Navaho Missle
 

any one have digram of the Navaho.. Planning on getting one made. Not the booster just the main missile unit

You need the booster too. That dual chambered engine played a big part in the evolution of the Thor/Jupiter/Atlas engines.

Understand, but the main missile will be difficult to build.

Before they tried launching the ramjet powered Navaho cruise missiles atop the LOX/RP-1 (kerosene) powered booster rockets, North American built and flew several reusable turbojet powered Navaho test vehicles that were designated X-10 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-10 and http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/x-10.html ). The X-10 vehicles were very similar to the Navaho cruise stages.

This book, "The Navaho Missile Project: The Story of the "Know-How" Missile of American Rocketry" by James N. Gibson (see: http://www.historicaviation.com/pro...xqzW i?ID=1651 , and Amazon.com also has it) may contain three-view drawings that would enable you to build a scale model of the ramjet powered Navaho sustainer.

I started working on a model of this for NARAM 52 when by Russian GOA missile ran into some trouble but I then switched to a Nike Hercules at the last moment.

Below is a drawing which may help you create your model from. I've also attached a screen shot of the cad file I was working on. I generated many more cross sections using photos I've down loaded to get the correct shape of the missile since these drawing like most scale drawings don't show enough cross sections.

John Boren

Just a reminder about Bob's great http://www.aeroconsystems.com/Navaho.htm page.

And Tim Wilson's semi-scale BG at http://www.rocketreviews.com/review...avaho_g26.shtml

Navaho items . . .

Thank you for posting the drawings (they look "stair-steppy" on my computer, but perhaps not on other people's)--the dimensions are readily readable, though.

Even a scale-like/semi-scale Navaho model--like the red-and-white prototype model near the bottom of *this* http://www.aeroconsystems.com/Navaho.htm page--would make a nice boost-glider kit. It should be easy to trim, having both the V-tail and canards up front, and:

The canted mid-body booster fins (they were canted on the real thing) could also, as with the adjustable pop pod canards on the Estes Astron Nighthawk boost-glider, enable the model's ascent trajectory to be programmable. As with the Nighthawk's canards, the Navaho booster's mid-body fins could be made with sheet metal trailing edges; the fins could be installed at a tilted "normal zero angle," and their trailing edges' incidence could be adjusted to program the boost trajectory (as with a normal model rocket, the booster's nose cone would pop off at ejection, and a streamer would lower it to Earth).

I had a sport model of it. Here's a diagram image. Based on a BT-55.

I have TONS of NAVAHO photo's.


Dave F.

A few sample pics . . .

If there is any interest, I can upload all my NAVAHO data to Dropbox.

Dave F.

Thank you--a BT-55 size one sounds appropriate (as regards its mass per wing area) to glide well enough. Also, today's easy availability of laser-cut scarfed tubes--for the air intake tubes--would make such models easier to build.

I hope they've repaired it (it got knocked off its tilted mount during a storm and dinged up). It's the only existing Navaho (and if memory serves, only one of the turbojet-powered Navaho X-10 test vehicles survived its test program). Also:

Gary Moore, a late friend of mine who worked for Bell Telephone at Cape Canaveral, told me that the Navaho display missile was made at least partially from missile parts that they often found hanging on the phone and power lines after failed launches. (He also described how they drank the Redstone alcohol-water fuel [150 proof vodka, I think it was], even after the Patrick AFB base commander had purple food coloring added to the fuel to make it visually unappealing.)

It was more than "dinged up" . . .

http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=2755

Dave F.

That thing is WAY beyond "dinged up".
It's TRASHED.
Put in in the scrap heap where it belongs.
Some things are not worth saving...that is one.

The pictures I saw (they looked like it wasn't long after sunrise) weren't as bad--it might have gotten blown around more, once the guy wires had all broken and/or gone slack) after they were taken. I provided some material on the early Space Shuttle designs to Dennis Jenkins (who took the pictures you posted) for one of the later editions--the second or third one--of his Space Shuttle history book, and the Navaho figured prominently in them. Also:

Since it's the only complete Navaho in existence, it should be restored and put on display either indoors or--if outdoor display is necessary--in a horizontal position (which would be preferable for indoor display as well). The flight vehicles were prepared in horizontal position on Pads 9 and 10 before being raised to vertical position for fueling and launching). The vehicle's bends and dents could be hammered out (not unlike how dented brass musical instruments are straightened out), then heat-treated and backed inside by composite matting (glass/epoxy, carbon fiber/epoxy, or Kevlar/epoxy).

Restore it. If done correctly, the damage will be a blessing in disguise. As can be seen in the images, there is fairly severe internal corrosion. Since a restoration should include disassembly, they can take care of the corrosion and end up with a display that can outlive our grandchildren. Farm it out to an automotive restoration company if need be. Some of those shops do amazing work and some are very good with aluminum.

Yes! Also, there are likely such companies who would also love to use the Navaho restoration job as an unusual, attention-grabbing advertisement of their capabilities. If there are anti-corrosion "dip" formulations for aluminum (I think there are, as the British Vickers VC10 jetliner's airframe parts were anti-corrosion treated because of its all-location operating capability; also, I recall seeing pictures in a 1963 "Popular Science" article that showed car parts being dipped in a mud-like, electrically-deposited anti-corrosion compound), the Navaho's straightened and annealed parts could be so treated before they were re-assembled.

The Navaho missile display is undergoing repairs at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

Here's a picture I took of it during the NARCON 2019 tour.

That's good to know. Maybe the damage was a blessing in disguise because it was in disrepair when I saw it years ago.

That's a comforting picture! I hope tbzep's suggestion about taking the opportunity--white it's apart--to anti-corrosion treat (and possibly also internally reinforce the sections, as I'd suggested earlier) the Navaho's parts is being implemented. Also:

With today's modern "multiple, parallel light-lines" contourometers (contour-o-meters--they were in use as far back as the 1950s [if not earlier] to produce custom-shaped helmets for jet pilots; modern ones might use lasers), the Navaho could be "scanned" (if a full set of Navaho blueprints containing the outer mold lines isn't available), in order to create a set of new such drawings. The drawings could be used not only for any future restoration work on this one-and-only complete Navaho, but they would also enable exact duplicates--at any desired scale--to be made, so that other museums could have 1:1 scale (or smaller) Navaho displays. Plus:

About thirty years ago, I won two high-end Miami restaurant meal tickets (which I gave to one of my sisters and brothers-in-law, who lived near the restaurant) for winning an invention suggestion contest--similar to the old "Popular Science" magazine's section called, 'I'd Like to See Them Make..."--on a local talk radio program. I suggested a laser contourometer (years before I learned of the existence of the 1950s-era, non-laser ones, let alone the name of the devices) that would scan a person's body while he or she stood still in a small booth, then--with the help of a computer--generate custom patterns for clothing that would fit that person perfectly, which could be automatically sewn.

If I had thought of that before the dawn of computer laser scanners and whatever you call the digital/mechanical versions that are hooked into computers, I think I would have thought of dozens of uses, but never would it have dawned on me to make custom tailored clothing! :p

It was born of discomfort; I had clothes, but at that time, the buttoned shirts and trousers that I had just didn't fit quite right, due to my "off-spec" body proportions. (The shirts that fit me had too-small necks, requiring me to leave the upper couple of buttons un-buttoned, the long pants with wide enough pant legs had too-short pant legs [and vice-versa--long-enough ones were too narrow], and so on; a plow harness would have fit me better).

As designed and fresh off the production line this "missile" is already in a state of "hideous disrepair".
Also a slightly less practical missile than using a CEMENT TRUCK as DAILY transportation.

Many of the military devices/vehicles/weapons designed shortly after WWII were absurd concepts in the excess to the point of insanity.

Yea - It Was GREAT!!! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:

The Navaho was the product of "being cheap." (Arthur C. Clarke covered this phase of American missile history concisely in his 1968 non-fiction book, "The Promise of Space.") Now:

Since the early atomic bombs were so heavy, intercontinental ballistic missiles that could have carried them (which would have weighed several hundred tons) were considered too big, too cumbersome, and (the pivotal argument) too expensive. So more than a billion dollars was spent developing large cruise missiles--some of which, like the Snark, had long, even intercontinental, ranges. They were abandoned for IRBMs and ICBMs after further research showed that much smaller thermonuclear warheads would soon be feasible--warheads that could be delivered over intercontinental ranges by ballistic missiles weighing about a hundred tons. But:

The Navaho appeared in the middle of this paradigm shift, which in hindsight proved to be a blessing in disguise. Despite the fact that most of its flights ended in spectacular pyrotechnic displays, the Rocketdyne-built Navaho booster rocket engines--which were descended from the V-2 engine--provided the R & D know-how that was needed for the 135,000 pounds-thrust (later uprated to 150,000 pounds) engine that, with minor variations, powered the Jupiter and Thor IRBMs, and served as the Atlas ICBM's booster engines. The Navaho's inertial guidance system also provided the technological base that the IRBMs and ICBMs needed. Also:

The Soviets, interestingly, were undaunted by the great size of an ICBM that could carry the old, heavy atomic warheads, and decided to go ahead and develop it. When it was perfected in the late 1950s, it gave them a huge advantage in lifting power, which wasn't overcome in the U.S. until the full (two-stage: the eight-H-1 [uprated Thor rocket engine] S-I, topped by a six-RL-10 S-IV second stage) Block II Saturn I flew into orbit on January 27, 1964. The R-7 ICBM (Semyorka, "Old Number 7") orbited the first three Sputnik satellites without any upper stages, and with an upper stage--and sometimes with an escape stage above that--it lofted Luna 1, 2, and 3, the Vostok, Voskhod, and Soyuz manned spacecraft, and numerous lunar orbiters and (relatively) soft landers, as well as Venus flyby and atmospheric entry probes (at least one of which, Venera 7, transmitted data from the Cytherean surface; later Venera Orbiter/Lander spacecraft were launched by the larger Proton rocket).

I think the US was being a bit more practical than the Soviets. The R-7 certainly set the stage for legendary accomplishments, but it's operational deployment as a weapon system was limited to four pads of the type you still see at Baikonur today. The US wanted to avoid that kind of costly, exposed basing. The Soviets knew it was a crappy weapon and moved quickly to field the infinitely more practical SS-7 and SS-8 ICBMs (though the latter suffered from use of LOX).

Your narrative also omits the fact the R-7 has, in fact, evolved significantly over the years. We think of the design as static, but this chart shows the Soviets/Russians never stopped tweaking the engines for more performance: http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/S...nes/engines.htm

Finally, don't forget the Soviets had at least two "Navaho" equivalents under development as a hedge against R-7 failure or a perceived US advantage from Navaho - the Burya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burya) and Buran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS-40_Buran).

If GH thinks the test version of Navaho in Florida is absurd, then the planned G-38 operational version (bigger, even more difficult to handle) is truly outrageous!

I started several times to post something similar to the two above posts but didn't have the time or tact to complete it. I agree, while the Navajo may not have been a stand-alone success, the R&D that went into it was an integral part of our development of both military and civilian capabilities. In that regard, it was as cool as it looked at launch.

That was cool how the launch pad arms pushed the missile away horizontally and the guidance system kept it true.

I didn't omit anything; it was just a brief posting that touched upon the highlights. The Soviet (meaning: Joseph Stalin's) decision to develop an ICBM at the earliest opportunity was based on political as well as (if not more than) military considerations; he said (not verbatim, but a close transliteration) that "It will provide an effective strait jacket for that noisy shop-keeper, Harry Truman." Also:

As well as being an implicit threat (through Sputnik [especially the large and massive Sputnik 3], demonstrating its core stage's size, and the missile's ability to drop a larger payload anywhere on Earth) and an explicit threat (through its basing as an ICBM; full basing included having two R-7s set up on the Tyuratam pads, but we did the same thing at Vandenberg with Atlas ICBMs until the silo and above-ground "coffin" launchers were all ready), the R-7s and their launch vehicle derivatives were meant to convey a message--which was physically demonstrated and suggested, as well as overtly expressed--to the rest of the world:

"The U.S.S.R. has superior political, economic, educational, and industrial systems, as our huge rockets in orbit, our satellites, our orbiting cosmonauts, and our lunar and planetary probes demonstrate. [In October 1960, a Soviet ship carrying the Premier also had aboard exhibits pertaining to their Mars probes, none of which were shown or even mentioned after those earliest Mars launch attempts failed.] We can also, using our rockets and our ships and aircraft, project power anywhere in the world to defend ourselves and our allies, if necessary. The future belongs to Communism, not the Capitalism espoused by the West. Join us to go forward, together and in peace, to a better and egalitarian world." (The U.S., of course, also "sold" its plan for a better future--including its ability and willingness to protect its friends, if need be--to the rest of the world through missiles, rockets, and space flight, which was one of the reasons behind the Apollo program.) But:

Technological progress--as Arthur C. Clarke pointed out in "The Promise of Space" (concerning how the liquid propellant rocket, after eclipsing its solid propellant counterpart, found its unquestioned supremacy being challenged by it)--has a curious way of doubling back on itself. For decades, the ICBM was considered the "ultimate weapon." But eventually it was realized that it has a serious flaw--it "is its own calling card," making it obvious to an enemy where it was launched, and inviting a retaliatory strike against that place (or against the suspected launching country, if the launch point is in an ocean), and:

Further progress in the miniaturization of nuclear warheads, jet engines, and electronics (including terrain-following radar systems that could be used at very low altitudes) made U.S. military planners realize, in the 1970s, that nuclear-armed cruise missiles, far more evasive than their large, 1950s-vintage predecessors, were feasible. This realization came after after a false start, called SCAD (Subsonic Cruise Armed Decoy), a bomber-launched decoy missile that was similar in function to the old Quail decoy missile--it was to make successful bomber penetration of enemy territory more likely by simulating the radar return of a B-52, forcing the enemy to divide his attention and resources. SCAD was to be nuclear-armed so that an enemy couldn't afford to ignore it even if he discovered that it was a decoy. Then:

The performance capabilities (long range, low-altitude operation below radar coverage, low thermal and acoustic emissions from its miniature turbofan engine) of SCAD--which was very similar in design to the AGM-86A ALCM (Air-Launched Cruise Missile)--soon led planners to the conclusion that the SCAD decoy would be a very effective stand-off launched weapon in its own right, which bombers could launch even without penetrating enemy airspace, in many cases. In addition:

Even if such a missile was seen by someone in the targeted country (or in a place outside it, somewhere along the missile's highly-circuitous flight path), a report of the sighting, which would be very brief due to the missile's high speed and low altitude--even if it included the missile's exact direction--would be useless, since the missile could have come from--and could be ultimately going to--any point in the distance, at any azimuth along the witness's horizon (and more than likely, far beyond the witness's horizon, both "coming" and "going").

The only value of a sighting report would be qualitative; at least one cruise missile (one of, likely, many more such missiles, quite possibly nuclear-armed) was flying in that region, going from and to somewhere (and given the likely confusion of the witness [unless he or she was a highly-qualified military observer and aircraft spotter, which would be statistically unlikely], and the confusion that would likely ensue in the military chain of command, such chaos could be at least partially helpful to the launching nation). Such modern cruise missiles, unlike ballistic missiles, are also plausibly deniable (at least until they start hitting their targets--such time intervals can be militarily useful). As well:

Because several nations now possess them--and market them to other countries, in some cases (without nuclear warheads, of course), identifying the party that launched a cruise missile that was reported by a witness wouldn't necessarily be a simple, clear-cut operation (including because non-U.S. ground-launched ones exist). Depending on the part of the world that was involved, the launching party might not even be a nation.

It was also a sort of premonition of the Space Shuttle. In his 1967 book, "American Space Exploration: The First Decade," William Roy Shelton (whose 1968 companion 'first decade' book about Soviet space exploration is also very good) wrote about the Navaho (on page 17) that:

"I never watched a Navaho countdown without feeling that when we do send men, mail and freight regularly through space, we will do it with a combination roughly resembling the basic Navaho." And then:

"Despite the fact that most launches ended in spectacular pyrotechnic explosions, the American intercontinental ballistic missile program received valuable information from the Navahos." The one-and-only Navaho round at the Cape is also of interest to me for a personal reason:

My late friend Gary Moore, who worked at Cape Canaveral during his years at Bell Telephone (he not uncommonly saw Wernher von Braun there, and--along with many other folks there--enjoyed cocktails made using "re-allocated" Redstone WALC [water-ethyl alcohol] rocket fuel), was one of the Bell Telephone employees who collected Navaho parts after failed launches, which often landed on the telephone wires. There was--and hopefully, still is--a plaque or sign at or near the Navaho display that expressed thanks to them (and also, I think, to FP & L--Florida Power & Light--employees) for recovering the Navaho parts and giving them to the museum, making the unique Navaho display round possible. It's a sort of memorial to him, and to everyone else who collected the Navaho parts for the museum.

Ah, Gary Moore. Great Irish guitarist that played with Thin Lizzy for a while. I guess he phoned his performances in when he worked for Bell Telephone. :chuckle:

Yes--and imagine what flying a piloted one (had such a version been built) would have been like! If one booster stopped firing, or even faltered significantly in thrust output (which might have happened, if other rounds were flown--solid boosters could have helped there), the stack would have undergone a decidedly "messy" RUD (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly)! Also:

Burya's time has, in a sense, now come. High-subsonic, jet-powered (mostly using miniature turbofan engines, although a few use miniature turbojet engines), and nuclear-armed cruise missiles are well-established strategic and tactical weapons. Conventionally-armed ones are also common, and both nuclear- and conventionally-armed types can be air-launched (from both bombers and fighters), submarine- and surface ship-launched, and--again now, as was the case in the past--ground-launched, but now:

Hypersonic cruise missiles have become feasible. They include rocket-boosted, air-breathing missiles (using ramjet or scramjet [supersonic combustion ramjet] power for the Mach 5+ cruise), and also hypersonic boost-glide missiles that are boosted by large--usually multi-stage--rockets that are similar to (or even derived from) ballistic missiles. Russia and India (among other countries, including France, Australia, and Japan) are very interested in hypersonic cruise missiles, which are maneuverable, difficult to counter (because of their maneuverability, as well as their great speed), and can reach their targets much more rapidly than can subsonic cruise missiles. The U.S. is also working on such weapons--and on defenses against hypersonic missiles (see: http://www.google.com/search?ei=HFi...j38.L402xsSXndU ). As well:

Although it wasn't a hypersonic cruise missile, the Soviet Gnom ("Gnome") ICBM, under development by the Makeyev Design Bureau until the death of Boris Shavyrin, the engineer who conceived of its unusual propulsion system (see: http://www.astronautix.com/g/gnom.html ), would have used an air-assisted rocket (a ducted rocket) first stage, which significantly reduced the missile's size and weight for its payload and range. (A sub-scale test version, the PR-90, was flown, and it worked well: http://www.astronautix.com/p/pr-90.html ). Plus:

This type of solid motor has also been studied by Israel for the first stage of an F-15-launched satellite carrier rocket, the MSLV (Micro Satellite Launch Vehicle, see: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...p=rep1&type=pdf ). While opinion about the military utility of hypersonic cruise missiles is divided (some analysts think that--while possible to build--they are "more hype than hypersonic"), for at least some specific designs or vehicle sizes the Gnom, PR-90, or Israeli MSLV ducted rocket motors might be advantageous.

He wasn't a singer, but he *was* an accomplished organist; he loved the Hammond Organ Company's instruments, and had several of them around his house--a B2, a B3, and an X66, plus Leslie tone cabinets to go with them. [He also witnessed the B-52 crash--with four hydrogen bombs--at Thule Air Force Base in Greenland, as I chronicled here: http://coldwar-c4i.net/BombAlarm/Thule.html .] (When I watched old repeat episodes of the original "Star Trek" series on his large TV set--whose audio came through two Leslie tone cabinets made for the X66; he had a switch that enabled either the TV or the organ to be output through them--I could hear background U.S.S. Enterprise bridge audio circuit speech that I had never heard before. The sound effects were similarly enhanced, having more audio range and acoustic "components" than I'd ever heard through a regular small built-in TV speaker.) Also:

He could play the Theremin (the unusual electronic instrument that one plays using both hands, but without actually ^touching^ it), and he had built one for himself from plans in an old magazine article (below are links to examples of Theremin music, as well as to a film of its inventor, the Russian Leon Theremin, playing one). Plus:

Gary also--in 1969--wrote, narrated, produced, and sold--through Sears and other department stores--an LP record ("A Journey to the Moon: The Historic Flight of Apollo 11"), for which he created all of the 'spacey,' futuristic sound effects, using the draw bars on his Hammond X66 organ. He created an uninterrupted--by reporters (he remembered constantly yelling, "Shut up, Walter!" at interruption-prone Walter Cronkite of CBS)--complete audio record of the mission, by simultaneously recording the ABC, NBC, and CBS Apollo 11 coverage on three professional (using 1" tape, I think) videotape machines, whose audio he then blended, time-compressed (to remove "dead air" and commercials), and edited as needed, in order to fit it to the LP record's program format. If anyone has one of his records (its product number was CVC-1 [the first product from his firm, Commercial Video Company]), it's a rare find! Below are the Theremin links:

“Lunar Rhapsody” by Dr. Samuel Hoffman (see: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dawxnlRTgE8 )

“Radar Blues” by Les Baxter (see: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih8AoglYl4E )

“Lunar Rhapsody” by Les Baxter (see: www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pMItiGdtW0 )

Here is a video (with audio, of course) of Leon Theremin (its inventor) playing it himself (see: www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5qf9O6c20o )

Now that was a cool sidebar!

Thank you! Gary Moore (1939 - 1996) was one of those people who, looking at their accomplishments and life experiences, make one wonder: "How could one person do so many things--and cram so much experience--into one lifetime?" (Art Smith [1917 - 1993], the Curator of the Miami Space Transit Planetarium where I worked from 1989 to 1993, was another; he knew Robert Goddard, Harlow Shapley [who determined our location in the Milky Way by charting the globular clusters], Wernher von Braun, Clyde Tombaugh, Martin Caidin, most of the astronauts, and had been to numerous places and done all kinds of things pertinent to astronomy, aviation [he was also a Pan Am pilot], and space flight.)

I had to re-watch the video a few times when I first saw that . . . I thought I might have imagined it.