WT Forums

Home | WT Forums | Hogpedia | Warthog blog | Hosted sites
It is currently 13 May 2025, 21:13

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2006, 14:14 
Offline

Joined: 05 Oct 2002, 14:22
Posts: 5353
Location: Missouri
All the info is there with links to gobs more info.
The "real" info is that the XB-70 protos were not used in anyway for this project other than as inspiration, and the Dynasoar became extinct in 1963. We can do much better than Dynasoar these days :-)

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2006, 15:15 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2002, 08:53
Posts: 1167
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>You shouldn't have trouble with Mach 5, the X-15 didn't.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Au contraire (sorry, French stuff again). The X-15 had several scares. The worst one is detailed below. For the real high Mach stuff (X-15A-2 configuration) they could not use the "hot structure" approach and had to have an ablative coating for a chance at a short time at that speed (20-40 seconds?). The dummy ramjet they were testing almost did them in.

http://members.aol.com/afftc/X15Story.htm

Fastest airplane flight of the Century

<img src="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/images/content/108392main_X-15A2_B-52.jpg" border=0>

All was ready on the morning of 3 October 1967 as Col Joe Cotton started each of the eight engines on the NB-52B mothership affectionately named "Balls Eight" from its S/N 008. Pete had already been in the small cockpit of the X-15 for over an hour performing the pre-flight checks with the ground crew led by Charlie Brown and Larry Barnett and a host of test support personnel in the NASA control room. After takeoff of the B-52/X-15 with Maj Cuthill following in an F-104 as chase 1, it took about 50 minutes to reach the launch point abeam Mud Lake approximately 170 nautical miles north of Edwards.

" I reached up and hit the launch switch and immediately took my hand off to go back to the throttle and found I had not gone anywhere. It did not launch. So I probably just got my hand off of it, because I reached up and hit it again and it launched the second time. Launch was very smooth this time."

As the X-15 was falling from the B-52 he lit the engine and locked on to 12 degrees angle of attack. He was pushed back into his seat with 1.5 g's longitudinal acceleration. The X-15 rounded the corner and started its climb. During the rotation as normal acceleration built up to 2 g's Pete had to hold in considerable right deflection of the side arm controller to keep the X-15 from rolling to the left due to the heavier LOX in the left external tank. When the aircraft reached the planned pitch angle of 35 degrees his scan pattern switched from the angle of attack gage to the attitude direction indicator and a vernier index that was set to the precise climb angle. The climb continued as the fuel was consumed from the external tanks, then at about 60 seconds he reached the tank jettison conditions of about Mach 2 and 70,000 feet. He pushed over to low angle of attack and ejected the tanks. He was now on his way and would not be making an emergency landing at Mud Lake. "We shut down at 6500 (fps), and I took careful note to see what the final got to. It went to 6600 maximum on the indicator. As I told Johnny before, the longest time period is going to be from zero h dot getting down to 100 to 200 feet per second starting down hill after shutdown." Final post flight data recorded an official max Mach number of 6.72 equivalent to a speed of 4534 miles per hour. From there down Pete was very busy with the planned data maneuvers and managing the energy of the gliding X-15. He approached Edwards higher on energy than planned and had to keep the speed brakes out to decelerate. On final approach he pushed the dummy ramjet eject button and landed on Rogers lakebed runway 18. He indicated he did not feel anything when he activated the ramjet eject and the ground crew reported they did not see it. Pete said that he knew something was not right when the recovery crew did not come to the cockpit area to help him out of the cockpit, but went directly to the back of the airplane. Finally when he did get out and saw the damage to the tail of the X-15 he understood. There were large holes in the skin of the sides of the fin with evidence of melting and skin rollback. Now we are talking Inconel-X steel that melts at 2200 degrees F. Later analysis would show that the shock wave from the leading edge of the ramjet's spike nose had intersected the fin and caused the aerodynamic heating to increase seven times higher than normal. So now maybe we knew why the ramjet was not there.

<img src="http://members.aol.com/afftc/ramjetbefore.jpg" border=0>

<img src="http://members.aol.com/afftc/ramjetft.jpg" border=0>


X-15 dummy ramjet search

"I did not feel anything when I pushed the button for the ramjet. I understand that there were people saw that it did come off and others say that they never saw it, so I don't know where it is." So said Major Pete Knight during the postflight debriefing.

The flight records indicated that the ramjet instrumentation ceased functioning 25 seconds after the engine was shutdown and the airplane reached Mach 6.72. So at about Mach 6 during the deceleration/glide the burn through had taken place. The obvious conclusion then was that the ramjet departed at that time and had gone it's merry way from over 90,000 feet to the desert floor below; over 100 miles from Edwards.

Later that afternoon as several of us were reviewing the data records we noted an abnormal decrease in the sensitive longitudinal acceleration trace (indicating a sudden decrease in drag). Although it was a small change, it was instantaneous. We decided to go on the assumption that this could be where the ramjet departed the airplane. Correlating the time of day with the flight parameters we found that it was at about the 180 degree point during the turn over the south area of Rogers Lake bed at about Mach 1.0 and 32,000 feet. The airplane was in a 57 degree left bank and, more importantly, pulling 1.6 g. Now I was confident that this could have been the time that the dummy ramjet began it's independent trajectory. So next, I time-correlated the radar data and found the spot where this event occurred and the heading of the aircraft at the time. This then was the Initial Conditions of the ramjet flight. Next, I drew a line on a map along the heading at the time I suspected it separated from the X-15. I could say that I did a detailed calculation of the drag coefficient for a tumbling ramjet, then a 5th order curve fit of the potential trajectory, corrected for winds; - but actually I just made an engineering estimate (guess) at a downrange distance. It turned out that the estimated resting place was right on the Edwards AFB bombing range. Placing a mark on the map at my selected impact point, I then drew a line perpendicular to the estimated track. Next I pick out some recognizable ground reference points on the map. As it turned out I selected the Rocket Base on Lehman Ridge west of Rogers Dry Lakebed and a mountain peak in the San Bernardino mountains.

Now it was time to present my theory to the team. There were many disbelievers of the theory who felt the dummy ramjet was way up north of Edwards. However, Bill Albrecht, the NASA Operations Engineer in charge of X-15A-2, was willing to humor and trust me. We contacted Joe Rief, the AFFTC airfield manager, and got permission to go wandering out on the bombing range. Bill and I got in a NASA radio equipped carryall van, radioed Eddie Tower, and headed out on the range. We drove east on the road on the bombing range with me looking for that general area where I had drawn the line on the map. We finally stopped the van and we walked down the road until I could hold my arms out and line up the Rocket Base and the mountain peak. At that point, I had Bill head North-East along my magic line and I headed South-West.

Shock! disbelief! glee! cold chills up my spine! .... after walking only about 200 yards, I saw the ramjet lying on the sand in between the tumble weed bushes in two major pieces.

I hollered with excitement to Bill but he was out of hearing range. So I ran back to the road and got his attention and we managed to back track to where I had seen it. There was a depression in the sand back up the track where it made first contact before coming to rest. We gathered up the nose cone and the machined conical steel pressure probes that were the very leading edge of the ramjet and headed back to the van.

The main body of the dummy ramjet was too large and heavy for us to return. It was almost quitting time at NASA when we carried our trophy up to the pilot's office. I strutted around like the hen that laid the golden egg. Fitz Fulton, I recall was favorably impressed. The next day Albrecht and I went back out to the site to direct a Huey helicopter to the location. A cable was attached to the main part of the ramjet and it was flown back to NASA.

Inspection of the ramjet revealed that it also had major melting and damage due to the high aerodynamic heating in the area where it attached to the ventral fin. In addition, 3 of the 4 explosive bolts that held the ramjet on had been fired, undoubtedly due to the high temperature. The fourth bolt had structurally failed; which was apparently all that was securing the ramjet on the X-15 from about Mach 6 down to Mach 1.



The X-15 program winds down

There was major damage to the structure of the fixed lower ventral fin from excessive aerodynamic heating due to shock wave impingement from the nose of the dummy ramjet. The aircraft was trucked to North American Aviation at LAX to be repaired, however it was to never fly again. Six months after the Mach 6.72 flight of ship 2 the Number 3 X-15 crashed near Randsburg, California killing Major Mike Adams. Over the next year the number 1 X-15 flew eight more flights with the last flight occurring on 24 October 1968, the 199th flight of the X-15 program. Several attempts were made to fly the 200th flight but to no avail. On 20 December Pete Knight was in the cockpit of the X-15 under the wing of Balls Eight ready to taxi to the runway when a freak snow storm moved over Edwards and the flight was cancelled. Thus ended the flying portion of the most successful X-plane program in history, however the analysis of the research data from the program continued for many years afterward.



Ninety percent of the game is half mental.

_________________
????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2006, 15:26 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2002, 08:53
Posts: 1167
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
gets me nervous when we talk about launching from undeclared silo complexes. Too much room for mis understanding. You launch a space plane they send an ICBM back before you declare hey we were just gonna take pictures.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

There is no difference with the carrier/parasite concept. Why would anyone not get nervous if they suddenly see that thing coming? I'd like to say that I think this whole discussion of emergency recon is silly, and I would not spent any money on it. I've convinced myself that the combination of satellites and Global Hawk is good enough for the foreseeable future. There is no reason for this vehicle to exist, so I don't think it does.

Ninety percent of the game is half mental.

_________________
????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2006, 15:38 
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Mach 5? I'm trying to keep my plastic windows from softening at Mach 2. Let's see, the boundary layer recovery temp at M=2 @ 40000ft is about 210 deg F. The recovery temp for M=5 at 80000 ft is about 1300 deg f . And that is also near the temp of the air in the inlet before it goes into the engine to be heated more. Holy hernia Batman, we need to use the light weight batoominum material for this one.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I am sure the people that designed the SR-71 with <b>slide rules</b> felt about the same way.

And then they went and built it and put that SOB in the air in what, 2 years?

NASA has proven that even decades ago we could build airbreathing vehicles that will exceed Mach 5, it's just a matter of spending the money to do all the research and build them. With 2006 technology Mach 5 is not nearly the same barrier it was in 1968.

The pricetag would be monumental, but i have no doubt whatsoever we(read that YOU stress, lol) could build them.

<b>There are two kinds of soldiers.
Snipers...and targets.</b>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2006, 17:59 
Offline

Joined: 05 Oct 2002, 14:22
Posts: 5353
Location: Missouri
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> I've convinced myself....<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I think that's the whole problem <img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle>
As long as people want to do things without us knowing about it, we will need "emergency recon" as you've dubbed it. GH only works in places where there is no air force to deny it's presence, sats only work at XXX time every day. If the bad guys schedule lunch for that same time of day ( because they know we are there )we will see nothing they dont want us to see.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2006, 18:08 
Offline

Joined: 12 Oct 2002, 11:09
Posts: 2857
oh no the benevollent dictation is convinced lol <img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle> Sorry Stress when you pitch in the strike zone somebody has to take a swing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2006, 19:16 
Offline
\"Some Pup\"
User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 17:17
Posts: 1022
Location: Missouri
Have Blue took alot less money than beauracracy says it should have. So, if you have a super secret project like that, you don't have to satisfy idiots that want so many screw to be made by "X" company. So, a little bit of money can go a long way.

Frankly, the SR-71 was retired, and the only reason to retire it is if something came along that did that job alot better. The U-2 was replaced by satellites, but the SR kept flying. If they could do mach 3+ in the sixties, I see no reason not to have better today. A plane like that is just too valuable an asset, even if never used.

Ignorance may be bliss, but it sure ain't fun!

_________________
Evil is evil, no matter how small.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2006, 20:09 
Offline

Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 16:13
Posts: 112
First of all
a critique of the article

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/576/1

I had posted on strategypage> fighters bombers & recon

>Maybe we could use an airplane like XB-70 to launch civilians to low orbit. SPACE TURISIM.
Civilian are currently using a similar method to get to a Low orbit, with a crappy plane that only goes ~400knots at 40,000ft.
The second stage goes to low orbit (don’t know how high but there is little gravity, I saw a video whit the pilot playing around with floating M&Ms)

> The best way to launch a satellite into orbit using a two stage approach>

1) Large airplane takes off with little fuel, to increase max payload (I have wondered if a specially converted C-130, four 20,000 hp large contra-rotating turboprop, can help tug it to reach take-of airspeed using a shorter runway, save fuel, & weight)
2) large airplane refuels in fight, This includes “possible” liquid rocket fuel(hydrogen, and Oxygen), note I said possible.
3) large airplane flies as high and as fast a possible (mach 3.5+ @100,000ft+)& eject (drop payload on airstream ) its satellite, or missile, or bunkerbusters’ , or mini Shuttle, in to orbit.
5) large airplane lands.

Any suggestions on #1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2006, 23:39 
Offline

Joined: 05 Oct 2002, 14:22
Posts: 5353
Location: Missouri
The author of that story doesnt stand up to his own criticism of this Scott guy with reguards to naming this or that. I CAN tell you that his criticism that Scott had put together the mothership and parasite before anyone had ever seen them mated is wrong headed. The "mothership" got it's name for two reasons. #1 is that one of the very earliest spottings of the plane was allegedly by a pair of contractors that were employed at Groom and had been on a rooftop making some sort of building repair. They allegedly saw the topside of the plane and noted a pylon type structure on it's spine. Why would it have a pylon if there was nothing to mount there? It's not a fact at all, just a reasonable conclusion from an obsrvation. #2 is the really large hanger at Groom that aparently has a heavy overhead hoist running it's length ( you can see the extra structure above the hangers roof in pics of Groom lake ). So you have a large plane with an apparent mounting area on top of it, located at a base that has a large hanger with a big overhead hoist inside it. Might be a big leap of faith to some to put those together, but not to others.
He also stated that we didnt know what the F-117 looked like before it went public, WRONGO! Various "Un-named sources" ( sound familier ) reported that it looked something like the Space Shuttle ( due to it having the pit all the way at the front of the plane ) and also like "two pine cones stuck end to end" due to the pointed front and rear of the plane and the overall faceted shape kinda like all the angles on an unopened pine cone. There was LOTS of bad data about the Stealth Fighter before it went public, but not ALL of it was bad.
Dwayne Dufus also doesnt seem interested in explaining the extremely famous seismic events over southern Cal during that time ( late '80s early '90s ?) detecting multiple events of large aircraft flying above Mach2 ( IIRC ) throwing off BIG sonic booms and showing up on their earthquake monitoring equipment. The Quake watchers said the re-entering Space Shuttle was the only thing that set off thier equipment like that,fighter planes never did.
Believe it or not SOME people dont trust the press and would gladly avoid having thier name associated with anything unusual, especially if they worked in an industry where thier ability to keep thier mouth shut might come in handy from time to time.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2006, 09:38 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2002, 08:53
Posts: 1167
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>sats only work at XXX time every day<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I still have not articulated myself and I can't believe I'm even defending a system I think is not worth it, but here I go again. The system I envision would be capable of recon on the first pass after launch. There is nothing more surprising than that. It could be launched from fixed silos that are maintained at the ready for emegency recon, or from mobile launchers that are designed for the purpose. If you like a manned system for any reason then make the payload a Dyna Soar type vehicle, but I was thinking a small satellite with one or two sensor types in it. The expendable solid fuel booster with snapshot capability is the common thread. The target probably couldn't do anything to hide itself until a few passes, assuming it has awareness of the launch at all. The heat load (time @ temp) on such a vehicle would be low because it spends as little time as possible in the atmoshpere. It's a lot easier than a hypersonic cruising airbreather or an "aerospike" propelled semi orbital thing.



Ninety percent of the game is half mental.

_________________
????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2006, 09:53 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2002, 08:53
Posts: 1167
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>He also stated that we didnt know what the F-117 looked like before it went public, WRONGO!<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


There was much speculation on whether the stealth fighter existed or not in the early 80s. There was also speculation in the open on what it could look like. In my opinion, none of the notional aircraft concepts had any of the essential features of the F-117, such as the arrowhead planform, sharp leading edges, flat bottom, screened inlets, and faceted surfaces...none. We were working with faceted shapes at the time because that is all we could analyze with our software, but the 117 was very extreme to us. Our aerodynamicists would not entertain anything like the 117 concept and that probably doomed us to high RCS failure. That concept was as sucessful a marketing coup as it was technical. Ben Rich could truthfully say to his customers that this jet looks crazy and different for all good reasons. It's crazy like a fox. Marketing heaven.

Ninety percent of the game is half mental.

_________________
????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2006, 10:31 
Offline

Joined: 05 Oct 2002, 14:22
Posts: 5353
Location: Missouri
well in reverse order lol
The pine cone and space shuttle remarks were in Sweetman's first stealth book and it was published BEFORE the F-117 went public, both remarks are fundamentaly accurate to the F-117s shape and were made by "unknown sources" despite Mr. Dwaynes claim that that sort of info is useless. There was LOTS of wrong info about the F-117, I remember the Testors model of the F-19 which was wrong in virtually every way and Monogram's ( or Revelle's) rendition of the F-19 which while cool looking, was based on nothing more than a notional artwork by Loral for it's electronics programs.
Dwayne site "unknown sources" as being the total base of these articles but I dont count the U.S. Patent office as very "unknown" lol. He's just jelouse that he has to do his own legwork if he wants to do a similar story instead of leaching off of Scotts sources lolol ( a classic press tactic btw )

The "sats arive at XXX" comment was in referance to Dwaynes article supporting sats.
But your one sortie per vehicle system is starting to look expensive every time we want a pic of something that may or may not be there on a particular day. Plus you are still raining down an ICBM warhead onto foreign soil which WILL get a lot of folks antsy to say the least, a MUCH slower hypersonic vehicle would be identified ( if it were even detected ) as an aircraft or at worst an unusually high flying cruise missle a-al the Brahmos/Yakhont ( yes that's a BAD thing lol ), it could also be recalled and redirected at a few moments notice, no ICBM can do that.

The X-15 had many succesful flights in the Mach 5 regime, I believe the scramjet flight was a one time only deal and it was still 40 years ago, we can do better.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2006, 11:48 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2002, 08:53
Posts: 1167
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The U-2 was replaced by satellites, but the SR kept flying.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I don't think that is correct Mudd. The U-2 was flying all that time, and is still relevant today.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Frankly, the SR-71 was retired, and the only reason to retire it is if something came along that did that job alot better.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I think that is the Global Hawk, that's all.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Have Blue took alot less money than beauracracy says it should have. So, if you have a super secret project like that, you don't have to satisfy idiots that want so many screw to be made by "X" company. So, a little bit of money can go a long way.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You get what you pay for. Have Blue was a sub scale technology demonstrator. It was able to demonstrate some useful concepts, but it was not near weapon status. A sub scale demonstrator was built to help sell the T-46 at Fairchild. It was successful in helping sell the program. We got some flight test data. The internal structure was designed by Burt Rutan & Company. It was flown by some nice guys (Dick Rutan and Wendy Shawler) but it had no engineering relevance to us in full scale land, where we must solve all performance parameters at once. I'm glad they did not do the spin tests that were planned. It was dangerous and irrelevant to the real aircraft. Later, I was the structural weenie on a study contract for demonstrators 'The Role of Low Cost Demonstrators in the Technology
Development Process',AFWAL-TR-84-3069, Aug. 1984. It was an exciting prospect to be working on these things, but we never could sell it because Rutan was doing it already, and he could do it better. He was a better salesman, and a bolder engineer. Even Rutan was cricized for over selling the sub scale demo, in the form of the Beech Starship. I believe the kindest thing the CEO of Beech could say was that the demonstrator was a "trap". I wish we could have done some high tech demonstrators, but honestly it is better to work on airplanes with real performance requirements. That is where the "thunder dome" of engineering is in the trade-offs. Two men enter, one man leaves.


Edited by - a10stress on Mar 14 2006 11:12 AM

_________________
????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2006, 12:04 
Offline

Joined: 05 Oct 2002, 14:22
Posts: 5353
Location: Missouri
Yup U-2 is STILL flying today but on it's way out, Global Hawk is taking it's stand-off endurance mission. Oddly enough there have been numerous proposals to automate the U-2 but nothing apparently ever came of them.
Global Hawk cant penetrate like the SR-71 and sats can. IF there isnt a clandestine replacement for the SR-71 then it is done with sats or the newer Darkstar redoux. We can talk about that one too if you wanna LOLOL

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2006, 12:45 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2002, 08:53
Posts: 1167
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The pine cone and space shuttle remarks were in Sweetman's first stealth book and it was published BEFORE the F-117 went public, both remarks are fundamentaly accurate to the F-117s shape and were made by "unknown sources" <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The F-117 does not resemble a pine cone or the space shuttle to me. (and F-14's do not look like F-15s either, not even close, but some people think so) If someone had actually seen the aircraft it would have been a natural to call the flat panels "facets". I worked with a guy at Northrop who was the configuration designer for "Have Blue". His name was Dick Sheerer. He refered to that configuration as the "hopeless diamond". (I also read that description in the Ben Rich book). If some one refered to what they saw as a black diamond shape, I would be impressed. Pine cone, nah, I picture an axisymmetric space capsule thing with heat tile shingles on it. I heard that Alexander Kartveli thought the A-10 looked like a pickle, though. To each his own.

Ninety percent of the game is half mental.

_________________
????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2006, 12:50 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2002, 08:53
Posts: 1167
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>They allegedly saw the topside of the plane and noted a pylon type structure on it's spine. Why would it have a pylon if there was nothing to mount there?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Sometimes there is a little truth to a story:

<img src="http://www.blackbirds.net/u2/u2_photo_gallery/u2_pics/80-1096.jpg" border=0>

Ninety percent of the game is half mental.

_________________
????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2006, 12:57 
Offline

Joined: 06 Jul 2004, 07:43
Posts: 20
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
All the info is there with links to gobs more info.
The "real" info is that the XB-70 protos were not used in anyway for this project other than as inspiration, and the Dynasoar became extinct in 1963. We can do much better than Dynasoar these days :-)

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I would think so, it just always seems like someone on here has that little bit extra info or something that was over looked or something that would take a hundred links of searching thru to find......


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2006, 15:46 
Offline

Joined: 05 Oct 2002, 14:22
Posts: 5353
Location: Missouri
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>something that would take a hundred links of searching thru to find...... <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
That's HOW I find out what I DO find out lol 100 links aint nuthin, I been 60 or 70 PAGES deep in Google on more than one occasion and STILL didnt find what I was after lol

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2006, 15:48 
Offline

Joined: 05 Oct 2002, 14:22
Posts: 5353
Location: Missouri
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Sometimes there is a little truth to a story: <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Yeah but MY favorite was the inflatable raydome on the BOTTOM of the U-2 lol made by Goodyear of course :-)
Is than an antenna farm or is it just glad to see me lololol

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2006, 18:27 
Offline

Joined: 02 Aug 2002, 14:24
Posts: 1752
So, has anyone come up with a reasonable explanation for the "donuts on a rope" contrails or the sonic booms caught on seismograph, then?

Also, in regards to pylons, the SR-71 can fit external fuel tanks on top of its wings.

Crushed under his own mental block...

Edited by - Horrido on Mar 16 2006 5:30 PM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2006, 22:12 
Offline

Joined: 05 Oct 2002, 14:22
Posts: 5353
Location: Missouri
Sonic booms, no.
Doughnuts on a rope, kinda. They have been seen being produced by normal aircraft under very certain atmospheric conditions, but only for a short time. There is a sat photo showing the doughnuts on a rope contrail leaving Nevada and swooping across the US to the east and across the Atlantic. I personally belive that pic is a fake.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 17 Mar 2006, 09:30 
Offline
\"Some Pup\"
User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 17:17
Posts: 1022
Location: Missouri
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I don't think that is correct Mudd. The U-2 was flying all that time, and is still relevant today. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>You're getting me mixed up with Mudd!?<img src=newicons/anim_shock.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle> I must clarify though. The Soviets built a missile that could shoot down the U-2. We had the satellites soon after, so we stopped using the U-2 over Russia, which at the time was a totally different threat environment than the U-2 operates in today. So, yes, the U-2 flies, but not in it's original mission, penetration of airspace of enemies capable of shooting it down. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if some of NASA's flights weren't quite scientific.

I'd like to see a plane like the Blackbird designed with engines that can be fed internal oxygen, to allow power outside of the atmosphere. Plane takes off, gets refueled up high, boosts into orbit, or maybe just high enough to fling something up into LEO. Big thing is that the payload would be fairly small, due to the weight of fuel required.

Ignorance may be bliss, but it sure ain't fun!

_________________
Evil is evil, no matter how small.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 17 Mar 2006, 09:45 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2002, 08:53
Posts: 1167
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>You're getting me mixed up with Mudd!?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Must have been your avatar. No, just a brain fart, Silent but deadly.

Ninety percent of the game is half mental.

_________________
????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 17 Mar 2006, 10:06 
Offline

Joined: 05 Oct 2002, 14:22
Posts: 5353
Location: Missouri
Well first off if we are talking about Gary Powers getting shot down by a missle it didnt happen at cruise altitude. Powers autopilot had failed and he had to descend to an altitude where he could fly the U-2 manually, THAT'S when he got into the missles WEZ. The great thing about the SR-71 is that at these kinds of altitudes a small course correction screws up the missles ability to make an intercept due to the very thin air available to the control surfaces. At SR-71 speeds it puts them WELL away from what a missle can do to them, a U-2 cant make a large position change due to it's slow speed. High altitude also robs a great deal of power from the blast effect of a warhead.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Blackbird designed with engines that can be fed internal oxygen<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

They were working on that during the NASP days in the early 80's. The Brits in particular had an ugly people hauler that had a large airscoop on the rear of the fusalage. It would take off like an airplane ( from a special carriage ) then as it climbed and gained speed SOME of the air rushing into the airscoop would be converted to liquid oxygen and stored for use at extremely high altitude out of ( or nearly so )the atmosphere.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 17 Mar 2006, 12:37 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2002, 08:53
Posts: 1167
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The great thing about the SR-71 is that at these kinds of altitudes a small course correction screws up the missles ability to make an intercept due to the very thin air available to the control surfaces. At SR-71 speeds it puts them WELL away from what a missle can do to them, a U-2 cant make a large position change due to it's slow speed. High altitude also robs a great deal of power from the blast effect of a warhead.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It certainly is a tough intercept, but modern technology can help with that just as sure as it can help with the airplane design. I would be concerned about the SR-71s chances. The US has technology now that can hit a re-entry vehicle (no warhead required), maybe others can do it too. The B-70 was cancelled way back when, with arguments that the Soviets could intercept it. Was it the Foxbat that did it in? If it was extremely important to prevent overflights, I think the Russians have the smarts to do it. It would take the political will to get the money, but they could do it. In that case, a special recon version of the B-2 (or a dedicated new design) would be my choice. If detection can be avoided, it is better for everybody.

Ninety percent of the game is half mental.

_________________
????


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group