A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How not to design a Shuttle.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 15th 05, 09:56 PM
Herb Schaltegger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How not to design a Shuttle.

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:

Fuel additives to reduce the radar delectability of the engine exhaust
are also mentioned, this apparently did prove successful and was used
operationally.


Wasn't that boron added to the JP-9, or is my faulty memory at it
again?

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D., GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"The loss of the American system of checks and balances is more of a security
danger than any terrorist risk." -- Bruce Schneier
http://dischordia.blogspot.com
http://www.angryherb.net
  #2  
Old March 15th 05, 10:58 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Herb Schaltegger wrote:

Wasn't that boron added to the JP-9, or is my faulty memory at it
again?



Boron was used in "Zip Fuel"; it upped fuel energy but generated a huge
smoke cloud- probably not the best thing for stealth.
In this case the additive was cesium.
From the Oxcart history report I cited:
"Lockheed's new entry was much like it's first, but with several
modifications and a new designator, A-12. It too, would employ two of
the powerful J58 engines. Lockheed's major innovation in reducing radar
return was cesium additive in the fuel, which decreased the radar cross
section of the afterburner plume. This improvement had been proposed by
Edward Purcell of the Land committee."

Pat
  #3  
Old March 16th 05, 04:42 AM
OM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:56:50 -0600, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

Wasn't that boron added to the JP-9, or is my faulty memory at it
again?


....IIRC, it was cesium.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr
  #4  
Old March 16th 05, 05:58 AM
Paul A. Suhler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pat Flannery wrote:

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

Wasn't that boron added to the JP-9, or is my faulty memory at it
again?



Boron was used in "Zip Fuel"; it upped fuel energy but generated a huge
smoke cloud- probably not the best thing for stealth.
In this case the additive was cesium.
From the Oxcart history report I cited:
"Lockheed's new entry was much like it's first, but with several
modifications and a new designator, A-12. It too, would employ two of
the powerful J58 engines. Lockheed's major innovation in reducing radar
return was cesium additive in the fuel, which decreased the radar cross
section of the afterburner plume. This improvement had been proposed by
Edward Purcell of the Land committee."

Pat


One of the P&W engineers I interviewed said that they tried
running "zip" through a J-58. Not only did it gum up the
afterburner injectors and the turbine (causing it to grind
to a halt thirty seconds after cutting fuel), but it also
left a half-mile trail of dead vegetation behind it.

Nasty stuff.
  #5  
Old March 16th 05, 06:15 AM
Paul A. Suhler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pat Flannery wrote:
Another interesting find were these photos of the Convair "Kingfish" RCS
test mockup, showing that the leading edge triangular RAM inserts
weren't unique to the Lockheed design:
http://www.testpilot.ru/usa/convair/...h/kingfish.htm
There are two fascinating aspects to these photos:
1. The RCS model looks too small to be a full size Kingfish mock-up.
2. The mock-up has no apparent canopy, making one wonder if this is
either a reconnaissance drone or missile derivative of the Kingfish
design. Was this the Convair competitor for the D-21?

Pat


Both Lockheed and Convair were getting advice from a team
led by the late Frank Rodgers, so it's not surprising that
they'd have similar RCS features. FISH also had the same
serrated leading edges, which would have been filled with
Pyroceram triangles. The only artifact I've seen of FISH
is a sheet of stainless steel honeycomb with a notch cut
out.

It really is the full-size RCS model of KINGFISH. Some of
the photos that are out don't really give the sense of scale.
Also be aware that it's got its (flat) belly in the air in
every photo. If you look closely, you can see a bubble
for the canopy, but it's underneath and in shadow.
  #6  
Old March 16th 05, 07:54 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Paul A. Suhler wrote:

One of the P&W engineers I interviewed said that they tried
running "zip" through a J-58. Not only did it gum up the
afterburner injectors and the turbine (causing it to grind
to a halt thirty seconds after cutting fuel), but it also
left a half-mile trail of dead vegetation behind it.



The one I heard about is where they cranked up all six of the XB-70's
engines with it, and pretty much generated as much smoke as a forest fire.

Pat
  #7  
Old March 16th 05, 08:28 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Paul A. Suhler wrote:

It really is the full-size RCS model of KINGFISH. Some of
the photos that are out don't really give the sense of scale.
Also be aware that it's got its (flat) belly in the air in
every photo.


Yeah, I figured that out fairly quickly after seeing the photos The
A-12 was also mounted inverted on the RCS pylon.

If you look closely, you can see a bubble
for the canopy, but it's underneath and in shadow.



Now that you point it out, I can see it.
It's just blended in so well, that's it's hard to notice.

Pat
  #8  
Old March 16th 05, 06:52 PM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pat Flannery wrote:

http://www.testpilot.ru/usa/convair/...h/kingfish.htm

2. The mock-up has no apparent canopy, making one wonder if this is
either a reconnaissance drone or missile derivative of the Kingfish
design. Was this the Convair competitor for the D-21?


Look at the drawings (which show a cockpit), and the second photograph
(which is the only one which shows the whole aircraft). The cockpit
is plainly present (though very small in relation to the size of the
aircraft.)

The remainder of the photographs show the *bottom* of the aircraft
(the model was built 'upside down'), so of course the cockpit isn't
visible.

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

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #9  
Old March 16th 05, 07:52 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Peter Stickney wrote:

I don't think they ever tried running installed engines on Zip. By
doing that, you'd contaminate the entire fuel system - and given the
characteristics of Zip fuel, you'd have to write it off before you
could decontaminate it. By hte time they'd gotten around to final
configuration selection for the B-70 and F-108 (Let alone the A-1
A-12), they'd given up on the idea of running it through the rotating
parts. There was still some interest in using it to fuel the
afterburners, but weighing the disadvantages - Toxic Byproducts,
Smoke, separate fuel systems, and all that jazz, the slight increase
in range wasn't worth it.




I misremembered a quote by J93 project manager Paul L. Dawson in which
he said "Boron chemical fuel or HEF was only considered for use in the
afterburner section and some tests were actually run using it. Aside
from the problems with borate deposits on the nozzle and afterburner
section areas, the plume of exhaust smoke would have rendered the use of
this "zip' fuel impractical, especially during takeoff. It was truly
awesome even from one engine, and the thought of six engines running
this way boggles the imagination. I'm sure it would have created a cloud
that would have persisted for days. The environmentalists would have
had a field day, even in that era of just awakening concern for the
impact on the Earth."
However, an aircraft once did fly using zip fuel: on September 28th,
1958, a specially modified J79-powered F-101 (normally the Voodoo used
twin J57s) flew using zip fuel in its afterburner sections.
It would be fun to find some in-flight photos of that aircraft with the
smoke generators operating.
With twin boron-boosted J79s that would be one hot Voodoo- you'd have
around 3,300 pounds extra thrust to play with while having an engine
installation that was over 3000 pounds lighter.

Pat
  #10  
Old March 16th 05, 08:32 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Derek Lyons wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote:

http://www.testpilot.ru/usa/convair/...h/kingfish.htm



2. The mock-up has no apparent canopy, making one wonder if this is
either a reconnaissance drone or missile derivative of the Kingfish
design. Was this the Convair competitor for the D-21?



Look at the drawings (which show a cockpit), and the second photograph
(which is the only one which shows the whole aircraft). The cockpit
is plainly present (though very small in relation to the size of the
aircraft.)


Yeah, I could see it when I looked closer, it's just very blended in.
Look at this shot though:
http://www.testpilot.ru/usa/convair/...ingfish_06.jpg
Assuming the guy on the ladder who's at the back edge of the wing is 5'
5" inches tall, then the wingspan is around 5.75 to 6 times his height-
which means a wingspan of around 30 to 35 feet. But wingspan is supposed
to be around 55 feet, so is this a half sized model?
The other oddball thing is that this is apparently supposed to be used
for RCS cross section tests, but the metalwork on it looks really crude-
note the bad seams on the nose, and the crack in the underbelly on this
photo:
http://www.testpilot.ru/usa/convair/...ingfish_02.jpg
You stick this in front of a radar, and it's going to be echoing all
over the place.
Lockheed's A-12 RCS test specimen was like a piece of chromed sculpture
compared to this thing

The remainder of the photographs show the *bottom* of the aircraft
(the model was built 'upside down'), so of course the cockpit isn't
visible.


I knew is was upside down from the location of the vertical fins, which
otherwise might have interfered with landing. ;-)

Pat
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Space Shuttle, Not Robot, Should Be Used to Service Telescope Scott M. Kozel Policy 56 December 22nd 04 02:24 PM
Space Shuttle milestone NASA installs Main Engines on Discovery Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 0 December 10th 04 10:04 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Manifest Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 June 4th 04 02:55 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 April 2nd 04 12:01 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 04:33 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.