From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #367 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 27 July 1995 Volume 05 : Number 367 In this issue: Supersonic Airliners re: RF-4C's last flight Supersonic Airliners (Re:) Re: Supersonic Airliners x-15 Re: Supersonic Airliners (Re:) Re: Supersonic Airliners (Re:) re: RF-4C's last flight Re: Supersonic Airliners (Re:) Re: Supersonic Airliners (Re:) See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Wed, 26 Jul 95 07:49:21 EST Subject: Supersonic Airliners Date: 25 Jul 1995 12:10:30 GMT From: Rick DeNatale Subject: Supersonic airliners (was Re: FESTIP v. X-33 ?) In article <3uvipd$bhg@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>, Michael Carley wrote: > mancus@bnr.ca writes: > >In article <3ur99l$6vo@ping1.ping.be>, Walter.Baeck@ping.be (Walter Baeck) writes: > >> What are the fastest speeds reported so far for aircraft > >> (And: do you have some kind of written source for that ?) > > > The fastest one I'm aware of is the SR-71 Blackbird, which > >cruises around Mach 3. There are several fighters that can reach > >Mach 2.5 or so. The Mig-25 has been clocked at Mach 3.2. > > What about Aurora (always assuming that it does exist)? Allegedly > Mach 5. The X-15 bested Mach 6 on several flights. Flight # Date A/C# Pilot Mach/MPH 45 6Nov61 2 White 6.04/4,093 97 5Dec63 1 Rushworth 6.06/4,018 175 18Nov66 2 Knight 6.33/4,250 188 3Oct67 2 Knight 6.70/4,520 The source of this info is Aerofax Datagraph 2 "North American X-15/X-15A-2" by Ben Guenther, Jay Miller and Terry Panopalis. Note that the mach number is not strictly proportional to speed but depends also on altitude and atmospheric conditions. The last two flights were in the X-15A-2 which was created by modifying the second X-15 after a crash. On repair the aircraft was modified to increase performance. As far as I know flight #188 still holds the unofficial absolute speed record for an airplane. - -- Rick DeNatale Still trying to come up with a really cool Signature ------------------------------ From: Gschaffe@mic01.redstone.army.mil Date: Wed, 26 Jul 95 11:45:13 CDT Subject: re: RF-4C's last flight A couple of weeks ago you discussed deactivation of RF-4Cs and their probably last flights. Well, in a word, Nope! Your F-4s will probably be converted to QF-4s. Conversion is already underway for some of their sister aircraft from the "boneyard" (boy, do some of the people at Davis-Monthan dislike that word!). TRACOR Flight Systems of Mojave is the contractor for droning them, so they will likely overfly or skirt Edwards AFB on the way in from Tucson and on the way out again to Tyndall AFB. Shed no tears. They will be well treated until the end. Most likely they will fly for a couple more years before ending their careers in a blaze of glory at the hands of an advanced AMRAAM, AIM-9X, Patriot follow-on, or a current missile which the Air Force needs to verify that it still works right. If the F-4 gets lucky, it may outmaneuver a dozen or so test missiles (no warheads) before one gets a solid direct hit. We in the Targets business hate to lose good airplanes. The trashy ones get splashed first. So keep up the maintenance, and we'll fly them as long as we can! Too bad they have to go, but it's for a much better cause than getting the scrap-man's axe. Best wishes. Glenn Schaffer Army Targets Management Office Redstone Arsenal, AL ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 95 13:07:03 EDT Subject: Supersonic Airliners (Re:) Rick DeNatale writes: > > The X-15 bested Mach 6 on several flights. > > > Flight # Date A/C# Pilot Mach/MPH > 45 6Nov61 2 White 6.04/4,093 > 97 5Dec63 1 Rushworth 6.06/4,018 > 175 18Nov66 2 Knight 6.33/4,250 > 188 3Oct67 2 Knight 6.70/4,520 > > The source of this info is Aerofax Datagraph 2 "North American X-15/X-15A-2" > by Ben Guenther, Jay Miller and Terry Panopalis. > > Note that the mach number is not strictly proportional to speed but > depends also on altitude and atmospheric conditions. > > The last two flights were in the X-15A-2 which was created by modifying > the second X-15 after a crash. On repair the aircraft was modified to > increase performance. > > As far as I know flight #188 still holds the unofficial absolute speed > record for an airplane. What sort of propulsion system did this aircraft have? Because the designation had an 'X', does this mean it was purely experimental? Has anything ever become of this plane? (meaning, something out of a prototype stage) And the most important question: If the technology for a mach 6 aircraft was available 30+ years ago, why aren't there more today? Maybe there are, huh? :) - -- A hundred years from now, it will not matter what kind of house I live in, how much is in my bank account, or what kind of car I drive, but the world may be a different place because I was important in the life of a child. Douglas J. Tiffany dougt@u011.oh.vp.com Varco-Pruden Buildings Van Wert, Ohio ------------------------------ From: William Carroll Date: Wed, 26 Jul 95 13:28:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Supersonic Airliners > > > mancus@bnr.ca writes: > > >Walter.Baeck@ping.be (Walter Baeck) writes: > > >> What are the fastest speeds reported so far for aircraft > > >> (And: do you have some kind of written source for that ?) > > > > > The fastest one I'm aware of is the SR-71 Blackbird, which > > >cruises around Mach 3. There are several fighters that can reach > > >Mach 2.5 or so. The Mig-25 has been clocked at Mach 3.2. > > The X-15 bested Mach 6 on several flights. > > As far as I know flight #188 still holds the unofficial absolute speed > record for an airplane. I suppose that depends on how you define airplane. My recollection from an article many years ago is that the international organization that ordains these records requires that the airplane to be the same at touchdown as at takeoff. That is, the X-15 doesn't qualify because it gets dropped from a mothership. The space shuttle doesn't count because it sheds boosters on takeoff. The SR-71 holds the "airplane" flight speed record because the only thing lost between takeoff and landing is the fuel. Corrections? Clarifications? Is my memory completely shot? - -- William R. Carroll wcarroll@encore.com Have an out of car experience. Walk and bike, feel the wind, meet friends, see wildlife, and be part of nature. Cycling in South FL? CycleMobility can help. cycle@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us ------------------------------ From: "I am the NRA." Date: Wed, 26 Jul 95 10:44:22 PDT Subject: x-15 >> The X-15 bested Mach 6 on several flights. >What sort of propulsion system did this aircraft have? Pure rocket. >Because the designation had an 'X', does this mean it was purely experimental? [Boy Do I Feel OLDE. I can rememebr the X-15....] yep. Tho long lived. >Has anything ever become of this plane? (meaning, something out of a >prototype stage) Nothing direct. Tho i have often thought that the cockpit/nose/fuselage looked a LOT like that of the SR71... Any professional or amateur aerodynamicists care to comment? Is this my amateur eye playing tricks? >And the most important question: >If the technology for a mach 6 aircraft was available 30+ years ago, why aren't >there more today? It was available on a pure rocket, dash for 5 minutes (or less) basis. Beyond research (which is a valid persuit), it was useless. Oh. And it was only air launched. Needed a carrier plane to get to start point. ------------------------------ From: Michael P Beede Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 13:39:54 -0500 Subject: Re: Supersonic Airliners (Re:) > What sort of propulsion system did this aircraft have? Liquid oxygen/ammonia rocket motor. 50,000 lb. (or something like that) thrust. Unique for the time because it was throttlable, though that was always a weak feature (sometimes the fire would go out on throttle reduction). > Because the designation had an 'X', does this mean it was purely > experimental? Yes. > Has anything ever become of this plane? (meaning, something out of > a prototype stage) No. It was a pure research project with no intent to go on to production. There are two of the three left in museums. One at the Smithsonian and the other somewhere else (as he demonstrates his massive memory). > And the most important question: > If the technology for a mach 6 aircraft was available 30+ years ago, > why aren't there more today? My understanding from reading Milt Thompsen's book (recommending on this list a month or so ago--and it was very good) was that a great deal of useful information on hypersonic flight was gathered from the X-15 program. It was used to validate and refine the models that the aerodynamics dudes had for hypersonic aircraft. > Maybe there are, huh? :) It sounds as if an X-15 launch would be pretty hard to cover up. They were air-dropped from a B-52 and the typical mission covered on the order of 400 miles (horizontally) and 20-80 miles (vertically). The photos show a pretty nice contrail from the rocket motor. The 30 to 60 degree climb would probably be easy to notice.... Mike ------------------------------ From: Tim Ottinger Date: Wed, 26 Jul 95 16:10:35 CDT Subject: Re: Supersonic Airliners (Re:) :No. It was a pure research project with no intent to go on to :production. There are two of the three left in museums. One at the :Smithsonian and the other somewhere else (as he demonstrates his :massive memory). Air Force Museum at Dayton, OH. Seen' em both. (nyahh) ;-) - -- Tim - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | You aren't an expert until you've done the work. | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Tim Ottinger tottinge@csci.csc.com (217)351-8508x2420 | | CSC CIS Champaign, IL - The Silicon Prairie " -7420(fax) | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: (SSG, ANTHONY, MAA, 565) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 95 15:54:09 PDT Subject: re: RF-4C's last flight Glenn, Thanks for the ray of hope, but to our knowledge none of the RF-4C's we are currently sending in are slated for droning. They have the current mod's and are to be mothballed. There are only a couple that we recently turned in (within a few years) that will even though they have the digital INS ("NWDS"). As far as we know, you will probably not see any of the planes we are still flying. Anything to add, Bryce? Tony ------------------------------ From: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 14:30:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Supersonic Airliners (Re:) I'm completely stunned that someone with an interest in aircraft hasn't heard of the X-15. Next to the X-1 it is *the* most famous X plane. Once upon a time Doug Tiffany shaped the electrons to say... >What sort of propulsion system did this aircraft have? Originally two of the rocket systems from the X-1, later the XLR-99 single chamber rocket. >Because the designation had an 'X', does this mean it was purely >experimental? Yes, it was a very successful research aircraft. 3 were built. Thye were air-launched from the NB-52 that NASA still uses. The Pegasus launch vehicle uses the same pylon that carried the X-15. >Has anything ever become of this plane? (meaning, something out of > a prototype stage) No, it was a test program only, purely for research. >why aren't there more today? Because it was a rocket plane that needed ablative coatings to make that speed without melting. It was a single seat aircraft that had a very limited burn time on the rocket - hence the air launch to start at altitude. It was nothing like the technology needed for a servicable aircraft capable of sustained Mach 6 flight. I *strongly* suggest reading some books on the X-planes, Jay Miller's "X-Planes" is the best I've seen. - -- megazone@world.std.com (508) 752-2164 MegaZone's Waste Of Time Moderator: anime fanfic archive, ftp.std.com /archives/anime-fan-works; rec.arts.anime.stories - Maintainer: Ani Difranco Mailing List - Mail to majordomo@world.std.com with 'subscribe ani-difranco' in the body. ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 19:16:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Supersonic Airliners (Re:) I used to go down to the main hangar and look at all three of them. (I told you guys I was old....) Mary PS. They're repainting the mockup that lives on the plinth out in front of Dryden. Right now it's a lovely primer grey. MFS Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Wed, 26 Jul 1995, Tim Ottinger wrote: > :No. It was a pure research project with no intent to go on to > :production. There are two of the three left in museums. One at the > :Smithsonian and the other somewhere else (as he demonstrates his > :massive memory). > > Air Force Museum at Dayton, OH. Seen' em both. (nyahh) ;-) > > -- > Tim > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > | You aren't an expert until you've done the work. | > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > | Tim Ottinger tottinge@csci.csc.com (217)351-8508x2420 | > | CSC CIS Champaign, IL - The Silicon Prairie " -7420(fax) | > +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #367 ********************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.edu". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.edu A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from mail.orst.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).