| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3658 (12-Apr-2008 19:12:08) |
Alexius55 wrote: I believe that the YF-12 fired a test AIM-47 at M=3.2 (see Joe Baugher's YF-12A article)
|
||
|
Alexius55 |
|||
|
Posts: 265 (12-Apr-2008 21:39:38) |
emc- My God that's fast! Given that the theoretical LAPCAT bomber would be able to fly a bit higher, would a Mach-4 weapons release be possible? After all,
it could slow down on approach to the release point.
And what would the range be of an unpowered bomb released at such a speed/altitude? |
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3662 (12-Apr-2008 23:19:22) |
Alexius55 wrote: I'd say a M=4 weapon release is possible; I suspect that the dynamic pressure is more of a problem than Mach number, per se. As for the second? It
depends on the details of the bomb's aerodynamics, but I would not consider 100-200km to be unreasonable.
|
||
|
pukalshik |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 14 (14-Apr-2008 09:29:10) |
As far as I understand those aerodinamic staff beneath the B-58 Hustler was aimed to deliver bomb far enough from the releasing place. |
||
 Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 3437 (14-Apr-2008 23:58:54) |
".5mm thick ceramic composite shell backed by CFRP structure with Aluminium fuel tanks internally, coupled with no active cooling with prolonged exposure
to 500-600° C temperature."
Then its clearly designed to spend most of its times outside the atmosphere, re-entry speeds must be low to keep the heating down, which speaks of a low wing loading, but thats no surprise if most of what we're seeing is fuel tank. Yes the greatest threat is the dross in low orbit. |
||
|
PMN1 |
|||
|
Posts: 3444 (16-Apr-2008 20:40:20) |
How about the Vulcan with one of these?
Developed to OR.1182 - 1,000nm range, Mach 3 performance at high altitude, and high-speed (mach 2) terrain following for the last 100nm to be in service by 1966. Bristol X.12 (also known as Pandora) - This low-level stand off bomb had a slim 50ft (15.2m) long fuselage of just 3ft 2" (98cm) in diameter together with small delta wings 15ft (4.6m) long and 6ft (1.8m) span. The latter, and a semi-integrated BS.10-13 ramjet optimised for Mach 2.5, were mounted around the rear fuselage; a 28ft (8.5m) mid-fuselage section housed the fuel and the nose contained the warhead and guidance (Forward Looking radar from TSR.2). At 20,000lb (9,072kg) weight, X-12's range would have been at least 1,000nm (1,852km); maximum ceiling was expected to be 70,000ft to 76,000ft (21,336m to 23,165m) and initially, a cruising speed of mach 4 had been planned. Projected in-service date was 1966. Avro W.140 - This had a slim body 37ft 3in (11.35m) long with a 6ft 6in (1.98m) span delta wing, a Rolls Royce RB.153-17 jet and all-moving elevons for control aft of the wing. Launch weight would be 8,550lb (3,878kg). If the weapon was launched at mach 0.84 and 45,000ft (13,716m), a range of 1,550nm (2,871km) was possible but this fell to 950nm (1,759km) if the missile flew the last 100nm (185km) at Mach 1.5 at sea level; W.140 would cruise at Mach 3 at 70,000ft (21,336m). |
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3679 (17-Apr-2008 00:04:25) |
pukalshik wrote: I do remember reading that the USAF and USN trained in something called LABS or toss-bombing, where the plane would go into a shallow dive to build up
speed, pull up into a half-loop, release the bomb at the appropriate time and finish the Immelman, and head for home. I also remember that this was to be
tried with B-47's, which doesn't strike me as an aircraft in which one would want to do aerobatics.
|
||
|
Craiglxviii |
|||
|
Posts: 60 (19-Apr-2008 19:09:51) |
emc,
toss-bombing or "the idiot's loop" is still included in the basic programming in the Tornado GR4 simulator. As a delivery method (nowadays, the idea is more to release the bombs in a climb rather than while performing an Immelman) it gives iron bombs a range of around 8-9km at an initial pull-up altitude of 200' and 550-600kts, from what I remember being told. On a separate note, wasn't the B-58's payload designed originally to be released at standoff range and manually piloted to release by some sort of piggybacked carrier vehicle?
Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?
|
||
|
Craiglxviii |
|||
|
Posts: 61 (19-Apr-2008 19:19:17) |
Wasn't the B-47 regarded as a very maneuvreable aeroplane? Handling like a fighter, if I remember rightly.
Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?
|
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3691 (19-Apr-2008 21:10:31) |
Craiglxviii wrote: "Handling like a fighter" seems to be something fairly frequently bandied about when talking about bombers, especially bombers that were (as was
the B-47) much higher performance aircraft than their predecessors. I've no idea about the B-47's structural margins, departure characteristics, or
general handling, but I would tend to take statements like "handles like a fighter" with a grain of salt, unless I got to study the engineering
flight test reports, which is not likely.
|
||
