Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: James A Riegel <riegelja@*******.MSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 14:21:50 -0400
>
> ...titanium alloys. Except that Ti crumples at high temperatures like a
potato chip: the SR-71, which is a titanium composite aircraft, has prestresse
d
> wrinkles so that the wings won't deform in flight.

> _____________________________________________________
> G. Musumeci
>

An interesting note regarding the sr-71. At extreme speeds, the plane
stretches roughly 1.5 feet. After landing the cooldown takes a couple of
hours. It sounds like someone is beating the plane with a sledgehamer as the
metal reverts to its original shape. Reason I know this is from living at
Kadena AB, Okinawa, and Mildenhall AB in Suffolk, England. These were two of
the three bases that operated Sr's. The other is in CA. Impressive as hell on
takeoff. Flies nearly straight up. At night all you see is twin purple
flames. It has to refuel immediately upon reaching altitude due to the amount
of fuel continuous bleed engines combined with after burners consume.
Message no. 2
From: "S.K. Khoo" <S.K.Khoo@*********.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 10:07:53 +0100
On Tue, 14 Jun 1994, James A Riegel wrote:

> ... Impressive as hell on takeoff. Flies nearly straight up. At night all
> you see is twin purple flames. It has to refuel immediately upon reaching
> altitude due to the amount of fuel continuous bleed engines combined with
> after burners consume.

And soon to grace the skies, its successor, the new Aurora ...
Message no. 3
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 09:17:01 -0400
On Tue, 14 Jun 1994, James A Riegel wrote:

> >
> > ...titanium alloys. Except that Ti crumples at high temperatures like a
> potato chip: the SR-71, which is a titanium composite aircraft, has prestresse
> d
> > wrinkles so that the wings won't deform in flight.
>
> > _____________________________________________________
> > G. Musumeci
> >
>
> An interesting note regarding the sr-71. At extreme speeds, the plane
> stretches roughly 1.5 feet. After landing the cooldown takes a couple of
> hours. It sounds like someone is beating the plane with a sledgehamer as the
> metal reverts to its original shape. Reason I know this is from living at
> Kadena AB, Okinawa, and Mildenhall AB in Suffolk, England. These were two of
> the three bases that operated Sr's. The other is in CA. Impressive as hell on
> takeoff. Flies nearly straight up. At night all you see is twin purple
> flames. It has to refuel immediately upon reaching altitude due to the amount
> of fuel continuous bleed engines combined with after burners consume.
>
Not to mention that the expansion effect of the metal has been taken into
account. The plates in various areas are actually too small when the
plane is cool and at rest. If they don' preheat parts of the plane, it
leaks fluids and stuff all over the tarmac. Friggin' messy, too.
Message no. 4
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 10:25:22 -0400
On Wed, 15 Jun 1994, S.K. Khoo wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Jun 1994, James A Riegel wrote:
>
> > ... Impressive as hell on takeoff. Flies nearly straight up. At night all
> > you see is twin purple flames. It has to refuel immediately upon reaching
> > altitude due to the amount of fuel continuous bleed engines combined with
> > after burners consume.
>
> And soon to grace the skies, its successor, the new Aurora ...
>
Sorry, son, the Aurora is anything but new. Keep this little tidbit in
mind. The really cutting edge stuff we only hear rumors about now went
through its testing and development phases in the late seventies/early
eighties. Now look at the military again and live in fear. ;)

Marc
Message no. 5
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 13:42:58 -0700
Actually, the Aurora's been around for quite some time, in fact
since before they retired the SR-71's.
A hypersonic shock-wave riding lifting body, the Aurora resembles
a black flying saucer, and doesn't have much in the way of wings. It
supposedly cruises at Mach 5+, generating lift through shockwaves induced
at the nose cone that propagate along the underside of the craft. It's
also quite stealthy.
Sounds like the Air Farce, err....Force, finally got a working
(sc)ramjet because I can't think of a "conventional" engine that wouldn't
melt itself down or burn too much fuel and operate at that speed.
Speaking of which, this is why I'm disappointed with the
Fed-Boeing Eagle and EFA Eurojet in RBB. Strictly conventional
airframes, today's tech, no really innovative stuff.
Oh well, guess I'll have to break out Fire, Fusion&Steel and
design it.

+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell|acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu | ez000270@*******.ucdavis.edu |
| acgetchell |"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent"|
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 6
From: James A Riegel <riegelja@*******.MSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 17:15:58 -0400
S K Khoo writes...
>
> And soon to grace the skies, its successor, the new Aurora ...
>

Zub? Is it another Lockheed bird? I have too admit I've heard nothing of
it. This question is for anyone with a good understanding of dynamics of
flight and such. Rumor had it that the SR-71 had a dive speed from roughly 82k
feet of Mach 7 or so. This is just hearsay from a couple of the guys who used
to work on it in england shortly after they sent 'em all home to the barn.
What exactly would happen at speeds like that, and would it be at all possible?
I have seen MANY shots of SR-71's outrunning SA-6's, so I know it definitly
does better than the declassified speed of Mach 3.
Message no. 7
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 16:54:36 -0500
Ahem. This is not an aircraft list.

Take it to private email.

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> I do not necessarily speak for the
\/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> City of Mankato or Blue Earth County
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
Message no. 8
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 11:16:39 +1000
Adam writes:

> A hypersonic shock-wave riding lifting body, the Aurora resembles
> a black flying saucer, and doesn't have much in the way of wings. It
> supposedly cruises at Mach 5+, generating lift through shockwaves induced
> at the nose cone that propagate along the underside of the craft. It's
> also quite stealthy.


Would be rather noisy tho, travelling at mach 5, i would think.

> Speaking of which, this is why I'm disappointed with the
> Fed-Boeing Eagle and EFA Eurojet in RBB. Strictly conventional
> airframes, today's tech, no really innovative stuff.

the fed-boing eagle uses vectored thrust, could someone explain just what
that is?

Damion
Message no. 9
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 21:29:28 -0400
>>>>> "MILLIKEN" == MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
writes:

MILLIKEN> Adam writes:
>> A hypersonic shock-wave riding lifting body, the Aurora resembles a
>> black flying saucer, and doesn't have much in the way of wings. It
>> supposedly cruises at Mach 5+, generating lift through shockwaves
>> induced at the nose cone that propagate along the underside of the
>> craft. It's also quite stealthy.

MILLIKEN> Would be rather noisy tho, travelling at mach 5, i would think.

Maybe, maybe not. That Mach 5+ speed is at an altitude of around 87,000+
feet, nearly orbital. The SR-71 routinely hit Mach 3.5+ at that altitude
and it wasn't heard on the ground.

>> Speaking of which, this is why I'm disappointed with the Fed-Boeing
>> Eagle and EFA Eurojet in RBB. Strictly conventional airframes, today's
>> tech, no really innovative stuff.

MILLIKEN> the fed-boing eagle uses vectored thrust, could someone explain
MILLIKEN> just what that is?

Vectored thrust means thrust that can be applied to various vectors
(directions). Includes V/STOL a/c like the Harriers and Forgers as well as
the F/A-18 HARV, F-16 MASTR, F-15 "Agile Eagle," and similar programs.
Great stuff for maneuverability.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | "What do you want to do tonight,
Brain?"
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | "The same thing we do every night, Pinky,
this space intentionally left blank | try to take over the world!"
Message no. 10
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 11:49:51 +1000
Raqt writes:

> Vectored thrust means thrust that can be applied to various vectors
> (directions). Includes V/STOL a/c like the Harriers and Forgers as well as
> the F/A-18 HARV, F-16 MASTR, F-15 "Agile Eagle," and similar programs.
> Great stuff for maneuverability.

alright, how 'bout the propulsion method of the banshee, it was called
ground effect i think. And the stonewall was quoted to use both vectored
thrust and ground effect, how would it go? Call me ignorant, but areonautics
isnt one of my strong points.

Damion
Message no. 11
From: Bryan Prince <WALAB@******.HH.VANDERBILT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 07:33:55 -0600
Damion asks--
Can someone explain just what that [vectored thrust] is?
Vectored thrust is a way of channelling the thrust in a direction other
than straight back. It is the same type of design in use by the RAF's
Hawker Harrier and the USMC jump jets (sorry, don't remember the name).
Basically the jet has VTOL [Vertical Take-Off and Landing] capabilities
and can actually hover like a helicopter. It means that the plane dosen't
need a conventional runway, and has greater manuverability. Of course, I'm
sure that the people with a Jane's can provide more detailed and probably
more accurate information, but that is what vectored thrust is in a nutshell.
Bryan Prince
Message no. 12
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 10:04:36 -0400
>>>>> "MILLIKEN" == MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
writes:

MILLIKEN> Raqt writes:
>> Vectored thrust means thrust that can be applied to various vectors
>> (directions). Includes V/STOL a/c like the Harriers and Forgers as well as
>> the F/A-18 HARV, F-16 MASTR, F-15 "Agile Eagle," and similar programs.
>> Great stuff for maneuverability.

MILLIKEN> alright, how 'bout the propulsion method of the banshee, it was
MILLIKEN> called ground effect i think. And the stonewall was quoted to use
MILLIKEN> both vectored thrust and ground effect, how would it go? Call me
MILLIKEN> ignorant, but areonautics isnt one of my strong points.

The ground effect is a cushion of air that forms underneath low-flying
(under about 70 feet) craft. Any craft that creates a downward airflow can
create a ground effect cushion underneath. That includes hovercraft,
heliborne units, some fixed-wing aircraft like the A-10, and vectored
thrust craft like the Harriers.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | "I'd rather be a pig than a
fascist."
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | --Porco Rosso (The Crimson Pig)
Message no. 13
From: "J.W.Thomas" <cm5323@***.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 15:07:00 +0100
Don't know if this is any use, but i remember hearing of a new
high speed travel idea for planes...

You put low power lasers on the leading edge of the wing, and
they heat the air infront of the plane...
hot air= less dense= less resistance

So you could go over the speed of sound without breaking the
sound barrier and getting a sonic BOOM.

Cause, the whole systems going to have to be a balance between
energy saved in fuel and energy used to heat the air...

CHOPPER
mine of useless information
Message no. 14
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 00:49:00 +0930
>
> Damion asks--
> Can someone explain just what that [vectored thrust] is?
> Vectored thrust is a way of channelling the thrust in a direction other
> than straight back. It is the same type of design in use by the RAF's
> Hawker Harrier and the USMC jump jets (sorry, don't remember the name).
>
Don't the USMC use Harriers as well?? They're great for shipboard planes
if you can't afford a real floating airstrip.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9 am,
it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 15
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 13:27:45 -0400
On Wed, 15 Jun 1994, Adam Getchell wrote:

> Actually, the Aurora's been around for quite some time, in fact
> since before they retired the SR-71's.
> A hypersonic shock-wave riding lifting body, the Aurora resembles
> a black flying saucer, and doesn't have much in the way of wings. It
> supposedly cruises at Mach 5+, generating lift through shockwaves induced
> at the nose cone that propagate along the underside of the craft. It's
> also quite stealthy.
> Sounds like the Air Farce, err....Force, finally got a working
> (sc)ramjet because I can't think of a "conventional" engine that wouldn't
> melt itself down or burn too much fuel and operate at that speed.
> Speaking of which, this is why I'm disappointed with the
> Fed-Boeing Eagle and EFA Eurojet in RBB. Strictly conventional
> airframes, today's tech, no really innovative stuff.
> Oh well, guess I'll have to break out Fire, Fusion&Steel and
> design it.
>

Actually, from what I have heard from all the Aero-geeks here at UofM,
the plane only has engine to get it up to speeds at which its real drive
system can take over, and that drive system has something to do with
dumping fuel onto the skin of the plane. Being a Naval Engineer, I'm
kinda fuzzy on that whole supersonic flow thang, so I don't know all the
details.

Marc
Message no. 16
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 10:33:05 -0700
On Thu, 16 Jun 1994, MILLIKEN DAMION A wrote:

> Would be rather noisy tho, travelling at mach 5, i would think.

Not until you're long past them. Remember, the Mach shockwave
arrives quite a bit after the plane has already passed. The Mach cone is
11.5 degrees for Mach 5, meaning the angle between the flight path of the
plane and the shockwave is 11.5 degrees.
>
> the fed-boing eagle uses vectored thrust, could someone explain just what
> that is?

Vectored thrust is seen in the AV-8B Harrier today; you route
thrust from the main burners to secondary thrust nozzles that can be
swivelled to most directions. The Harrier can hover, fly backwards,
stand on its nose and lots of other neat tricks. It also only has about
15 minutes of station time (I believe the Brits got 30 minutes in the
Falklands as Combat Air Patrol) and tops out at ~ Mach 1.2.

> Damion

+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell|acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu | ez000270@*******.ucdavis.edu |
| acgetchell |"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent"|
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 17
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 13:51:29 -0400
On Thu, 16 Jun 1994, MILLIKEN DAMION A wrote:

> the fed-boing eagle uses vectored thrust, could someone explain just what
> that is?
>
> Damion
>

You know how a Harrier works? Same principle. If you don't, here goes...
Instead of simply being directed out the back of the plane, the thrust
from the engine is directed through "louvers." These louvers can tilt
from a vertical position (at which point the thrust is directed straight
down and the plane rises vertically) or rotate all the way to the
horizontal position (at which point, the thrust is directed out the back,
and the lift is generated from airflow across the wings as per a
conventional aircraft). There are several important points when dealing
with vectored thrust. The first is the fact that if you lift off
vertically (or assisted verticle) you have to rotate the louvers back.
But you aren't going forward, so you would get no immediate lift and
drop like a stone. So you have to slowly rotate the louvers through the
angled positions to get forward thrust as well as thrust-induced lift.
There is a fine point at which the wings are producing as much lift as
the louvers. Vectored Flight vehicles actually take quite a bit of skill
to fly. Of course, you can just leave the louvers permanently in the
horizontal position and just fly like a normal aircraft, but that takes
away all the fun. The Marine Corps aviators started a practice caled
"viffing" or VIF which stands for Vectoring In Flight, which is a whole
different complicated can of worms that nobody on this board wants me to
go into.

Marc
Message no. 18
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 14:52:23 -0400
>>>>> "J" == J W Thomas <cm5323@***.AC.UK> writes:

J> You put low power lasers on the leading edge of the wing, and they heat
J> the air infront of the plane... hot air= less dense= less resistance

It also means less lift, BTW.

J> So you could go over the speed of sound without breaking the sound
J> barrier and getting a sonic BOOM.

Wrong! because the speed of sound relative to you would be faster than 1130
feet per second. You aren't actually travelling faster than the sound
around you, and you don't create a shockwave, so you don't get a sonic
boom.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | "The only way to deal with temptation is
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | to yield to it." --Oscar Wilde
Message no. 19
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 14:52:56 -0400
>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
writes:

Robert> Don't the USMC use Harriers as well?? They're great for shipboard
Robert> planes if you can't afford a real floating airstrip.

Yes, they do; they use the AV-8B Harrier II.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | No Zooanoids were injured in the making
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | of this message.
Message no. 20
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 16:54:15 -0500
Ok, if this pointless aircraft thread continues, We'll start nuking people.


____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> I do not necessarily speak for the
\/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> City of Mankato or Blue Earth County
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
Message no. 21
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 12:57:13 -0700
On Thu, 16 Jun 1994, J.W.Thomas wrote:

> You put low power lasers on the leading edge of the wing, and
> they heat the air infront of the plane...
> hot air= less dense= less resistance
>
> So you could go over the speed of sound without breaking the
> sound barrier and getting a sonic BOOM.

Interesting idea, but it is not possible to exceed the speed of
sound and not cause a shockwave. Here's why.
In airflow past a cylinder, the flow field can be described by
streamlines. (Aerodynamicists use cylinders because it is an easy shape
to integrate a control volume around or do a numerical analysis and a
cylinder can be mathematically "adjusted" into any shape wing you want.
So results calculated for a cylinder have validity in most cases).
This streamline is basically a line tangent to the velocity
vector of the flowfield, but in a practical sense is the line air takes
when it travels around the wing. (These can be found with wind tunnels
and smoke suspensions, which is technically a streakline).
Now, with a nice subsonic flow the momentum, kinetic energy etc.
of a given piece of air is communicated downstream to the other pieces of
air, so that they follow along obeying conservation of energy, momentum
and so on. The airflow is hence continuous (I'm neglecting turbulence,
for the moment).
When the object around which the air flows goes past the speed of
sound, the pieces of air near the object can no longer communicate to the
trailing pieces of air their momentum, KE, etc. That's because the
information can only propagate down the streamline at the speed of sound,
but the source is moving away faster than this. When that happens,
essentially the trailing air "doesn't know what to do" and so takes all
possible paths, and you get a shockwave, which is really the information
barrier.
This effect is also seen in light, as Cerenkov radiation, for
when a relativistic particle enters a medium for which it exceeds the
speed of light. A shock wave is formed, and Cerenkov (blue/UV light) is
produced.
And by the way, heating the air and decreasing its density also
*lowers* its speed of sound.
It's still a neat idea. Maybe I will have to incorporate it in
my design of the "Raven" attack fighter.

> CHOPPER
> mine of useless information
>

+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell|acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu | ez000270@*******.ucdavis.edu |
| acgetchell |"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent"|
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 22
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 20:47:08 -0400
>>>>> "Marc" == Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
writes:

Marc> Actually, from what I have heard from all the Aero-geeks here at
Marc> UofM, the plane only has engine to get it up to speeds at which its
Marc> real drive system can take over, and that drive system has something
Marc> to do with dumping fuel onto the skin of the plane.

Yeah, this is one of the many rumors surrounding the Aurora. It's an
external combustion design. You dump fuel out along the trailing edges.
Since the a/c is flying at Mach 3+ it's got a lot of heat; the fuel
instantly ignites much like a conventional afterburner.

Marc> Being a Naval Engineer, I'm kinda fuzzy on that whole supersonic flow
Marc> thang, so I don't know all the details.

Just remember that the official line from the USAF is that the Aurora
doesn't exist.

Anyway, if you haven't heard, due to the situation in Korea the USAF has
allocated funds to unmothball a couple of flightworthy SR-71s in '95. At
least that's what's on the paperwork. There are quite a few of us who
believe that it's a cover for Aurora funding. Remember, that whole line of
a/c are "black budget" and don't exist.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | "What do you want to do tonight,
Brain?"
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | "The same thing we do every night, Pinky,
this space intentionally left blank | try to take over the world!"

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Gian-Paolo regarding SR-71's, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!