Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Review of The X-15 Program
Review of The X-15 Program
C_
C_J
IZ _
<
(,n
TECHNICAL NOTE
D-1278
I
Compiled by Joseph Well
I
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
H SUMMARY
2
8
7 A review of the X-15 project from its inception in 1954 through
1961 is presented. Some of the more important historical aspects of
the program are noted, but major emphasis is placed on the significant
research results.
INTRODUCTION
SYMBOLS
CN normal-force coefficient,
qS
_c N
CN_ - 5_
L lifting force, Ib
M Mach number
S wing area_ sq ft
angle of attack
: [
8a total aileron deflection
e pitch angle
Sub sc ript :
max maximum
H
2 HISTORY OF PROJECT
8
7
Inception
Design Development
Flight Tests
The government first flew the X-15-2 with the XLR99 engine in
March 1961 and continued the research program that had been started
with the X-15-1 airplane. After engine conversion, the X-15-1 airplane
was returned to the government and was flown again in August. Since
then, the X-15-1 and X-15-2 airplanes have been used interchangeably
in support of the flight program.
From the time the program was conceived, the first five areas have
been recognized as being of primary importance. The usefulness of the
X-15 in providing information in the last two fields was not fully
anticipated originally, but became more obvious as the potential of the
aircraft was considered in greater detail.
Structural Dynamics
take-offs and by the X-15 rocket engine during ground runs. Tests were
madein a Boeing test facility up to noise levels of 158 decibels,
which approximated the maximumlevel predicted. These tests indicated
that modifications to the X-15 horizontal and vertical tails would be
required. Flight tests, however, were already underway with the unmod-
ified surfaces and, after three captive flights, fatigue failures were
detected in the upper vertical tail. The failures consisted of sepa-
ration of the skin panel from the corrugated web. Subsequent flight
measurementsand wind-tunnel tests indicated that the cause of the
failures was turbulence in captive flight created by the pylon ahead of
the vertical tail and the large cutout in the trailing edge of the B-52 H
wing (fig. 12). A vertical tail with modified construction was in-
2
stalled, and the climb schedule of the B-52 was changed to reduce the 8
free-stream dynamic pressures encountered. These solutions have been 7
completely satisfactory.
Piloting Aspects
One of the primary research goals of the X-15 was to make possible
studies that would provide much-needed information on the handling
qualities of future aircraft and space vehicles. Although useful data
can be obtained from speed missionsj the greatest research return is
realized during performance of high-altitude trajectories. During such
missions the pilot is exposed to relatively high longitudinal acceler-
ation in the rocket-powered phase during exit and could experience
large transients during burnout. This is followed by a period of
weightlessness_ often several minutes long, in the thin upper atmos-
phere. During this time_ the conventional aerodynamic controls are
useless and the pilot must resort to the small reaction rockets located
in the nose of the aircraft and at an outboard wing location. Perhaps
the most demanding control region occurs during reentry into the earth's
atmosphere. At this time the pilot is required to control the aircraft
at high angle of attack while experiencing the combined effects of high
normal acceleration and large longitudinal deceleration. It should be
mentioned that many of the X-I_ trajectories are more demanding from
the piloting standpoint than those contemplated_ for examp!e_ for the
Dyna-Soar vehicle_ in that many of the controlling aerodynamic and
environmental characteristics change much more rapidly with the X-IT.
; _iii
_
i!i•
15
General comments.- In all X-15 flights the speed brakes have been
used effectively in many areas throughout the speed and altitude range
for flight-path control. During brake extension there is a mild trim
change_ but no other undesirable aircraft motions. No reports of
buffet caused by speed-brake deflection have been made.
17
Approach and landing.- The approach and landing phase of the X-15
mission received much concern and attention in the first flights. Now,
however, based on the experience, procedures, and techniques developed,
it has become a routine operation.
w In each of the last 24 landings a specific spot has been used for the
v
intended touchdown point. As shown in figure 22, all but six landings
have been grouped within ±1,200 feet of this spot. This degree of
precision is considered to be very good. The landing summary shown
reveals an average slideout distance from touchdown of 5,000 feet to
6,000 feet. The shortest distance can be achieved by using full-back
longitudinal control and flap retraction to place the greatest load on
the skids, and full deflection with speed brakes for added drag. In
addition to the good inherent directional characteristics of the X-15
on the ground, the pilot has used lateral-control inputs to provide a
H greater load on one skid and thus achieve some measure of directional
2 control.
8
7 In summary, it should be noted that a pilot, provided an aircraft
with good control and handling qualities as represented in the X-15 in
the landing pattern, can intercept the landing pattern at any one of
its key positions, make adjustments based on his experience, judgment,
and reactions to the many cues available, and complete a satisfactory
landing in proximity to a designated landing spot with power off.
Experience with the X-15 has included landings with various dampers
inoperative, a few landings using only the side-located controller, and
one landing with one windshield outer panel shattered to opaqueness,
with an attendant compromise in the pilot's visibility and the landing
task. These landings have all been satisfactory and are included with
the data presented in figure 22.
Bioastronautics
off-design missions are flown to acquaint him with the overall effect
of variations in the critical control parameters (fig. 25). Variations
in engine thrust or engine shutdown time are simulated_ as well as
possible changes in critical stability derivatives.
Operational Aspects
result, the program was well advanced by the time reasonably dependable
w performance was achieved. In another instance, insufficient analysis
was conducted prior to a ground engine run. As a result, the X-15-3
airplane was severely damaged by an explosion.
This costly lesson pointed out the need for more complete system
analyses or testing, or both, under not only design conditions, but
also under operational and test conditions, since analytical evaluation
of such involved systems is extremely difficult and not completely
reliable.
As the X-15 program has progressed3 the failure rate of most major
H systems has decreased. For examp!e_ figure 32 shows failure experience
2 for the auxiliary power unit (APU) and ballistic control rocket (BCR)
8 system in which the number of failures is plotted against airborne
7 operations. In this figure a failure is defined as a system malfunc-
tion considered unsafe for flight. Since very few major failures have
occurred in free fiight_ each point represents a malfunction which
resulted in schedule delay_ flight cancellation_ or airborne abort.
Most of these malfunctions occurred very early in the program.
Many parts and systems are constructed and tested under extremely
clean conditions with exact tolerances. Qualification tests are
conducted in rapid series with special equipment to check the particular
component or system. In the actual aircraft, periods of system activity H
are followed by long inactive periods with stagnant fluid in lines. 2
Systems are opened and closed many times and at many points. Actual 8
aircraft configurations may contain dead ends or deposit points that 7
did not exist in test setups. In any case, much more particle contam-
ination is evident in actual X-15 systems than is found in controlled
test equipment. This is apparent from the large number of repeat
component failures due to contamination. If such contamination were
considered in the original design and testing of parts and systems,
considerable time and effort would be saved during actual use.
The most important pilot and redundancy benefit to the X-15 pro-
gram is graphically demonstrated in figure 34 . The upper curve is a
time plot of the first 44 X-15 free flights. The lower curve plots
hypothetical aircraft recovery for the unmanned_ nonredundant vehicle.
The shaded area between the two curves represents 13 losses of aircraft
in the absence of a human pilot and system redundancy. These
28
Basic Program
H
The X-15 program in the spring of 1962 will be oriented toward 2
continuing research investigations in the primary areas of aerodynamic 8
heating_ reaction controls, including rate damping_ adaptive control 7
system_ performancej and displays and energy management.
Although much has been learned about the flight control character-
istics of a representative winged reentry vehicle_ the most interesting
X-15 research phase should be attained in the projected flights to and
beyond an altitude of 250_000 feet scheduled for the spring and summer
of 1962. In these tests much information should be obtained pertinent
to control requirements prior to and during high-angle-of-attack atmos-
pheric reentry. Reaction-control research data are now becoming avail-
able from the flight program. An important feature of future flights
will be the incorporation of rate damping in the reaction control
system.
Data will also be obtained to more completely define the lift and
drag characteristics of the X-15 configuration.
Follow-0n Programs
It appears that the research goals established for the X-15 project
were generally sound and logical. More ambitious design goals might
have introduced substantial additional time delays with little addi-
tional return from the research aspect.
The design, manufacture_ and flight testing of the X-15 have given
impetus to studies that have advanced the state of the art in several
fields of structural dynamics. The X-15 program has provided a unique
opportunity to document panel flutter in a severe flight environment H
and, as such, has generated theoretical and experimental research that 2
will have a significant effect on the design requirements of advanced 8
vehicles. The X-15 program has also provided much-neededexperience 7
pertinent to the understanding of skid landing-gear design and has
demonstrated the feasibility of this type of system for space-vehicle
recovery.
In general, the lift and drag data and stability and control
derivatives extracted from X-15 flight-test data have confirmed the
estimated derivatives obtained from wind-tunnel tests and thereby
provided increased confidence in wind-tunnel evaluations at hypersonic
speeds.
Although only limited flight experience has been gained with the
reaction control system, its basic design appears to be adequate. Pilot
transition from aerodynamic controls to reaction controls has been
accomplished without difficulty. There is no evidence of any unexpected
increase in piloting problems associated with the reentry maneuver.
Finally, the X-15 program has kept in proper perspective the role
of the pilot in future programs of this nature. It has pointed the
way to simplified operational concepts which should provide a high
degree of redundancy and increased chance of success in future space
missions. But, perhaps most important, is the fact that a sizable
segment of industry and government engineers and scientists has had
to face up to problems of designing and building hardware and making it
32
work. This has provided invaluable experience for the future aero-
nautical and space endeavors of this country.
H
2
8
7
3D
33
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Finch_ Thomas W._ and Matranga_ Gene J.: Launch_ Low-Speed_ and
Landing Characteristics Determined From the First Flight of the
North American X-15 Research Airplane. NASA TM X-195_ 1959.
McKay_ James M.: Measurements Obtained During the First Landing of the
North American X-15 Research Airplane. NASA TM X-207_ 1959.
Reed_ Robert D._ and Watts_ Joe D.: Skin and Structural Temperatures
Measured on the X-15 Airplane During a Flight to a Mach Number of 3.3.
NASA TM X-468, 1961.
McKay_ James M._ and Scott_ Betty J.: Landing-Gear Behavior During
Touchdown and Runout for 17 Landings of the X-15 Research Airplane.
NASA TM X-518, 1961.
Jordan, Gareth H., McLeod, NormanJ., and Guy, Lawrence D.: Structural
Dynamic Experiences of the X-15 Airplane. NASATN D-I158, 1962.
Hoey, Robert G., and Day, Richard E.: Mission Planning and Operational
Procedures for the X-15 Airplane. NASATN D-I159, 1962.
Banner, Richard D., Kuhl, Albert E., and Quinn, Robert D. : Preliminary
Results of Aerodynamic Heating Studies on the X-15 Airplane. NASA
TM X-638, 1962.
McKay_ James M., and Kordes, Eldon E.: Landing Loads and Dynamics of
the X-15 Airplane. NASA TM X-639, 1962.
Kordes, Eldon E., Reed, Robert D., and Dawdy, Alpha L.: Structural
Heating Experiences on the X-15 Airplane. NASA TM X-711, 1962.
Hopkins, Edward J., Fetterman, David E., Jr., and Saltzman, Edwin J.:
Comparison of Full-Scale Lift and Drag Characteristics of the X-15
Airplane With Wind-Tunnel Results and Theory. NASA TM X-713, 1962.
Walker, Harold J., and Wolowicz, Chester H.: Stability and Control
Derivative Characteristics of the X-15 Airplane. NASA TM X-714, 1962.
f J
White, Robert M., Robinson, Glenn H., and Matranga, Gene J.: Resume
of Handling Qualities of the X-!5 Airplane. NASA TM X-715, 1962.
35
Lateral-
Petersen_ Forrest S., Rediess, Herman A._ and Weil_ Joseph:
NASA
Directional Control Characteristics of the X-15 Airplane.
TM X-726, 1962.
H
2
8
7
36
X-15 AIRPLANE
ANHYDROUS A_AR,_ONIA
XLR-Cj9 / TANK (FUEL)
/ TAt'@<(OXIOG.ER)
, ,--AUXILIARY
!
; POWER UNITS DO
0O
--.l
ATTITUOE ROCKETS
HYDROGEN
PEROXOE TANKS
EJECTIO,N SEAT
Figure I
Figure 2
3'7
EXIT
Figure 3
"J- FLIGHT
EXPLOSION \
AIRPLANE 3, ........................__.L
t I I I
1959 1960 1961
GALENOAR YEAR
Figure 4
38
I PREDmCTED--_
2001- _LR_I _ \
/ \PREDICTED t \
ALTITUDE,
FT
, or \ I
ro
co
5O
I00
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7xlO 3
VELOCITY, FT/SEC
Figure 5
1200
THEORY WITH /_THEORY WITHOUT
I000 WIND-TUNNEL /WIND-TUNNEL
2OO
Figure 6
39
Figure 7
_LEADING EDGE
'_ _ e3oo F
7oo- ', _ _
",, ii _t \\
\ _l! !l 17
/
650_ '' I , _'[[
LOWER X,\_.,.8__O
._t"' vv'_.,
I SKIN _._ "-,.
Figure 8
4O
--SKIN
t
ORIGINAL _ l
SLOT I
ro
LEADING EDGE (3o
--4
MODIFIED
Figure 9
Figure i0
41
[,-_.
cO
oJ
!
Figure ii
Figure 12
42
!
ro
co
Figure 13
Figure 14
43
1.0
RELATIVE
PANEL RESPONSE .5
b-.-
O9
i
I I I I I ' i I " I
0 200 400 600 800 I000
q, LB/SQ FT
Figure 15
SHOCK- STRUT
TRAVEL,
IN.
SECONO
601103 PEAK
SHOCK- STRUT
30 l F,RST _ -
FORCE,
LB / PEAK _'1 v
I 'r"--'T_'--i i_ i I I I
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4
TIME AFTER MAIN-GEAR TOUCHDOWN,
SEC
Figure 16
$
44
S_PERSONIC THEORY
:5 ............
_NEL
I
(L/D)ma x 2 FO
CO
--.3
I | I
2 :5 4
M
Figure 17
0<(2<6 = 6°<(Z<12 °
o
.08
CN a ,
PER
.04
DEG
f I I i
I I I
0
-if
dC m
dC N
I I I
0 0 2 4 6
M M
Figure 18
45
X-15 COCKPIT
[-.-
CO
OJ
!
Figure 19
1500
DYNAMIC I000
PRESSURE,
LB/SQ FT 500
0
240 x tO 3
BURNOUT _POGEE
200
160
ALTITUDE, 120
FT // ..... _\ __=3.BQ
80
40
ill I I I I !
. Figure 20
SUMMARY OF X-15 LANDING PATTERN
lOx
0
LATERAL DISTANCE I0
FROM TOUCHDOWN,
FT 20
30
40 TYPICAL APPROACH I
ro
Figure 21
LONG 4xlO 3
0 0
o ooo°
TOUCHDOWN 0
DISPERSION, _ °°° o
FT
LONGITUDINAL [ 0 0
8xlO 3
O0
SLIDEOUT,FT 4f °°°
0
140 ' 16o'' ,8o' 266'2 _0
TOUCHDOWN, KIAS
Figure 22
=
47
45 170
o HEART RATE I I
t5 []RESPIRATION RATE I _ L ....
<_.:_ 40
160
150
, /,
co _ 1-
35 I
oJ
I
140
_m 25 130
1
OC LANDING--'
LAUNCH J BURNOUT--_
20 120
0 !00 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
TIME, SEC
Figure 23
X-15 SIMULATION
= Figure 24
48
200xl 03 PITCH
,oo',,,',,,
_ I --BURNING TIME
ATTITUDE
160
120
ALTITUDE, TIME FROM 60/_'/7 210
FT LAUNCH' SEC40_J
8O
oJ 24_
4O
0 ,
I 2, _ 4' ,
5 6xio'
VELOCITY, FT/SEC
Figure 25
X-15 GROUND-MONITORED
ENERGY-MANAGEMENT DISPLAY
"o
Figure 26
i _ilz
!
_D
49
XLR99 ENGINE
200 ,,o3
...... PREDICTED
FLIGHT
150 ANALOG MATCH
ALTITUDE,
p.-
co FT I00
cU
I
50
I I i I I J
0 I 2 3 4 5 6xlO3
VELOCITY, FT/SEC
Figure 27
250:103
...... PREDICTED
200 FLIGHT \%,_
.... ANALOG MATCH _ '_
15C
ALTITUDE,
FT
IOO
50
I I i I I !
0 I 2 3 4 5 6xlO 3
VELOCITY, FT/SEC
, Figure 28
5o
I
ro
Figure 29
AIRPLANE TEST-SITE
ENGINE RUN
Figure 30
51
MECHANISM OF VIBRATION
c_O
oJ
I
Figure 31
3o
I
NUMBER
OF
FAILURES
I
I_
_ I L I I I I I I
0 I0 20 30 40 50 60 70 8O
AIRBORNE OPERATIONS
Figure 32
.52
44==== 43
40"
UI:.b/MUL, I IUN U#" A--IO I
30" r'o
UNSUCCESSFUL MISSIONS; (Do
X-15 ONLY RECOVERED AIRCRAFT
FREE 20" SUCCESSFUL MISSIONS
FLIGHTS
10
0
ACTUAL CASE HYPOTHETICAL CASE
PILOT-IN-THE-LOOP UNMANNED VEHICLE
REDUNDANT SYSTEMS NO REDUNDANCY
Figure 33
X- 15 30 )
FREE
FLIGHTS 20 _ \ _ AIRCRAFT RECOVERED
._mll_ _---_--, UNMANNED AND
lO _ i NON-REDUNDANT
o ............ i,,
1959 1960 1961
CALENDAR YEARS
Figure 34
: i
53
Figure 35