SA-214, the Last Cluster Booster

"Ed Kyle" wrote:
Maybe that is why R-7 has been successful. There seems to be a
place for "low-tech" ruggedness. The USAF is still flying B-52s
of the same vintage as the early R-7s, after all (and could keep them
flying for decades more if needed).

Of course, very little beyond the serial number plate is left in the
aircraft that dates from the vintage of the early R-7.

B-52Hs are still powered by the same engines that pushed DC-8s and 707s
around - engines that themselves weren't far removed from the J57s that
might be considered the V-2 engines of the jet age.

One finds it hard to believe the engines are exactly the same, and
that no improvements in wiring, bearings, seals, etc... etc... have
been made over the last forty years. (Model numbers of military
equipment that aren't in the MK/MOD system are misleading - it's the
drawing number and/or FSN that tells the truth.)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 07:02:04 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

One finds it hard to believe the engines are exactly the same, and
that no improvements in wiring, bearings, seals, etc... etc... have
been made over the last forty years.

....There's been some reliability and efficiency improvements, but the
basic engine design is pretty much the same.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Ed Kyle wrote:
I've posted a rarely seen photo of the last Saturn IB booster stage,
built for
the SA-214 vehicle, at the following address.

"http://geocities.com/launchreport/sa214.html"

Today, with the agency scrambling to develop a new Saturn IB class
Crew Launch Vehicle, it almost hurts to view this photograph of one of
three powerful booster stages that NASA saw fit, in another time, to
scrap.

- Ed Kyle

I've been doing some additional searching for photos of the
SA-213 booster, or more of the SA-214 booster. Absolutely
nothing has popped up on any of my web searches. They're
*have* to be photos out there somewhere, so I'll keep looking.
But I suspect that any photos that might exist reside in musty
file cabinets somewhere.

- Ed Kyle

Damon Hill wrote:

"Ed Kyle" wrote in
news:1135750019.850307.129440 @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


Pat Flannery wrote:


Yeah, it was a resounding success...but jeeze, those engines are
about 1/2 step forward from a V-2's.


Maybe that is why R-7 has been successful. There seems to be a
place for "low-tech" ruggedness. The USAF is still flying B-52s
of the same vintage as the early R-7s, after all (and could keep
them
flying for decades more if needed). B-52Hs are still powered by
the same engines that pushed DC-8s and 707s around - engines that
themselves weren't far removed from the J57s that might be
considered the V-2 engines of the jet age.

The J57's more like the MA-3. (Atlas booster/sustainer) A solid,
dependable system that matched every performance demand placed on it
for far longer than it was ever intended to.

Though it does appear that both are going to be re-engined
with more modern (and efficient) designs. Don't know about the
B-52s engines, but the ol' R-7's are kinda interesting and
nearly unique, being spun up with hydrogen peroxide instead
of a 'hot' gas generator. The 'staged combustion' HTP/kero
engines that the Black Knight/Arrow? used were interesting, too.
Not really high performance, but good enough in subtle ways
to do the job.

Nobody's been able to come up with an program that makes re-engineing
B-52s worthwhile. When the Air Force bought its TF-33s, they were
expecting them to last 2,000 Hrs. (About 5-10 years of B-52
non-combat flying, depending on how much Ground Alert you're pulling)
so they bought a Pferdemerde (The Metric ****load, the SI value for
paperwork and logistics) of engines. Then, as airline experience
increased, the TBO got extended - to something like 20,000 Hrs +.
They've got stacks of those things new in the can out in the Desert
that are miles long, that they haven't even opened yet. With so few
airplanes in service (It's around 600 engines, these days) they could
probably fly them as-is until 2100 without needing new engines.
No matter how much fuel you save, (The damned thing flies halfway
around the world already - economy really isn't an issue.) you're
just not going to beat that in overall cost.

--
Pete Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee.

Pat Flannery wrote:



gb wrote:

You will not hear such claims.
Another 1970s Rockwell design shelved under Carter Admin (good
decision) and resurrected in 1980s by Reagan Admin (bad decision).

B-1B is not my favorite USAF aircraft (cousin died in 1990s South
Dakota crash).



Their aircrew at Grand Forks AFB hated them; the drag and disturbed
airflow of the externally mounted ALCMs meant that during landing
approach the approach speed and stall speed were very close
together.

Uhm, Pat? The B-1 never, ever carried the external ALCMs for real.
That capability was dropped as part of START, and the hard points were
welded over. The Soviets/Russians would and do come by every few
years to make sure that they still don't carry 'em.

--
Pete Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee.

Peter Stickney wrote:

Uhm, Pat? The B-1 never, ever carried the external ALCMs for real.
That capability was dropped as part of START, and the hard points were
welded over. The Soviets/Russians would and do come by every few
years to make sure that they still don't carry 'em.


Hmmm...did that guy in the hobby shop lie to me? =-O
Did some of the crews fly it pre-START in a non-operational test and
familiarization form?

Pat

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:56:34 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Peter Stickney wrote:

Uhm, Pat? The B-1 never, ever carried the external ALCMs for real.
That capability was dropped as part of START, and the hard points were
welded over. The Soviets/Russians would and do come by every few
years to make sure that they still don't carry 'em.

Hmmm...did that guy in the hobby shop lie to me? =-O
Did some of the crews fly it pre-START in a non-operational test and
familiarization form?

....I don't think he did, Pat. IIRC, according to an old friend of the
family who was an Air Farce colonel who worked on the logistics of the
B1 program, the first bunch of B1-As had the hardpoints, but when they
were converted to the B variant they were welded over. Those produced
as B1-Bs from the start didn't have them, period.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Peter Stickney wrote:

Uhm, Pat? The B-1 never, ever carried the external ALCMs for real.
That capability was dropped as part of START, and the hard points were
welded over. The Soviets/Russians would and do come by every few
years to make sure that they still don't carry 'em.

It's scary where the Soviets/Russians can go... When they visit
Bangor they carry a stick whose length equals the diameter of a
Trident missile (-I in my day, -II now I suppose), if they find a door
wider than the stick, they can legally demand entrance.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 06:10:19 GMT, (Derek Lyons) wrote:

It's scary where the Soviets/Russians can go... When they visit
Bangor they carry a stick whose length equals the diameter of a
Trident missile (-I in my day, -II now I suppose), if they find a door
wider than the stick, they can legally demand entrance.

Why is that "scary"?

Dale

"Dale" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 06:10:19 GMT, (Derek Lyons) wrote:

It's scary where the Soviets/Russians can go... When they visit
Bangor they carry a stick whose length equals the diameter of a
Trident missile (-I in my day, -II now I suppose), if they find a door
wider than the stick, they can legally demand entrance.

Why is that "scary"?

Well, see with the fact that Americans are getting fatter, they're needing
to make the doors to the bathrooms wider and.. well, it's not a pretty
picture.

Seriously though I'm sure we do something similar when we visit them.



Dale