F-14 being destroyed instead of...

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
And this is worse than having a birth right President... how, exactly?
:-)

Hillary hasn't been elected, yet.

Queen Hillary, you have to get the terminology right, I know it's been a
long time since we Americans have used the term. Queen Hillary, and her
seven year campaign is doing quite well, and all the Republicans seem to be
working really hard at *not* getting elected. If the Media get's their way,
it looks like like it will be either Queen Hillary or Obama. I'm betting on
Queen Hillary and the billions dollars already spent by the Media on here
campaign. Obama is really there just to make it look like a proper horse
race.

I don't think she really would meet the definition of "birth right" here.
Chelsea maybe.

Princess Chelsea, when she turns 35 years old.

Of course the media is promoting a party of one, paging Ross Perot your
table is ready. Ops, sorry Ross we gave away your table to Sir Bloomberg.

On Jul 8, 11:02 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Hyper wrote:
$1K won't cover the expense.
On the other hand, in Russia you could (can?) get a ride in a Mig31
for $15K. You would even get the stick for a couple minutes.

I think that was on a MiG-25, not MiG-31
The guy in the back of a Foxhound can't see forward, and has no ability
to fly the aircraft from his hole.
The MiG-25 trainer has a second seat where the radar used to be, with a
seperate canopy:http://www.aeronautics.ru/mikoyan/mi...g-25pu-002.jpg
But I think the instructor would be crazy to let the tourist fly the
thing, because the aircraft is pretty lightly stressed, so one screw-up
and you're dead.

Pat

I distinctly remember "Mig-31" from a documentary I saw.
Searching the net, I found something: http://www.space-travellers.jp/index...=mig31&subon=6
Note that Mig-25C are also available.

Hyper wrote:
I distinctly remember "Mig-31" from a documentary I saw.
Searching the net, I found something: http://www.space-travellers.jp/index...=mig31&subon=6
Note that Mig-25C are also available.


How exactly you are supposed to "take the stick" and fly it with no view
forward from the weapon officer's position is a bit beyond me, I suspect
something a little crooked is going on here.
For pilot training there is a flip-up mirror array that can be used to
get a forward view from the back seat during takeoff and landing
practice: http://www.aviapedia.com/video/mig-3...nd-video-smotr
I assume the trainee pilot is in the front with the instructor in the
back looking in the mirror.
But I don't think that's anything you want to open at Mach 1 as your
cited article indicates.
Trainee pilots get a year in a simulator prior to taking one up, and
that seems to indicate that you don't want just anybody to grab the
controls on it.
If you are in the front and your pilot in the back, then I can guarantee
you he has some way to override your control inputs from his position.
Particularly if you try to steal the MiG-31 and rendezvous with an
American submarine on the arctic icecap.

Pat

On Jul 9, 9:54 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
snip
If you are in the front and your pilot in the back, then I can guarantee
you he has some way to override your control inputs from his position.
Particularly if you try to steal the MiG-31 and rendezvous with an
American submarine on the arctic icecap.

Niet!
De pylot kontrol de plain wit his mind.
Only a mind of sound origin and properly trained in dialectics can
control such a plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_(film)

On Jul 7, 9:31 pm, "Scott Hedrick" wrote:
"Craig Fink" wrote in message

ink.net...

It's just the Aerospace Engineer in me, but even the F-4 is a beautiful
flying machine. As ugly as it is, it exudes the raw power of it's engines,
a flying brick.

And it *still* beats the hell out of what most of the world's military flys.

After we didn't get a Phase II subcontract for the
RASCAL program, I put together a revised F-14
launch vehicle concept that I felt would have been
quite superior to the one that strictly fitted RASCAL's
"figures of merit." See:

http://www.tour2space.com/archives/f-14lv/f-14-st.htm

This concept would have worked quite well even with
F-14A's. Moreover, we were much more interested in
the basic airfame than in the weapons system
capability of the F-14A/C or D. However, I now feel
that spending several times more on developing our
Space Van 2011 would have a payoff that would be
proportionately much higher.

Len

Len wrote:

On Jul 7, 9:31 pm, "Scott Hedrick" wrote:
"Craig Fink" wrote in message

ink.net...

It's just the Aerospace Engineer in me, but even the F-4 is a beautiful
flying machine. As ugly as it is, it exudes the raw power of it's
engines, a flying brick.

And it *still* beats the hell out of what most of the world's military
flys.

After we didn't get a Phase II subcontract for the
RASCAL program, I put together a revised F-14
launch vehicle concept that I felt would have been
quite superior to the one that strictly fitted RASCAL's
"figures of merit." See:

http://www.tour2space.com/archives/f-14lv/f-14-st.htm

This concept would have worked quite well even with
F-14A's. Moreover, we were much more interested in
the basic airfame than in the weapons system
capability of the F-14A/C or D. However, I now feel
that spending several times more on developing our
Space Van 2011 would have a payoff that would be
proportionately much higher.


No kidding, that would be fun. Me, I'd what to coat all the leading
edge "hot" hot parts with a mix of high temperature RTV and Aerogel filler.
Then add a Fluid Variable Intake, larger exit nozzle, and see if I could
push it into the scramjet region using the now jet fuel/hydrogen/oxygen
powered turbojets. What fun. It only has to get to Mach 5 to do a X-Prize
mission scenario. Anything past that would be gravy as far as an
airbreathing first stage to Mach 5-10 is concerned.

Where is Tomcat? He hasn't been posting lately. He might want to fly it.

It would probably be a good idea to modify the ejection seat (inflatable
stability and heatshield) to survive a Mach 5 entry so Tomcat can fly the
version two when something goes wrong with version one. :-)

What a cheap development platform, who cares if you crash a few.

On Jul 11, 7:39 am, Craig Fink wrote:
Len wrote:
On Jul 7, 9:31 pm, "Scott Hedrick" wrote:
"Craig Fink" wrote in message

hlink.net...

It's just the Aerospace Engineer in me, but even the F-4 is a beautiful
flying machine. As ugly as it is, it exudes the raw power of it's
engines, a flying brick.

And it *still* beats the hell out of what most of the world's military
flys.

After we didn't get a Phase II subcontract for the
RASCAL program, I put together a revised F-14
launch vehicle concept that I felt would have been
quite superior to the one that strictly fitted RASCAL's
"figures of merit." See:

http://www.tour2space.com/archives/f-14lv/f-14-st.htm

This concept would have worked quite well even with
F-14A's. Moreover, we were much more interested in
the basic airfame than in the weapons system
capability of the F-14A/C or D. However, I now feel
that spending several times more on developing our
Space Van 2011 would have a payoff that would be
proportionately much higher.

No kidding, that would be fun. Me, I'd what to coat all the leading
edge "hot" hot parts with a mix of high temperature RTV and Aerogel filler.
Then add a Fluid Variable Intake, larger exit nozzle, and see if I could
push it into the scramjet region using the now jet fuel/hydrogen/oxygen
powered turbojets. What fun. It only has to get to Mach 5 to do a X-Prize
mission scenario. Anything past that would be gravy as far as an
airbreathing first stage to Mach 5-10 is concerned.

Where is Tomcat? He hasn't been posting lately. He might want to fly it.

It would probably be a good idea to modify the ejection seat (inflatable
stability and heatshield) to survive a Mach 5 entry so Tomcat can fly the
version two when something goes wrong with version one. :-)

What a cheap development platform, who cares if you crash a few.

Our RASCAL / F-14 concept got rather complicated
just trying to get to mach 3. Our post-RASCAL
did not stress the F-14 beyond its tested envelope
--except for altitude. Except for the addition
of truncated and rearranged RD-0124 nozzles,
very little modification would have been required.
Adding water injection is an option that offers some
performance improvement, but that may not be
worth the hassle.

Simplicity and minimum modification was the goal
for the post-RASCAL F-14 concept. The upper
stages get a little more complex, in order to avoid
F-14 mods.

Len

On Jul 10, 12:26?pm, Hyper wrote:
On Jul 9, 9:54 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
snip

If you are in the front and your pilot in the back, then I can guarantee
you he has some way to override your control inputs from his position.
Particularly if you try to steal the MiG-31 and rendezvous with an
American submarine on the arctic icecap.

Niet!
De pylot kontrol de plain wit his mind.
Only a mind of sound origin and properly trained in dialectics can
control such a plane.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_(film)

And a mind who thinks in Russian.

Len wrote:

On Jul 11, 7:39 am, Craig Fink wrote:
Len wrote:
On Jul 7, 9:31 pm, "Scott Hedrick" wrote:
"Craig Fink" wrote in message

hlink.net...

It's just the Aerospace Engineer in me, but even the F-4 is a
beautiful flying machine. As ugly as it is, it exudes the raw power
of it's engines, a flying brick.

And it *still* beats the hell out of what most of the world's military
flys.

After we didn't get a Phase II subcontract for the
RASCAL program, I put together a revised F-14
launch vehicle concept that I felt would have been
quite superior to the one that strictly fitted RASCAL's
"figures of merit." See:

http://www.tour2space.com/archives/f-14lv/f-14-st.htm

This concept would have worked quite well even with
F-14A's. Moreover, we were much more interested in
the basic airfame than in the weapons system
capability of the F-14A/C or D. However, I now feel
that spending several times more on developing our
Space Van 2011 would have a payoff that would be
proportionately much higher.

No kidding, that would be fun. Me, I'd what to coat all the leading
edge "hot" hot parts with a mix of high temperature RTV and Aerogel
filler. Then add a Fluid Variable Intake, larger exit nozzle, and see if
I could push it into the scramjet region using the now jet
fuel/hydrogen/oxygen powered turbojets. What fun. It only has to get to
Mach 5 to do a X-Prize mission scenario. Anything past that would be
gravy as far as an airbreathing first stage to Mach 5-10 is concerned.

Where is Tomcat? He hasn't been posting lately. He might want to fly it.

It would probably be a good idea to modify the ejection seat (inflatable
stability and heatshield) to survive a Mach 5 entry so Tomcat can fly the
version two when something goes wrong with version one. :-)

What a cheap development platform, who cares if you crash a few.

Our RASCAL / F-14 concept got rather complicated
just trying to get to mach 3. Our post-RASCAL
did not stress the F-14 beyond its tested envelope
--except for altitude. Except for the addition
of truncated and rearranged RD-0124 nozzles,
very little modification would have been required.
Adding water injection is an option that offers some
performance improvement, but that may not be
worth the hassle.

Simplicity and minimum modification was the goal
for the post-RASCAL F-14 concept. The upper
stages get a little more complex, in order to avoid
F-14 mods.

To me it seems any improvement by adding water injection in the traditional
sense would be very limited. Adding water into the combustor of the jet
engine would cool the turbine inlet temperature, add mass flow, add power
to the turbine.

But, is that really what you want to do at high altitude? What are you going
to do with that additional power? Well, it's going to spin up the
compressor. Then you have to stop adding water, or the engine comes apart,
most likely do to centrifugal loads. It's just spinning to fast.

To really accelerate at high altitude before RASCAL release, you really want
to utilize the engines to the point of breaking, do to power loads, not
centrifugal loads. In other word, twisting the drive shaft in half between
the turbine and compressor would be the goal. So, you want to give the
compressor something to do too. That would be, compressing the additional
Oxidizer added into the Intake. If the mixture ratio (Oxygen/Nitrogen) gets
to rich, maybe inject liquid Air, but Oxygen is definitely better.

The simplest Fluid Variable Intake for the F-14 would probably be to add the
Oxygen between the throat and the compressor blades. It's subsonic flow,
makes mixing much easier, and it can be injected differently. Probably the
majority of it going around the combustor in the bypass air flow path for
use in the afterburner. One of the really nice thing about modern turbojets
is that the bypass ratios are getting quite large.

This would be the simplest way to get the F-14 up to the Mach limit of a
Ramjet. Above the operational Mach limit of a ramjet, then the LOX has to
be added upstream of the throat and all the supersonic shock problems make
it a more difficult task.

Let me know if you get a hold of one of those F-14 before they are all
turned into beer cans. I've got bunch of other fun, much more complicated
improvements too.

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

On Jul 13, 9:09 am, Craig Fink wrote:
Len wrote:
On Jul 11, 7:39 am, Craig Fink wrote:
Len wrote:
On Jul 7, 9:31 pm, "Scott Hedrick" wrote:
"Craig Fink" wrote in message

hlink.net...

It's just the Aerospace Engineer in me, but even the F-4 is a
beautiful flying machine. As ugly as it is, it exudes the raw power
of it's engines, a flying brick.

And it *still* beats the hell out of what most of the world's military
flys.

After we didn't get a Phase II subcontract for the
RASCAL program, I put together a revised F-14
launch vehicle concept that I felt would have been
quite superior to the one that strictly fitted RASCAL's
"figures of merit." See:

http://www.tour2space.com/archives/f-14lv/f-14-st.htm

This concept would have worked quite well even with
F-14A's. Moreover, we were much more interested in
the basic airfame than in the weapons system
capability of the F-14A/C or D. However, I now feel
that spending several times more on developing our
Space Van 2011 would have a payoff that would be
proportionately much higher.

No kidding, that would be fun. Me, I'd what to coat all the leading
edge "hot" hot parts with a mix of high temperature RTV and Aerogel
filler. Then add a Fluid Variable Intake, larger exit nozzle, and see if
I could push it into the scramjet region using the now jet
fuel/hydrogen/oxygen powered turbojets. What fun. It only has to get to
Mach 5 to do a X-Prize mission scenario. Anything past that would be
gravy as far as an airbreathing first stage to Mach 5-10 is concerned.

Where is Tomcat? He hasn't been posting lately. He might want to fly it.

It would probably be a good idea to modify the ejection seat (inflatable
stability and heatshield) to survive a Mach 5 entry so Tomcat can fly the
version two when something goes wrong with version one. :-)

What a cheap development platform, who cares if you crash a few.

Our RASCAL / F-14 concept got rather complicated
just trying to get to mach 3. Our post-RASCAL
did not stress the F-14 beyond its tested envelope
--except for altitude. Except for the addition
of truncated and rearranged RD-0124 nozzles,
very little modification would have been required.
Adding water injection is an option that offers some
performance improvement, but that may not be
worth the hassle.

Simplicity and minimum modification was the goal
for the post-RASCAL F-14 concept. The upper
stages get a little more complex, in order to avoid
F-14 mods.

To me it seems any improvement by adding water injection in the traditional
sense would be very limited. Adding water into the combustor of the jet
engine would cool the turbine inlet temperature, add mass flow, add power
to the turbine.

The main goal of DARPA's RASCAL program was
to see if water injection into the inlet would be a
good way to build a launch vehicle. But, as you
suspect, the benefits seem to be quite limited.
Our post-RASCAL F-14 concept depends almost
entirely on the addition of rocket power. With the
additon of rocket power, it doesn't really matter
much whether or not we're using the TF-30 or the
F-110 engines--or whether or not we inject water
or some other fluid into the inlet.

But, is that really what you want to do at high altitude? What are you going
to do with that additional power? Well, it's going to spin up the
compressor. Then you have to stop adding water, or the engine comes apart,
most likely do to centrifugal loads. It's just spinning to fast.

At high altitude, the aribrething engine is just along
for the ride. All the power is coming from the rocket.
Our attempt to get enough air at altitude to satisfy
DARPA's interest led to enormously larger inlets
--greatly decreasing the potential benefit of
modifying an existing aircraft.

To really accelerate at high altitude before RASCAL release, you really want
to utilize the engines to the point of breaking, do to power loads, not
centrifugal loads. In other word, twisting the drive shaft in half between
the turbine and compressor would be the goal. So, you want to give the
compressor something to do too. That would be, compressing the additional
Oxidizer added into the Intake. If the mixture ratio (Oxygen/Nitrogen) gets
to rich, maybe inject liquid Air, but Oxygen is definitely better.

You really want to forget about the airbreathing engines
altogether at altitude. The airbreathing engines are useful
--along with the rocket--for takeoff, initial climb, iniitial
acceleration, flyback, approach and landing. For the
most appropriate trajectory, IMO, the airbreathing engines
make very little contribution to transonic and supersonic
acceleration.

We did look at adding LOx to the inlet, which is
not too bad an idea. But simple rocket power
seems to be much better.

The simplest Fluid Variable Intake for the F-14 would probably be to add the
Oxygen between the throat and the compressor blades. It's subsonic flow,
makes mixing much easier, and it can be injected differently. Probably the
majority of it going around the combustor in the bypass air flow path for
use in the afterburner. One of the really nice thing about modern turbojets
is that the bypass ratios are getting quite large.

This would be the simplest way to get the F-14 up to the Mach limit of a
Ramjet. Above the operational Mach limit of a ramjet, then the LOX has to
be added upstream of the throat and all the supersonic shock problems make
it a more difficult task.

I don't think so. The problem with airbreathing
engines is mainly the rapidly increasing size
and complexity of inlets with mach number--
and the subjection of the whole vehicle to the
environment necessary for the airbreathing engine
(but very damaging to the rest of the vehicle).

Let me know if you get a hold of one of those F-14 before they are all
turned into beer cans. I've got bunch of other fun, much more complicated
improvements too.

We've backed off of the F-14 approach.
We now feel that our Space Van 2011
is far more promising than any other
concept that I have come up with
before. See

http://www.tour2space.com


--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @