|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
F-104 to launch tiny satellites
"Rocket booster with a man in it"?
The idea of using jet fighters for launching small satellites was first played around with in the 1960's, but it looks like someone is going to take another crack at it: http://www.nasahackspace.org/2011/05..._launch_s.html Pat |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
F-104 to launch tiny satellites
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 12:54:30 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote: "Rocket booster with a man in it"? The idea of using jet fighters for launching small satellites was first played around with in the 1960's, but it looks like someone is going to take another crack at it: http://www.nasahackspace.org/2011/05..._launch_s.html F-104 is still one of my all time favorite aircraft. All-round crappy aircraft, successful only because of Lockheed bribes, but what a beautiful machine! Brian |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
F-104 to launch tiny satellites
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 02:19:37 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote: "Rocket booster with a man in it"? The idea of using jet fighters for launching small satellites was first played around with in the 1960's 1958, Project Pilot (launched from F4D "Ford" Skyrays.) Brian |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
F-104 to launch tiny satellites
In article
tatelephone, Pat Flannery wrote: On 6/2/2011 2:20 PM, Brian Thorn wrote: On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 12:54:30 -0400, Jeff Findley wrote: "Rocket booster with a man in it"? The idea of using jet fighters for launching small satellites was first played around with in the 1960's, but it looks like someone is going to take another crack at it: http://www.nasahackspace.org/2011/05..._launch_s.html F-104 is still one of my all time favorite aircraft. All-round crappy aircraft, successful only because of Lockheed bribes, but what a beautiful machine! I said I didn't think it was that hot of a fighter on another newsgroup and a former Starfighter pilot nearly bit my head off. If nothing else, it certainly wasn't the safest thing that ever flew; loss rates among all the nations that flew it were consistently right around 30%, with the Canadian Air Force being the worst at over 50%. One problem it had was that if you threw it into a abrupt climb the aircraft could break up (horizontal tail fin going into the turbulent air behind the stalled wing and losing control authority?). That's not something you want in an aircraft that may get into a dogfight, much less for an aircraft that may do low-level bombing runs that may require abrupt climbs to avoid striking terrain. The Jordanian Air Force came up with a clever us for theirs; the parked them at a decoy airfield and just left them there, unflown. Oddball bit of trivia - Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who was one of the major figures in the bribery scandal regarding their sale by Lockheed, was the founder of the Bilderbergers, on every conspiracy theorist's list of favorite secret societies. Pat A friend of mine had just visited NAS Miramar, with a friend in a B-model (2-seats). On climbout, through the marine deck, the engine shelled out. He turned around and made a deadstick landing back at Miramar. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
F-104 to launch tiny satellites
On 6/2/2011 2:20 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 12:54:30 -0400, Jeff Findley wrote: "Rocket booster with a man in it"? The idea of using jet fighters for launching small satellites was first played around with in the 1960's, but it looks like someone is going to take another crack at it: http://www.nasahackspace.org/2011/05..._launch_s.html F-104 is still one of my all time favorite aircraft. All-round crappy aircraft, successful only because of Lockheed bribes, but what a beautiful machine! I said I didn't think it was that hot of a fighter on another newsgroup and a former Starfighter pilot nearly bit my head off. If nothing else, it certainly wasn't the safest thing that ever flew; loss rates among all the nations that flew it were consistently right around 30%, with the Canadian Air Force being the worst at over 50%. One problem it had was that if you threw it into a abrupt climb the aircraft could break up (horizontal tail fin going into the turbulent air behind the stalled wing and losing control authority?). That's not something you want in an aircraft that may get into a dogfight, much less for an aircraft that may do low-level bombing runs that may require abrupt climbs to avoid striking terrain. The Jordanian Air Force came up with a clever us for theirs; the parked them at a decoy airfield and just left them there, unflown. Oddball bit of trivia - Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who was one of the major figures in the bribery scandal regarding their sale by Lockheed, was the founder of the Bilderbergers, on every conspiracy theorist's list of favorite secret societies. Pat |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
F-104 to launch tiny satellites
On 6/2/2011 2:23 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 02:19:37 -0800, Pat wrote: "Rocket booster with a man in it"? The idea of using jet fighters for launching small satellites was first played around with in the 1960's 1958, Project Pilot (launched from F4D "Ford" Skyrays. Here's some info on the launches, one of which the Navy claimed got into orbit: http://www.designation-systems.net/d...4/notsnik.html There was also Caleb: http://www.designation-systems.net/d...pp4/caleb.html Pat |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
F-104 to launch tiny satellites
On 6/2/2011 7:50 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
A friend of mine had just visited NAS Miramar, with a friend in a B-model (2-seats). On climbout, through the marine deck, the engine shelled out. He turned around and made a deadstick landing back at Miramar. With those dinky wings, doing a deadstick landing in one must have been a lot of fun, like bringing a X-15 in. You had better hope you have your glide slope just right. The J79 engine had loads of power for its weight, but being tough wasn't one of its atributes by a long shot. I knew a guy who did maintenance on them in the Air Force, and he said they were a royal pain to work on because of their very lightweight construction and high tolerances. If you didn't support the engine very carefully during ground work, you could bend it enough to ruin it. Pat |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
F-104 to launch tiny satellites
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message news:q-ydnReK-
hdakotatelephone... On 6/2/2011 2:23 PM, Brian Thorn wrote: On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 02:19:37 -0800, Pat wrote: "Rocket booster with a man in it"? The idea of using jet fighters for launching small satellites was first played around with in the 1960's 1958, Project Pilot (launched from F4D "Ford" Skyrays. Here's some info on the launches, one of which the Navy claimed got into orbit: http://www.designation-systems.net/d...4/notsnik.html There was also Caleb: http://www.designation-systems.net/d...pp4/caleb.html http://www.designation-systems.net/d...pyewacket.html Interesting site. I'm wondering if the Pye Wacket could have been the source of 'Flying Saucer' sightings.... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
F-104 to launch tiny satellites
In article Dv2dnX3
hdakotatelephone, says... On 6/2/2011 2:20 PM, Brian Thorn wrote: On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 12:54:30 -0400, Jeff Findley wrote: "Rocket booster with a man in it"? The idea of using jet fighters for launching small satellites was first played around with in the 1960's, but it looks like someone is going to take another crack at it: http://www.nasahackspace.org/2011/05..._launch_s.html F-104 is still one of my all time favorite aircraft. All-round crappy aircraft, successful only because of Lockheed bribes, but what a beautiful machine! I said I didn't think it was that hot of a fighter on another newsgroup and a former Starfighter pilot nearly bit my head off. It's an awesome aircraft, if you know its limitations. Unfortunately, it took quite some time to find all of these. If nothing else, it certainly wasn't the safest thing that ever flew; loss rates among all the nations that flew it were consistently right around 30%, with the Canadian Air Force being the worst at over 50%. One problem it had was that if you threw it into a abrupt climb the aircraft could break up (horizontal tail fin going into the turbulent air behind the stalled wing and losing control authority?). That's not something you want in an aircraft that may get into a dogfight, much less for an aircraft that may do low-level bombing runs that may require abrupt climbs to avoid striking terrain. Yes, it earned the nickname, "The Widowmaker" for a reason. From what I understand, it had a tendency to pitch up at high angles of attack and enter an unrecoverable flat spin. The only way out of the flat spin was to eject and unfortunately, the e-seats of the time weren't terribly great, so survival wasn't a given. So yea, this flaw made for a not so great "fighter", but was still a hell of an aircraft for research. Jeff -- " Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/2011 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
More LEO satellites for less total launch cost | gudi | Technology | 4 | June 22nd 11 03:07 PM |
Astronomers find tiny planet orbiting tiny star (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 1 | June 4th 08 03:41 AM |
Astronomers find tiny planet orbiting tiny star (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee[_1_] | News | 0 | June 3rd 08 11:16 PM |
Last GPS IIR-M satellites being readied for launch (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee[_1_] | News | 0 | January 20th 08 01:08 AM |