details some of his work in his application to the OX5 Club dated 1961. Anyone with any info. about the project, or my grandfather - Vincent Sheriff - is more than welcome to call or e-mail. I am doing genealogical research for my family history. Sincerely, Jeff Forward Woodland, Calif. (530) 666-3616 03/29/2007 @ 14:01 [ref: 16035]
Pasquale Cerbone  , MA	I wish to build the X-20 Dyna-Soar. Could you send me all blueprints and designs to me. I wish to start my own space program . This will be for Orbital research . Thank You Pasquale Cerbone 10/08/2005 @ 20:50 [ref: 11429]
William C. Walter  Placerville 95667, CA	I was honored to be the first program manager of the Dyna-Soar development program as a USAF Captain in the Bomber New Development Weapon System Project Office (WSPO),WPAFB, Ohio. Reporting to William (Bill) E. Lamar (a very dear friend and mentor), I was the study program manager for all Manned Hypersonic Boost-Glide Reentry Vehicle studies between 1955-1958 including BOMI, ROBO, BRASS BELL, and HYWARDS including all related scientific and engineering government, industry and university projects. I was invited to Hqs ARDC in Baltimore to consolidate all three development plans submitted by the Strategic, Reconaissance and Research Hqs ARDC DYNA-SOAR offices. In two weeks flat, I personally wrote the resulting Abbreviated Development Plan (three stage version)-named it DYNA-SOAR, which was then approved by Col. Stretch Strathy of Hqs ARDC, and forwarded to and approved unchanged by Hqs USAF in 1957 (pre SPUTNIK). After official approval as a USAF program, for a short time I was the first DYNA-SOAR (later the X-20) Program Manager. A full Colonal was assigned after me). The foregoing is not "bragging" on my part but rather is intended to establish my credentials as my being qualified to speak with authority about the DYNA-SOAR program. A caeful reading of the Abbreviated Development Plan I originally wrote and as originaly approved clearly reveals that DYNA-SOAR was uniquely defined as an X/Y class "CONCEPTUAL TEST VEHICLE" (CTV) A BRAND NEW CONCEPT. "X" is the classification for a Research Vehicle-a "one-of-a-kind' vehicle system designed to gather information and data ON the operating environment and the affects OF and effects ON a hostile environment by the vehicle and crew. "Y" is the classification for a prototype vehicle system which has alreaddy been approved in its ultimate configuration and performance for introduction into the operational weapon system inventory. Oh yes, and it damn well better look exactly like the prototype. Without making too fine a point of it, it was obvious a DYNA-SOAR as an "X" class vehicle (e.g.X-15 type)wouldn't cut-it (wouldn't do the job) and a "Y" class (e.g. YB70 type) was out of the question at this stage. Yet much of what was needed to be accomplished in the DYNA-SOAR vehicle system (the mission) included many of the kinds of tasks normally done in a prototype mission-all in the smae class vehicle. The mission profile of the DYNA-SOAR included not only gathering information and data ON the flight environment but also the effects of that environment on the machine, the crew and the equipment(the "X" part). BUT IN ADDITION it was to serve as a test bed for experiments with a whole raft of EXPERIMENTAL military communication, reconnaissance, missile and bombardment capabilities(the"Y" part). The three stages of development (DS1,DS2,& DS3) were specifically designed to minimise the number of new and possibly different vehicle systems needed to get the job done as quickly and cost effectively as possible. Thus DS-1, possessing both research and testing of possible military experimentsl equipment on board was to have NO MILITARY MISSION! DS-2 $ DS-3 were to be operational weapon systems appropriate to their respective operating regimes culminating with near orbital operation of DS-3. (An orbital capability was untinkable at that time). The ultimate military missions for DYNA-SOAR SYSTEMS WERE CLEARLY DEFINED IN THE DS PLAN-UNMISTAKABLY!. The rigid rules of military procurement were not (and are still not) capable of recognizing (much less approving) a vehicle system intended to research the entire operating hypersonic winged reentry flight regime from just short of near Earth orbit (space was a dirty word in the USAF of 1956-pre SPUTNIK). The reason for this DS mission definition and X/Y designation should be obvious to any experienced and qualified USAF R&D officer and experienced procurement officer. And that should have been true for every senior decision maker at all higher levels of the Federal government. Not So! Apparently power politics is the more (most) important consideration at such lofty levels. The whole DS program was undertaken precisely following the specifics of my Development Plan (three phases)for several years until politics at the Pentagon level reared its ugly head. Several independently published histories of the DS program clearly accuse Secretary MacNmara of being determined, along with a number of other high ranking government officials, to kill DYNA-SOAR and initiate their own military space program called Manned Orbital Lab (MOL). "They" saw most of the space money going to newly formed NASA-post SPUTNIK. The first step was changing the program to have only two steps , then confusing the issue further by switching back to the original three. Then began Mac's tirades demanding to know what the military missions DS had, knowing full well that DS-1 didn't have any as clearly defined in the plan. Having planted the seed of confusion over this he designated DS step 1 as DYNA-SOAR-1. Next Mac saw to it that the DYNA-SOAR PROGRAM WAS DESIGNATED AS A RESEARCH VEHICLE (x-20)-NO MILITARY MISSION! Next he proceeded to criticise the program as worthless because no satisfactory military mision for DS-1 was forthcoming. WHICH EFFECTIVELY KILLED IT DEAD-IT JUST TOOK 2 MORE YEARS TO LIE DOWN! And then the final blow came in 1963-he cancelled the X-20 for lack of a clear cut military mission. Ironiclly he managed to get MOL approved, but later that program to was cancelled-by hightr authority! What goes around comes around. I've wanted to get this truth off my chest for a very long time. Now I've had my say. To myself and literally thousands of dedicated souls imvolved, DYNA-SOAR was a labor of love. I don't mind telling you to see what happened to this fine program hurt where it counts. You be the judge. Draw your own conclusions. William C. Walter March 18, 2005 03/20/2005 @ 09:44 [ref: 9757]
tom friedman  , OH	my name is tom d. friedman, i live in ohio. i am looking for research material on a participant in the dyn asoar project, his name was oris e. frizzell, it is alleged that he was part of the astronaut program with the x-20, passed the subsequent training,was dropped when the program was cancelled, & never flew in space in any other program. i am looking for info on mr frizzell regarding the program on behalf of his widow, who is still alive. i am a freelance aviation author with nationally published articles to my credit, i feel his story may merit an article. however i have 1 concern.... mr frizzell could have been in the program because he was a specialist in nuclear reactors / propulsion, & was possibly not even an astronaut at all, but was a scientist involved instead. i fear his wife may have been confused about his position in the program. this is what i need to clarify. could any past member of the program please contact me with any info on oris frizzell at my email address fbt9598@yahoo.com thank you tom friedman. i was notified of this site from a member of the "wix" warbird information exchange site. 01/04/2005 @ 11:19 [ref: 9051]
Allen Okeson  Sturgis, KY	I worked on master master models for Dyna-Soar in tooling shop at The Boeing Co. Plant #2 in Seattle, WA. We built the model in four sections, nose, cabin, right and left wings with upright stabilizers. I was saddened the day I came to work and seen those moles being torn apart with jack-hammers, but such is the aircraft industry. Oke 07/25/2004 @ 20:09 [ref: 7907]
Adelbert L. (\"Del\") Nagel  , WA	I worked on the Dyna-Soar for it's entire life. I think it's cancellation was only partly to pay for the "Great Society." Another factor was our increasing involvement in Viet-Nam which dried up many research efforts. But there were also technical reasons. In particular, we were on the losing end of a 10-to-1 weight cycle. That is, if one pound of weight was added to the glider, for whatever reason, the weight of the glider went up on the order of 10 pounds. This was because a weight increase meant more lift was required. Lift is proportional to freestream atmospheric density, and heating rates increase with free stream density, so the heating rates increase. This led to higher vehicle temperatures, not only the surface temperatures but also the primary load carrying internal structure. (Unlike the shuttle, the Dyna-Soar structure was not protected by external insulation.) Higher temperatures meant lower allowable stresses for the structural materials and so led to increased sizes of structural members. Larger members weigh more, causing a further temperature increase leading to still lower allowables, and the cycle continued. Our original proposal configuration weighed--we said--6700 pounds. Early in the program the weight went up to around 10,000 pounds. Near the end of the program the weight had risen "officially" to more than 13,000 pounds, but internally and unofficially it was (as I recall) about 14,800 pounds when the program was terminated. 02/21/2004 @ 08:41 [ref: 6806]
Jim Cumber  Provo, UT	I note that your web site, judging by the posted photo, seems to be confusing the X-20 "DynaSoar" of the 1960s with the F-20 "TigerShark" of the 1980s. The DynaSoar was an early attempt at a small, reusable, 1 to 2 person "mini-space shuttle" from the late 1950s through early 1960s. It was designed to be launched atop a "TITAN IIIC" missile (modified LGM-25C "TITAN II" I.C.B.M.) but was cancelled in late 1963, in order to strip funds from DoD for the benefit of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" Welfare (political "pork barrel") program, after having reached the "mock up" stage. Many drawings and even photos of the mock-up are available in various published works covering the space programs of the late 1950s and 1960s. The F-20 "TigerShark" was the final, developed version of the F-5 "Tiger II" export fighter which, unfortunately, never went beyond the prototype / "demonstrator" phase wherein they tried to sell the (really excellent) design to foreign buyers as a relatively low-cost, but reasonably high-capability fighter. I have also noted that you seem to need some research help to fill gaps and holes in your data and photo gallery. Furthermore, you have not yet posted the Air Shows for the 2003 summer season, and here it is nearly July, already...<;-D> May God bless, Jim Cumber 06/28/2003 @ 12:18 [ref: 6545]

Recent photos uploaded by our visitors