|
You can't talk about the SR-71 without talking about Bill Weaver's account of high altitude breakup of an early SR-71. I especially like the part where he goes: quote:I have vivid memories of that helicopter flight, as well. I didn't know much about rotorcraft, but I knew a lot about "red lines," and Mitchell kept the airspeed at or above red line all the way.
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
"The SR-71 had a turning radius of about 100 mi. at that speed and altitude, so I wasn't even sure what state we were going to land in." That is mind boggling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 19:11
|
|
|
How loud would the sonic boom from the SR-71 be from 80,000 to someone on the ground? I used to camp a lot with the Boy Scouts deep in the mountains of Colorado between 1996 and 1999. On several occasions, at least 3 specifically I can remember we heard sonic booms. I know they were sonic booms and not something else because I've heard sonic booms at air shows. We'd be out in the middle of nowhere hiking and we'd hear one. We'd always look up trying to spot the contrail but never could. I used to think it was just F-15 or F-16 pilots having fun, but after reading so much about the SR-71 and the reactivation during the 90's I'm starting to wonder if maybe I've heard this plane. Their training routes took them from Wyoming to New Mexico straight over the Rockies. It would surely be awesome to have been personally affected by such a thing. Doing a little research for this post just sent chills down my spine. Back in 1997 when the A-10 that crashed in the Rocky Mountains near Vail, the Air Force apparently sent an SR-71 to take pictures to try and find the wreckage. Not only do I specifically remember all the news reports on the A-10 crash, but we went camping that coming weekend. My most vivid memory of hearing a sonic boom comes from that campout. All I remember is looking up through the trees trying to spot something and then my dad saying "probably the Air Force looking for that crashed A-10." That's enough for me. Suck that suckas I heard an SR-71!
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 19:14
|
|
|
ab0z posted:"The SR-71 had a turning radius of about 100 mi. at that speed and altitude, so I wasn't even sure what state we were going to land in." The SR-71's pilot manual actually included charts for turn time/distance at various groundspeeds due to the amount of real estate the aircraft chewed up doing anything at cruise speed. For example, it says that a 180 degree turn at Mach 3 (flown at a 30 degree bank angle) would require just over 8 minutes to complete, and the aircraft would cover 235 miles while doing so. Also, the pilots manual for the SR-71 is available for free online here, and it's pretty interesting. http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/ There's some redacted sections pertaining to the cameras and radar systems (although that information is now publicly available), but otherwise there's everything you'd ever want to know about an SR-71 in there. azflyboy fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Mar 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 19:21
|
|
|
jandrese posted:You can't talk about the SR-71 without talking about Bill Weaver's account of high altitude breakup of an early SR-71. Holy gently caress. Just got done reading that and that man is King brass balls to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 19:42
|
|
|
Phy posted:Postin' a link to Dos Gringos, a band composed of a couple of F-16 pilots. poo poo's hilarious. This isn't getting enough love, poo poo IS hilarious: I wish I had the gas just like a mudhen To hang around that long is just a sin And while you RTB and scoff I'm doing loops and jackin' off I wish I had the gas just like a mudhen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=335GdTqtyLs
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 20:25
|
|
|
ursa_minor posted:An-2 Colt Holy cow! How is this possible? Does being a biplane generate that much extra lift? The An-72. Like most Soviet era cargo planes, it was built with a eye to being able to use primitive airfields. So the engines were mounted extra high to keep from sucking in dust and debris. In Russia, it's been nicknamed 'Cheburashka' which is apparently the name of a animated bunny with oversize ears.    
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 20:55
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Holy cow! The second wing adds quite a bit of lift, and the aircraft is also fitted with large flaps and drooping ailerons (which droop down when flaps are extended) as well as slats that automatically pop out from the leading edge of the wing at low speeds to add even more lift.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 21:05
|
|
|
e-^^^ The C-5 operates on the same principlesVitamin J posted:SR-71 camp out This is right in the wheelhouse of the Aurora project being restarted IIRC, so you "may" have heard an even faster plane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 21:20
|
|
|
That An-2 procedure is amazing, a real treat of a fun fact. I suppose it "doesn't stall" when the pilot pulls the stick fully back because one of the wings stall before the other, moves the center of lift back and causes the nose to pitch down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 21:21
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:e-^^^ The C-5 operates on the same principles "Aurora" was the code name for the fly-off competition between what became the B-2 and the Lockheed competitor. All that stuff about hypersonic spaceplanes and weird triangular aircraft was likely to be someone seeing an SR-71 or F-117, if not just an outright lie. VVVVV Yea, that's what I said. Anything black and going at ridiculous speeds was probably an SR-71, and anything black and triangular was an F-117. Or it could have actually been the "Aurora", considering what the B-2 looks like (and how similar the Lockheed prototype was). Either way, it wasn't a hypersonic hydrogen-fueled scramjet spaceplane. orange lime fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Mar 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 21:57
|
|
|
I always thought that the "weird triangular aircraft" that the  types harped on about were sightings of the F117 before it became public knowledge. It's not like conspiracy nuts have ever been able to stop beating dead horses before, why should they stop just because the facts get in the way?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 22:16
|
|
|
Does anyone know if there are any editions of Sled Driver that don't cost a shitload? The current edition is going for ~$400.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 22:19
|
|
|
amtrak450 posted:Does anyone know if there are any editions of Sled Driver that don't cost a shitload? The current edition is going for ~$400. You might be able to find a couple of used earlier editions on Amazon or eBay, but they'll still be at least a hundred bucks or so. If you've got the scratch, this book is well worth the money. Also, I'd recommend "The Untouchables" by the same author, Brian Shul. EDIT: azflyboy, I have something you might be interested in - do you check the email in your profile? MrChips fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Mar 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 22:34
|
|
|
amtrak450 posted:Does anyone know if there are any editions of Sled Driver that don't cost a shitload? The current edition is going for ~$400. Why the hell is this book not being re-released? Obviously the demand is there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 22:55
|
|
|
amtrak450 posted:Does anyone know if there are any editions of Sled Driver that don't cost a shitload? The current edition is going for ~$400. The library?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 23:19
|
|
|
This is pretty metal if it's real. I'm a Rotorcraft CFII and you couldn't pay me enough money to fly this. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c02_1268850857
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 04:27
|
|
|
OptimusMatrix posted:This is pretty metal if it's real. I'm a Rotorcraft CFII and you couldn't pay me enough money to fly this. That looks like it was built exclusively from things available at hobby lobby.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 04:42
|
|
|
The same idea, scaled up a bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9633v6U0wo 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 04:52
|
|
|
You call that madness? I got one better. Remember our old friend, the Convair XFY-1 Pogo? Take that propeller, move it to the center of the fuselage, make it the length (and take the place) of the wings, spin with rockets and ramjets and you've got yourself the Focke-Wulf Triebflügel, one of the many lunatic designs to come out of Nazi Germany during the end phases of the war. This one never even made it to the prototype phase, but just the concept of it is pure Nazi engineer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 05:13
|
|
|
MrChips posted:You might be able to find a couple of used earlier editions on Amazon or eBay, but they'll still be at least a hundred bucks or so. If you've got the scratch, this book is well worth the money. Also, I'd recommend "The Untouchables" by the same author, Brian Shul. I do use that address, but I don't know if the email function on SA is working. My email address is dsflyboy AT earthlink.net
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 08:58
|
|
|
ab0z posted:That looks like it was built exclusively from things available at hobby lobby. Christ, it's real I think. http://www.diseno-art.com/encyclopedia/strange_vehicles/swisscopter_dragonfly.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 09:10
|
|
|
OptimusMatrix posted:This is pretty metal if it's real. I'm a Rotorcraft CFII and you couldn't pay me enough money to fly this. Tip-jet powered rotorcraft are actually easier to fly than conventional helicopters - they don't need a tail rotor because it's not making mechanical torque (the rotor is free-wheeling), and they have a quicker response to control input There is one concept that is much more sustainable than jet engines and rockets in the tips - compressed air. Basically, the engine runs a powerful compressor, which pumps air down each blade where it exits out of a nozzle in the tip. Way more simple and much safer than pumping fuel through the rotor blades. Having actual jet engines on the tips make it easier to auto-rotate though - the higher moment of inertia gives the rotor way more momentum.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 09:48
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Having actual jet engines on the tips make it easier to auto-rotate though - the higher moment of inertia gives the rotor way more momentum. Couldn't you just do the same thing with a compressed-air copter using a weight on the end of each rotor? You could maybe even have them mounted inboard normally on a catch, with an emergency system to release them and fling them outwards on rails to increase the inertia in case of engine failure. I've wanted one of those little 1 or 2 seat ultralight helicopters since I saw them in the back of Popular Science as a kid, but I can't imagine that they'd be anything like safe. Zero pilot protection, rotor directly above your head, inability to bail out in an emergency. Basically all they have going for them is the autorotation and low CG.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 10:19
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Zero pilot protection, rotor directly above your head, inability to bail out in an emergency. Basically all they have going for them is the autorotation and low CG. The rotor's not all that dangerous, if it snaps it'll just fly away at a tangent to its rotation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 11:21
|
|
|
Manny posted:The same idea, scaled up a bit: The same idea, scaled up a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvCMrt1JPwo After all the cutesy bits, at 2:00. Only video I could find.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 11:37
|
|
|
meltie posted:Christ, it's real I think. quote:While it might seem at first that this is some sort of cobbled together widow-maker, it is in fact a fully certified and sanctified machine which is approved by the FAA Actually that's pretty much what came to mind immediately
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 14:36
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Couldn't you just do the same thing with a compressed-air copter using a weight on the end of each rotor? You could maybe even have them mounted inboard normally on a catch, with an emergency system to release them and fling them outwards on rails to increase the inertia in case of engine failure. Things that make a helicopter easier to autorotate make it harder to fly normally, because of the higher moment of inertia. Half of the idea of the tip-jet is to be easier to fly (the other half being mechanically simpler). Your sliding weight thing is REALLY complicated from an engineering standpoint as well. Lots of stress involved that has to be accounted for, and got help you if one weight doesn't deploy correctly. It's a bad idea for an emergency system to easily create an even worse emergency. A simple compressed air tip-jet may be harder to autorotate, but it ain't exactly impossible, so it's not like it's a worrisome issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 15:59
|
|
|
Just looking at the controls on that thing makes my arm tired. The foot pedals are fine, but having to pull down on a bar to manage the cyclic sounds like a unfun way to fly. Would it have really been that difficult to make it a lever like every other helicopter? Requiring your pilot to hold his arm out in front of him for a long time is not good ergonomics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 16:15
|
|
|
NOTAR designs for helicopters are pretty cool even if they're just the MD compressed air type tail rotor. Way safer, and maybe more reliable? At least less vulnerable to bird/wire/tree strikes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 16:30
|
|
|
jandrese posted:Just looking at the controls on that thing makes my arm tired. The foot pedals are fine, but having to pull down on a bar to manage the cyclic sounds like a unfun way to fly. Would it have really been that difficult to make it a lever like every other helicopter? Requiring your pilot to hold his arm out in front of him for a long time is not good ergonomics. Er..... Cuz we don't do that all the time in cars? Or in planes that use a yoke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 16:36
|
|
|
It looks like you have to pull down constantly on it though, you can't just rest your arm on the control like you can by gripping a wheel or a yoke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 16:50
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:The rotor's not all that dangerous, if it snaps it'll just fly away at a tangent to its rotation. Then You Die.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 21:54
|
|
|
buttcrackmenace posted:Then You Die. Yeah if you lose a rotor is really doesn't matter what you do at that point, you're done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2010 01:36
|
|
|
i love how each time we do an aviation thread it usually dissolves into banter about the sr71 and or the f14.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2010 01:54
|
|
|
jandrese posted:You can't talk about the SR-71 without talking about Bill Weaver's account of high altitude breakup of an early SR-71. Christ this guy is a lucky motherfucker.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2010 01:55
|
|
|
FullMetalJacket posted:i love how each time we do an aviation thread it usually dissolves into banter about the sr71 and or the f14. There's a surprising lack of A-10s so far. I would have expected at least 3 pages worth by now but I think it got maybe 2 mentions so far.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2010 01:58
|
|
|
Buhbuhj posted:There's a surprising lack of A-10s so far. I would have expected at least 3 pages worth by now but I think it got maybe 2 mentions so far. yeah, nobody bothers to post photos from x-country's and it's like the AME crowd is either afraid of posting stories, or is still stuck at the hangar dealing with their apprentices! i tell you whut, when i start working at am AMO I'm going to take pictures of almost everythin' i also think it has to do with the fact that air planes are expensive and less accessible then cars are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2010 02:04
|
|
|
FullMetalJacket posted:i love how each time we do an aviation thread it usually dissolves into banter about the sr71 and or the f14. I think we've done well to keep it fairly diverse so far.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2010 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
Buhbuhj posted:There's a surprising lack of A-10s so far. I would have expected at least 3 pages worth by now but I think it got maybe 2 mentions so far. I don't understand why we can't just build more A-10s. They are tough, cheap, perfect at their role.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2010 03:14
|
|
