the NASA thread and anything related

[Photon440]

For plane nerds: The strange jet next to the SR-71 was the F-16XL. 2 were built, conversions of conventional F-16s, to compete against the F-15 for the long range strike role. The F-15E Strike Eagle was the winner, probably because of the huge range and bomb load, and 2 man crew. We are still making versions of the E Eagle!

I don't see the picture.

 

[Photon440]

 

[Photon440]

 

[DeltaV]

Liftoff of Apollo 16 on April 16, 1972

 

[DeltaV]

Full-Scale Tunnel (FST)

Purpose: To make possible wind tunnel research into areas that could be explored best with full-scale models or with actual aircraft.

Initial cost: $900,000

Circuit and pressure: Double-return, atmospheric

Test section: 30' x 60', open throat

Drive system: Two fans; two 4000-HP electric motors

Maximum speed: 118 MPH

Key members of design team: Smith J. DeFrance, Abraham Silverstein, Clinton H. Dearborn

Authorized: February 1929

Operational: 27 May 1931 (formally dedicated during the 6th Annual Aircraft Engineering Conference)

Major modifications: Equipped for free-flight dynamic model studies in 1960s. Underwent major rehabilitation in 1977.

Significance: "The FST is perhaps the best example of a major NACA facility that found a multitude of additional uses not visualized in the beginning. In 1962, for example, it had an extended study of the handling problems of hypersonic aircraft and space reentry vehicles like the shuttle, using large free-flying models." John V. Becker to author.

Disposition: Operational

Reference: TR 459

Construction of the Full-Scale Tunnel, 1930.

The P-51 Mustang is tested in the Full-Scale Tunnel, 1943.

In 1950 Langley tested the drag characteristics of what was then the world's fastest submarine, the Albacore, in the FST

Source:
appendix d

 

[snakeyes]

I don't see the picture.

I believe in post #13

 

[DeltaV]

I almost went into F-16 XL nerd mode, but decided to point you folks to this nice write-up instead:

F-16.net - The ultimate F-16, F-22, F-35 reference

 

[Budnicks]

I think I posted it a long time ago

 

[JDmac72chrgr]

Helluva set of aircraft!!

 

[JR_Charger]

We always had this perception of the Russian tech inferior to Ours, like Bizzaro Superman vs Superman. Not a very accurate assumption. Did We ever build a heavy turboprop that could do 600 mph? They beat us down in SST race...& the French....yes the tu-144 had problems, but we never got past mock ups. Migs & Suhkois are almost always ones we have to work to beat.

Why build a 600 mph turboprop when you can build a faster jet?

Concorde was a real aircraft, Tu-144 was a joke aircraft built to beat Concorde into the record books, and it only did that because much of it was based on documentation stolen from the Concorde project.

Convair would have had the first supersonic passenger plane if they had developed the passenger version of the B-58 Hustler bomber; but it wasn't commercially viable - as Concorde would prove later. It's been twenty years since Concorde was retired with no replacement, because the market for these planes doesn't exist.

How many MiG and Sukhoi fighters have really been great? Off the top of my head, I can only think of four - MiG 15, 21, 29; and Sukhoi Flanker series. Not counting WW2 era aircraft. MiG 25/31 are interesting, but I wouldn't put them at the same level of significance as the others. Su-57 Felon is a couple decades too late, if it truly is a stealth aircraft, and not merely an aircraft that looks like a stealth aircraft.

 

[kiwigtx]

Concorde was a real aircraft, Tu-144 was a joke aircraft built to beat Concorde into the record books, and it only did that because much of it was based on documentation stolen from the Concorde project.

Convair would have had the first supersonic passenger plane if they had developed the passenger version of the B-58 Hustler bomber; but it wasn't commercially viable - as Concorde would prove later. It's been twenty years since Concorde was retired with no replacement, because the market for these planes doesn't exist.

Concorde was an aircraft ahead of it's time. .......sadly, the project wouldn't get of the ground these days. It only got built because a few people were determined enough to make it happen.

Speaking of things NASA......started watching a few of the first episodes of "Coopers Gold" ...a story about the gold on shipwrecks that was allegedly spotted while astronaut Gordon Cooper circled the globe looking for Russian spy bases in the 60's.
If ever there was a way to spin out a story......that series succeeded.
I got pissed off after about 5 or 6 episodes, when they kept drooling over a rusty Spanish anchor that snagged on the rocks.

 

[dadsbee]

Here's a good live link to the large liquid methane and oxygen bomb going up in approximately 40 minutes...

 

[JR_Charger]

Concorde was an aircraft ahead of it's time. .......sadly, the project wouldn't get of the ground these days. It only got built because a few people were determined enough to make it happen.

Speaking of things NASA......started watching a few of the first episodes of "Coopers Gold" ...a story about the gold on shipwrecks that was allegedly spotted while astronaut Gordon Cooper circled the globe looking for Russian spy bases in the 60's.
If ever there was a way to spin out a story......that series succeeded.
I got pissed off after about 5 or 6 episodes, when they kept drooling over a rusty Spanish anchor that snagged on the rocks.

I'd just like people to stop selling America short because we build what the market needs, which is not always the "world's first, biggest, fastest, whatever-est."

We're getting close to being able to say there was never a time for Concorde, although it was an impressive piece of engineering. Starship will make supersonic passenger aircraft obsolete.

"Cooper's Gold" sounds about like the Oak Island show. All fluff and let down.

 

[Photon440]

Why build a 600 mph turboprop when you can build a faster jet?

Concorde was a real aircraft, Tu-144 was a joke aircraft built to beat Concorde into the record books, and it only did that because much of it was based on documentation stolen from the Concorde project.

Convair would have had the first supersonic passenger plane if they had developed the passenger version of the B-58 Hustler bomber; but it wasn't commercially viable - as Concorde would prove later. It's been twenty years since Concorde was retired with no replacement, because the market for these planes doesn't exist.

How many MiG and Sukhoi fighters have really been great? Off the top of my head, I can only think of four - MiG 15, 21, 29; and Sukhoi Flanker series. Not counting WW2 era aircraft. MiG 25/31 are interesting, but I wouldn't put them at the same level of significance as the others. Su-57 Felon is a couple decades too late, if it truly is a stealth aircraft, and not merely an aircraft that looks like a stealth aircraft.

Simple answer to the turboprop TU-95, it gave the aircraft a longer range than jet engines of the time. Even now, it can fly farther than the B-52 before it needs to refuel.

 

[Richard Cranium]

Here's a good live link to the large liquid methane and oxygen bomb going up in approximately 40 minutes...

Mission scrubbed.

 

[JR_Charger]

Simple answer to the turboprop TU-95, it gave the aircraft a longer range than jet engines of the time. Even now, it can fly farther than the B-52 before it needs to refuel.

A longer range than Russian jet engines of the time. The Bear has a big advantage over the Badger, but not a big range advantage over the B-52 ( 9.300 miles vs 8,800 miles ). Meanwhile the B-52 "only" cruises around 70 mph faster, but the crew is cruising 70 mph faster in an airplane that isn't the loudest airplane ever built. I haven't ridden in a prop plane, but I've heard even normal propellor driven passenger planes were miserable.

Mission scrubbed.

That's a shame. I was looking forward to a successful Starship launch. This is better than blowing up though.

 

[Photon440]

A longer range than Russian jet engines of the time. The Bear has a big advantage over the Badger, but not a big range advantage over the B-52 ( 9.300 miles vs 8,800 miles ). Meanwhile the B-52 "only" cruises around 70 mph faster, but the crew is cruising 70 mph faster in an airplane that isn't the loudest airplane ever built. I haven't ridden in a prop plane, but I've heard even normal propellor driven passenger planes were miserable.



That's a shame. I was looking forward to a successful Starship launch. This is better than blowing up though.

Yes, longer range than Russian jet engines of the time. Remember, this was a Soviet plane, they were unlikely to be using P&W engines. Also, it matters not whether it was Russian, British or American, ALL jet engine aircraft used more fuel than if they used turboprops. And yes, the B-52 is faster, but it requires double the number of engines to manage that at a cost of 90,000 litres of extra fuel per flight, having double the fuel capacity vs. the Bear to get the range it has. I think the Soviet design (actually mostly captured German engineers from WWII) did quite well considering that the original B-52 design (model 462) used SIX turboprops and was slower and had less range than the Russian Bear. Boeing had to use jets to get the advantage.

The noise you speak of is well known because of its supersonic prop tip speeds, but not typical of most propeller aircraft. The Britannia for example was nicknamed 'The Whispering Giant', and I have flown across the Atlantic in one of those. Most 'noisy' prop planes suffered from piston engine exhaust noise, not from the props. On the other hand, the T-37 and Avro Vulcan were extremely noisy jets.

 

[DeltaV]

Surveyor 3 launch. April 17, 1967

Source: NASA
Published: November 20, 1969
This unusual photograph, taken during the second Apollo 12 extravehicular activity (EVA), shows two U.S. spacecraft on the surface of the moon. The Apollo 12 Lunar Module (LM) is in the background. The unmanned Surveyor 3 spacecraft is in the foreground. The Apollo 12 LM, with astronauts Charles Conrad Jr. and Alan L. Bean aboard, landed about 600 feet from Surveyor 3 in the Ocean of Storms. The television camera and several other pieces were taken from Surveyor 3 and brought back to Earth for scientific examination. Here, Conrad examines the Surveyor's TV camera prior to detaching it. Astronaut Richard F. Gordon Jr. remained with the Apollo 12 Command and Service Modules (CSM) in lunar orbit while Conrad and Bean descended in the LM to explore the moon. Surveyor 3 soft-landed on the moon on April 19, 1967.

 

[kiwigtx]

Here's a good live link to the large liquid methane and oxygen bomb going up in approximately 40 minutes...

Delayed....Elon has to zip his fly for a few more hours.

 

[JR_Charger]

Yes, longer range than Russian jet engines of the time. Remember, this was a Soviet plane, they were unlikely to be using P&W engines. Also, it matters not whether it was Russian, British or American, ALL jet engine aircraft used more fuel than if they used turboprops. And yes, the B-52 is faster, but it requires double the number of engines to manage that at a cost of 90,000 litres of extra fuel per flight, having double the fuel capacity vs. the Bear to get the range it has. I think the Soviet design (actually mostly captured German engineers from WWII) did quite well considering that the original B-52 design (model 462) used SIX turboprops and was slower and had less range than the Russian Bear. Boeing had to use jets to get the advantage.

The noise you speak of is well known because of its supersonic prop tip speeds, but not typical of most propeller aircraft. The Britannia for example was nicknamed 'The Whispering Giant', and I have flown across the Atlantic in one of those. Most 'noisy' prop planes suffered from piston engine exhaust noise, not from the props. On the other hand, the T-37 and Avro Vulcan were extremely noisy jets.

B-52 has four more engines, but Bear has 8 more propellors

More importantly, if we're to believe Wikipedia, the B-52 has over twice the bomb load of the Bear (70,000 lbs vs 33,000 lbs).

If we go back to the model 462 for the B-52, can we go back to the B-29 for the Bear?

I've got no doubt which one of these planes I'd rather fly into battle - although I wouldn't expect to survive in either one, unless the enemy is completely surpressed.

The Bear is an intriguing design that is better than it looks like, but in 2023 it's a little bizarre to still be flying a propellor aircraft partially based on a WW2 era American bomber.

FWIW I'm not anti-Russian, but I'll evaluate their equipment fairly. I think they are typically forced into "creative solutions" for lack of technology. They didn't do any more turboprop bombers after their jet engine technology improved, for example.