AirTalk.org Aviation discussions newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  After Action Report: "Warplane" Part 4 (Stealth)          AirTalk.org Forum Index -> Military Aircraft View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Paul Suhler Guest Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:11 am    Post subject: After Action Report: "Warplane" Part 4 (Stealth) All in all, I was fairly pleased with "Warplane." However, I thought I'd post this to clear up some inaccuracies about the Blackbird. I found the mention of only the SR-71 a bit annoying, but that may have been to prevent confusion between the A-12 Blackbird and the Navy's stillborn aircraft of the same name. The most obvious error was in saying that the SR first flew at Beale AFB, when it was at Palmdale. Jim Eastham did indeed chase Bob Gilliland on that flight, but by then he'd already made the first Mach 3 flight in the #1 A-12, flying out of Groom Lake. The biggest missed opportunity I saw was in their not explaining the evolution of stealth, i.e., attempts to paste it onto an existing aircraft (U-2, which didn't work very well), making it one of several requirements (A-12/SR-71, which was fairly successful), and making it the top priority and then trying to get the resulting design to fly (HAVE BLUE/F-117). [Thanks to Bob Naka for laying that out for me very concisely.] I know that Pete Merlin was interviewed about RAINBOW and that part -- along with GUSTO -- was completely cut. The producers also dropped explanations of the principles that came out of Project GUSTO, i.e., the blip/scan ratio and the three principles of aircraft shaping for stealth. Oh, well. Overall the program as a whole was not too bad. Paul Suhler Back to top David Spain Guest Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:21 am    Post subject: Re: After Action Report: "Warplane" Part 4 (Stealth) FWIW, regarding SR71 stealth. I don't know how accurate this is, but someone in a letter to the editor of AvWeek, upon the 1st retirement of the SR back in the late 80's or early 90's commented that as an ATC for the AF, it wasn't that hard to track the SR on radar thanks to the ionized gas trail left behind by the big engines. I presume this meant while it was on afterburners. Something that isn't a problem with the B-2. Dave Back to top Jim Yanik Guest Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:38 am    Post subject: Re: After Action Report: "Warplane" Part 4 (Stealth) David Spain <nospam (AT) 127 (DOT) 0.0.1> wrote in news:4574AD88.9040600 (AT) 127 (DOT) 0.0.1: Quote: FWIW, regarding SR71 stealth. I don't know how accurate this is, but someone in a letter to the editor of AvWeek, upon the 1st retirement of the SR back in the late 80's or early 90's commented that as an ATC for the AF, it wasn't that hard to track the SR on radar thanks to the ionized gas trail left behind by the big engines. I presume this meant while it was on afterburners. Something that isn't a problem with the B-2. Dave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_J58 -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net Back to top Pascal Bourguignon Guest Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:11 am    Post subject: Re: After Action Report: "Warplane" Part 4 (Stealth) Pat Flannery <flanner (AT) daktel (DOT) com> writes: Quote: Paul A. Suhler wrote: The KEMPSTER electron beam equipment was flown on #122 and proved the concept. Now that's fascinating, because it shows we might have had some primitive form of plasma stealth decades before the Russians. Remember the test U-2 with the wires all over it running between the wings, fuselage, and tail? What if you charged said wires with a pulsed high voltage current so that they created a coronal discharge in the air around it? You'd get radar tracks over Germany at mach 13, which is impossible, therefore which would be "ignored", as any radar operator would tell you... -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ ADVISORY: There is an extremely small but nonzero chance that, through a process known as "tunneling," this product may spontaneously disappear from its present location and reappear at any random place in the universe, including your neighbor's domicile. The manufacturer will not be responsible for any damages or inconveniences that may result. Back to top Pat Flannery Guest Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:11 am    Post subject: Re: After Action Report: "Warplane" Part 4 (Stealth) Paul A. Suhler wrote: Quote: The KEMPSTER electron beam equipment was flown on #122 and proved the concept. Now that's fascinating, because it shows we might have had some primitive form of plasma stealth decades before the Russians. Remember the test U-2 with the wires all over it running between the wings, fuselage, and tail? What if you charged said wires with a pulsed high voltage current so that they created a coronal discharge in the air around it? Pat Back to top Paul A. Suhler Guest Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:11 am    Post subject: Re: After Action Report: "Warplane" Part 4 (Stealth) Pat Flannery <flanner (AT) daktel (DOT) com> wrote: Quote: They put cesium in the fuel to try and combat that effect. Wasn't the SR-71 on afterburners to some extent pretty much during its whole mission? There's a good and fairly recently declassified report on its design evolution and stealth aspects here: http://www.blackbirds.net/sr71/oxcart/successortou2.html Project Kempster would be fun to know more about. Another thing that would be fun to know about is if they use some hi-tech cooling system on the B-2's exhaust, and somehow bootstrap that into a plasma field stealth/airflow smoothing system. (the exhaust gets cooled down as its heat energy gets converted into electricity to charge the air around the aircraft, probably by turning the engine exhaust ducting into some sort of MHD generator) But I think it will be a few years before that's known. I was confused for years over the cesium additive. I'd spoken to a friend who's a good physicist, and he said that cesium should increase the return. Nevertheless, when I did the Warplane interview in June 2005, I mention that it was done to reduce the return. It was five months later, at Roadrunners, that I finally learned that the cesium additive was to keep the EM energy from the radar out of the ejector, which would otherwise function as a big corner reflector. The cloud of cesium in the exhaust was a lesser evil. (I e-mailed the asst. producer and asked him to cut that remark. They cut it all.) The KEMPSTER electron beam equipment was flown on #122 and proved the concept. Jeannette Remak said they found the holes during restoration, but she thinks they were covered up. They weren't very big. Back to top John Guest Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:11 am    Post subject: Re: After Action Report: "Warplane" Part 4 (Stealth) Pat Flannery wrote: Quote: David Spain wrote: I presume this meant while it was on afterburners. They put cesium in the fuel to try and combat that effect. Wasn't the SR-71 on afterburners to some extent pretty much during its whole mission? There's a good and fairly recently declassified report on its design evolution and stealth aspects here: http://www.blackbirds.net/sr71/oxcart/successortou2.html Project Kempster would be fun to know more about. Another thing that would be fun to know about is if they use some hi-tech cooling system on the B-2's exhaust, and somehow bootstrap that into a plasma field stealth/airflow smoothing system. (the exhaust gets cooled down as its heat energy gets converted into electricity to charge the air around the aircraft, probably by turning the engine exhaust ducting into some sort of MHD generator) But I think it will be a few years before that's known. :-) Pat Pat, As a result of your post, I found blackbirds.net, a really excellent site. Thank you very much. Take care and blue skies to you all John Back to top Pat Flannery Guest Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:11 am    Post subject: Re: After Action Report: "Warplane" Part 4 (Stealth) David Spain wrote: Quote: I presume this meant while it was on afterburners. They put cesium in the fuel to try and combat that effect. Wasn't the SR-71 on afterburners to some extent pretty much during its whole mission? There's a good and fairly recently declassified report on its design evolution and stealth aspects here: http://www.blackbirds.net/sr71/oxcart/successortou2.html Project Kempster would be fun to know more about. Another thing that would be fun to know about is if they use some hi-tech cooling system on the B-2's exhaust, and somehow bootstrap that into a plasma field stealth/airflow smoothing system. (the exhaust gets cooled down as its heat energy gets converted into electricity to charge the air around the aircraft, probably by turning the engine exhaust ducting into some sort of MHD generator) But I think it will be a few years before that's known. :-) Pat Back to top Brian Thorn Guest Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:26 am    Post subject: Re: After Action Report: "Warplane" Part 4 (Stealth) On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 05:50:01 GMT, Paul Suhler <suhler (AT) ieee (DOT) org> wrote: Quote: All in all, I was fairly pleased with "Warplane." The show was good, but not nearly long enough. Zero reference to Naval Aviation, for example. And they spent an unnecessarily loooooooong time on the old timer trying to drop a bomb from a B-25. There was a similar scene in Part 2 with the doctor explaining g force suits that bogged wayyyyy down, too. Overall, pretty good, but could've been a lot better. Brian Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         AirTalk.org Forum Index -> Military Aircraft All times are GMT Page 1 of 1   Jump to: Select a forum Aviation----------------alt.aviationAviation safety EnhancementPlanes, gliders and flying in AustraliaAviation et pilotage (Français)rec.aviationAviation (Aerobatics)Hot air, gas balloons and airshipsHang-gliding, paragliding, foot-launched flightAircraft Design & BuildingInstrument Flight RulesAviation (Classifieds)Military AircraftNaval AviationAviation (Miscellaneous Topics)Owning AirplanesAviators (General Discussions)Aviation related productsAircraft RestorationHelicopters and rotary wing aircraftsFlight SimulationSailplanesAviation (Students)Light aircraftFlying related activities in the UK Airports----------------alt.airportsEdinburgh Airport Glasgow Airport Humberside Airport Luton Airport Aberdeen Airport Glasgow Prestwick Airport  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.