There was a time when I thought that
the blackbird could secretly hit 5 on the
mach meter--but isn't there solid science
agains this? Such as:

I don't think the engines have the ability
to rev up to such a speed. Maybe the jet fuel
itself cannot produce sufficent BTU's (thrust)
to propel it that fast, maybe the fuel lines
are too small to exceed Mach 3.3

Perhaps the real inhibitor is the lack of
enough combustible oxygen to feed the engines
to shatter established speed records.

I know that the outer metal shell of the
jet couldn't sustain the high atmospheric
friction.

Am I right about all this, or is there OTHER
things to consider?

In article >,
(frank wight) wrote:

> There was a time when I thought that
> the blackbird could secretly hit 5 on the
> mach meter--but isn't there solid science
> agains this? Such as:
>
> I don't think the engines have the ability
> to rev up to such a speed. Maybe the jet fuel
> itself cannot produce sufficent BTU's (thrust)
> to propel it that fast, maybe the fuel lines
> are too small to exceed Mach 3.3
>
> Perhaps the real inhibitor is the lack of
> enough combustible oxygen to feed the engines
> to shatter established speed records.
>
> I know that the outer metal shell of the
> jet couldn't sustain the high atmospheric
> friction.
>
> Am I right about all this, or is there OTHER
> things to consider?

A lot of that is pretty much on the mark. I've heard Mach 3.5 for short
sprints, but not more than 3.3 for sustained flight.

Mach 5? No way in hell, although I've seen a very few claims for Mach 4
sprints (extremely informally on that one). Even if they could manage
the power to do it, the skin would be melting (see the thread on the
Sanger Amerika Bomber for some of the problems with sustained very high
speed flight).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article >,
(frank wight) wrote:
>
> There was a time when I thought that
> the blackbird could secretly hit 5 on the
> mach meter--but isn't there solid science
> agains this? Such as:
>
> I don't think the engines have the ability
> to rev up to such a speed. Maybe the jet fuel
> itself cannot produce sufficent BTU's (thrust)
> to propel it that fast, maybe the fuel lines
> are too small to exceed Mach 3.3
>
> Perhaps the real inhibitor is the lack of
> enough combustible oxygen to feed the engines
> to shatter established speed records.
>
> I know that the outer metal shell of the
> jet couldn't sustain the high atmospheric
> friction.
>
> Am I right about all this, or is there OTHER
> things to consider?

Besides things like exceeding the allowed inlet temp,
a speed much over 4 (if I recall correctly) would put
the shock from the nose in the inlets. Bad news.

On 29 Nov 2003 12:48:59 -0800, (frank wight)
wrote:

> There was a time when I thought that
> the blackbird could secretly hit 5 on the
> mach meter--but isn't there solid science
> agains this? Such as:

If you go faster than Mach 3.5 the bow shock off the nose will impinge
on the leading edge of the outboard section of the wing and melt it
off if you do it for very long. It's OK for a dash, but not for
cruise. That's pretty solid science.

> I don't think the engines have the ability
> to rev up to such a speed. Maybe the jet fuel
> itself cannot produce sufficent BTU's (thrust)
> to propel it that fast, maybe the fuel lines
> are too small to exceed Mach 3.3

The SR-71 has dashed to Mach 3.5, so this isn't a problem.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:54:46 -0800, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>On 29 Nov 2003 12:48:59 -0800, (frank wight)
>wrote:
>
>> There was a time when I thought that
>> the blackbird could secretly hit 5 on the
>> mach meter--but isn't there solid science
>> agains this? Such as:
>
>If you go faster than Mach 3.5 the bow shock off the nose will impinge
>on the leading edge of the outboard section of the wing and melt it
>off if you do it for very long. It's OK for a dash, but not for
>cruise. That's pretty solid science.


You know out of all the "how fast will it REALLY go" discussions
that's the first time I've heard an answer that satisfied me. Many
here are familiar with that X-15 that burned off it's ventral fin from
shock inpingment from that test ramjet. Most of the answers I'd
heard in the past for why it can't go a lot faster than 3.2 is
"because it can't". The shock thing makes total sense. I'd read that
one of the A-12s hit 3.6 at 97,600 which is probably close to the
alltime best. It's definitely the best I've ever seen published.

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (frank wight) wrote:
>
> > There was a time when I thought that
> > the blackbird could secretly hit 5 on the
> > mach meter--but isn't there solid science
> > agains this? Such as:
> >
> > I don't think the engines have the ability
> > to rev up to such a speed. Maybe the jet fuel
> > itself cannot produce sufficent BTU's (thrust)
> > to propel it that fast, maybe the fuel lines
> > are too small to exceed Mach 3.3
> >
> > Perhaps the real inhibitor is the lack of
> > enough combustible oxygen to feed the engines
> > to shatter established speed records.
> >
> > I know that the outer metal shell of the
> > jet couldn't sustain the high atmospheric
> > friction.
> >
> > Am I right about all this, or is there OTHER
> > things to consider?
>
> A lot of that is pretty much on the mark. I've heard Mach 3.5 for short
> sprints, but not more than 3.3 for sustained flight.
>
> Mach 5? No way in hell, although I've seen a very few claims for Mach 4
> sprints (extremely informally on that one). Even if they could manage
> the power to do it, the skin would be melting (see the thread on the
> Sanger Amerika Bomber for some of the problems with sustained very high
> speed flight).

Same here. I live in northern California so I have heard all the stuff
coming from Beale AFB and the Mach 3.0-3.5 range seems to be the
truth; however, the airframe of the SR-71 is stressed for Mach 4.0
flight. Maybe like the Foxbat this was for emergency only with
resulting damage to the engines and a/c. But I see little need for
such speed given the Blackbird's height invunerability.

Rob

>owever, the airframe of the SR-71 is stressed for Mach 4.0
>flight.


Where did you hear that?

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> Same here. I live in northern California so I have heard all the stuff
> coming from Beale AFB and the Mach 3.0-3.5 range seems to be the
> truth; however, the airframe of the SR-71 is stressed for Mach 4.0
> flight. Maybe like the Foxbat this was for emergency only with
> resulting damage to the engines and a/c. But I see little need for
> such speed given the Blackbird's height invunerability.


What height invulnerability? It worked in the 60's but in todays
environment, there are quite a few missiles that could reach out and touch
the SR-71.

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:21:36 -0500, "Brian"
> wrote:

>
>"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
>> Same here. I live in northern California so I have heard all the stuff
>> coming from Beale AFB and the Mach 3.0-3.5 range seems to be the
>> truth; however, the airframe of the SR-71 is stressed for Mach 4.0
>> flight. Maybe like the Foxbat this was for emergency only with
>> resulting damage to the engines and a/c. But I see little need for
>> such speed given the Blackbird's height invunerability.
>
>
>What height invulnerability? It worked in the 60's but in todays
>environment, there are quite a few missiles that could reach out and touch
>the SR-71.

Even back in the day there are some they couldn't ignore. If you
counted both sides I'd give the SA-5, Nike Hercules and Bomarc B fair
odds.

In article >,
"Brian" > wrote:

> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Same here. I live in northern California so I have heard all the stuff
> > coming from Beale AFB and the Mach 3.0-3.5 range seems to be the
> > truth; however, the airframe of the SR-71 is stressed for Mach 4.0
> > flight. Maybe like the Foxbat this was for emergency only with
> > resulting damage to the engines and a/c. But I see little need for
> > such speed given the Blackbird's height invunerability.
>
>
> What height invulnerability? It worked in the 60's but in todays
> environment, there are quite a few missiles that could reach out and touch
> the SR-71.

Well, there's "reach," then there's "reach with a decent chance of
hitting it."

The problem is that the few missiles with the height (80,000 feet plus)
didn't have enough targeting capability to hit the Blackbird at that
height, especially in a stern chase. The best they could do would be to
loft one up and try to get in the way.

The newer ones, like the "big" SA-20, might be able to do it, but it
would still be a fairly tough targeting solution - you'd need to loft
one up before the SR-71 was in range, then acquire it while in midair.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Scott Ferrin > wrote in message >...
> >owever, the airframe of the SR-71 is stressed for Mach 4.0
> >flight.
>
>
> Where did you hear that?

From a credible Beale AFB source. I should mention that Mach 4.0 is
beyond the Blackbird's "stability limit" of Mach 3.5.
A typical mission for the Blackbird would be Mach 3.2 at 85,000 ft.
The aircraft could safely raise the speed from Mach 3.2 to 3.3 and
accellerate up to Mach 3.5 (the stability limit)for a limited time.
Pushing the aircraft up past 3.5 in an emergency was possible but not
recommended. The airframe could handle limited endurance up to Mach
4.0 with the penalty of damaging the aircraft/engines at sustained
flight at that speed.
The MiG-25 Foxbat had a similar stability limit of Mach 2.83. The lone
Foxbat chased by the Israelis up to Mach 3.2 suffered severe damage to
the engines as a result of exceeding the stability limit. MiG-25
pilots were instructed not to attempt speeds over Mach 2.5-2.6, with
special permission required for emergency dash at Mach 2.80. After
that the aircraft could easily still accelerate but the engines would
begin to suffer damage.
The radar absorbing paint on the SR-71 also acted as a heat sink,
lowering the airframe temperature by nearly 100 degrees. It would have
been better, however, if the aircraft was painted white overall
instead of blue-black. This was proposed at least once (based on the
X-15 research) but rejected.

Rob

On 30 Nov 2003 09:08:15 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

>Scott Ferrin > wrote in message >...
>> >owever, the airframe of the SR-71 is stressed for Mach 4.0
>> >flight.
>>
>>
>> Where did you hear that?
>
>From a credible Beale AFB source. I should mention that Mach 4.0 is
>beyond the Blackbird's "stability limit" of Mach 3.5.
>A typical mission for the Blackbird would be Mach 3.2 at 85,000 ft.
>The aircraft could safely raise the speed from Mach 3.2 to 3.3 and
>accellerate up to Mach 3.5 (the stability limit)for a limited time.

I'm skeptical about the 3.5. On of the A-12s hit 3.6 at 97,000 ft.
during testing.

On 30 Nov 2003 09:08:15 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

> The radar absorbing paint on the SR-71 also acted as a heat sink,
> lowering the airframe temperature by nearly 100 degrees. It would have
> been better, however, if the aircraft was painted white overall
> instead of blue-black. This was proposed at least once (based on the
> X-15 research) but rejected.

No. The SR-71 is black because that improves its ability to radiate
away heat. Remember sigma x T**4? Well, sigma is higher for this
black paint than it is for white paint.

The X-15 never did any research on white paint. If you're thinking of
the white paint used to protect the pink ablative coating on #2, that
wasn't there to improve radiation and it burned off very quickly.
There was nothing significant about the paint color.

Since the X-15 flew a really quick trajectory, rather than cruising at
high speeds, color was much less of an issue. It wasn't in the air
long enough for radiation to help. (The same is true for the Space
Shuttle Orbiter.) However, the SR-71 cruised at high speeds and
radiation helped lower the temperature, as you mention.

Where do you think the heat absorbed by the paint went? Heat can be
conducted into the airframe, convected into the air, or radiated into
space. It doesn't just vanish into the molecules of the paint. The
surface of the airplane, covered with paint, radiated that heat
outward. The heat came from more than just the paint; it also came
from the skin and structure.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Scott Ferrin > wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:21:36 -0500, "Brian"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> Same here. I live in northern California so I have heard all the stuff
> >> coming from Beale AFB and the Mach 3.0-3.5 range seems to be the
> >> truth; however, the airframe of the SR-71 is stressed for Mach 4.0
> >> flight. Maybe like the Foxbat this was for emergency only with
> >> resulting damage to the engines and a/c. But I see little need for
> >> such speed given the Blackbird's height invunerability.
> >
> >
> >What height invulnerability? It worked in the 60's but in todays
> >environment, there are quite a few missiles that could reach out and touch
> >the SR-71.
>
> Even back in the day there are some they couldn't ignore. If you
> counted both sides I'd give the SA-5, Nike Hercules and Bomarc B fair
> odds.


Not being able to ignore them (i.e., SA-5), yes. But "fair odds"? I
don't think I'd go that far. A tail chase was unlikely to work (it
took a great deal of energy to get the SAM up to that altitude, not
leaving a lot for subsequent catch up or maneuver). A head-on shot
required a targeting system capable of handling the extreme closure
velocity along with again leaving enough energy to maneuver to the
kill. Possible, but not really likely I'd think. Nike Herc I'd place
in the "very lucky shot" category, unless the nuclear warhead version
was used (unlikely to say the least), and BOMARC in the "when pigs
fly" category (again unless the nuke model was used)--it had the
altitude (but only by challenging its capabilities--its ceiling was
about 100K), but lacked the energy (it could only do about M 3.0
itself).

Brooks

(frank wight) wrote in message >...
> There was a time when I thought that
> the blackbird could secretly hit 5 on the
> mach meter--but isn't there solid science
> agains this? Such as:
>
> I don't think the engines have the ability
> to rev up to such a speed. Maybe the jet fuel
> itself cannot produce sufficent BTU's (thrust)
> to propel it that fast, maybe the fuel lines
> are too small to exceed Mach 3.3
>
> Perhaps the real inhibitor is the lack of
> enough combustible oxygen to feed the engines
> to shatter established speed records.
>
> I know that the outer metal shell of the
> jet couldn't sustain the high atmospheric
> friction.
>
> Am I right about all this, or is there OTHER
> things to consider?


The SR71 is limited in speed by the shock wave from the nose of the
aircraft impinging on the inlet lip of the engines over about Mach
3.5. The dash speed of the aircraft is not limited by either engine
thrust or or short term thermal issues.

Theoreticaly the A12 should be faster becuase of its shorter nose.

Mary Shafer > wrote in message >...
> On 30 Nov 2003 09:08:15 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> > The radar absorbing paint on the SR-71 also acted as a heat sink,
> > lowering the airframe temperature by nearly 100 degrees. It would have
> > been better, however, if the aircraft was painted white overall
> > instead of blue-black. This was proposed at least once (based on the
> > X-15 research) but rejected.
>
> No. The SR-71 is black because that improves its ability to radiate
> away heat. Remember sigma x T**4? Well, sigma is higher for this
> black paint than it is for white paint.
>
> The X-15 never did any research on white paint. If you're thinking of
> the white paint used to protect the pink ablative coating on #2, that
> wasn't there to improve radiation and it burned off very quickly.
> There was nothing significant about the paint color.

The ablative compound Martin MA-25S AND the white sealant worked
together to get the X-15A-2 up to its record speed. This combo was
proposed for the SR-71 at one time but rejected. MA-25S, however, was
used on the space shuttle and other white compounds have been tested
for high speed flight.
>
> Since the X-15 flew a really quick trajectory, rather than cruising at
> high speeds, color was much less of an issue. It wasn't in the air
> long enough for radiation to help. (The same is true for the Space
> Shuttle Orbiter.) However, the SR-71 cruised at high speeds and
> radiation helped lower the temperature, as you mention.
>
> Where do you think the heat absorbed by the paint went? Heat can be
> conducted into the airframe, convected into the air, or radiated into
> space. It doesn't just vanish into the molecules of the paint. The
> surface of the airplane, covered with paint, radiated that heat
> outward. The heat came from more than just the paint; it also came
> from the skin and structure.
>
> Mary

Funny how the all-white Mach 3 XB-70 seemed to hold up to kinetic
heating all right... and that was just simple nuclear anti-flash
white.

Rob

On 30 Nov 2003 18:10:14 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

>Mary Shafer > wrote in message >...
>> On 30 Nov 2003 09:08:15 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>>
>> > The radar absorbing paint on the SR-71 also acted as a heat sink,
>> > lowering the airframe temperature by nearly 100 degrees. It would have
>> > been better, however, if the aircraft was painted white overall
>> > instead of blue-black. This was proposed at least once (based on the
>> > X-15 research) but rejected.
>>
>> No. The SR-71 is black because that improves its ability to radiate
>> away heat. Remember sigma x T**4? Well, sigma is higher for this
>> black paint than it is for white paint.
>>
>> The X-15 never did any research on white paint. If you're thinking of
>> the white paint used to protect the pink ablative coating on #2, that
>> wasn't there to improve radiation and it burned off very quickly.
>> There was nothing significant about the paint color.
>
>The ablative compound Martin MA-25S AND the white sealant worked
>together to get the X-15A-2 up to its record speed. This combo was
>proposed for the SR-71 at one time but rejected. MA-25S, however, was
>used on the space shuttle and other white compounds have been tested
>for high speed flight.
>>
>> Since the X-15 flew a really quick trajectory, rather than cruising at
>> high speeds, color was much less of an issue. It wasn't in the air
>> long enough for radiation to help. (The same is true for the Space
>> Shuttle Orbiter.) However, the SR-71 cruised at high speeds and
>> radiation helped lower the temperature, as you mention.
>>
>> Where do you think the heat absorbed by the paint went? Heat can be
>> conducted into the airframe, convected into the air, or radiated into
>> space. It doesn't just vanish into the molecules of the paint. The
>> surface of the airplane, covered with paint, radiated that heat
>> outward. The heat came from more than just the paint; it also came
>> from the skin and structure.
>>
>> Mary
>
>Funny how the all-white Mach 3 XB-70 seemed to hold up to kinetic
>heating all right... and that was just simple nuclear anti-flash
>white.
>
>Rob


For the record according to Ben Rich in the book Skunk Works the black
paint lowered the temperature by 30 degrees and was done in order to
let them use an easier to work with kind of titanium. (Hey just
passing on what I read.)

Chad Irby wrote:
>
> In article >,
> "Brian" > wrote:
>
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Same here. I live in northern California so I have heard all the stuff
> > > coming from Beale AFB and the Mach 3.0-3.5 range seems to be the
> > > truth; however, the airframe of the SR-71 is stressed for Mach 4.0
> > > flight. Maybe like the Foxbat this was for emergency only with
> > > resulting damage to the engines and a/c. But I see little need for
> > > such speed given the Blackbird's height invunerability.
> >
> >
> > What height invulnerability? It worked in the 60's but in todays
> > environment, there are quite a few missiles that could reach out and touch
> > the SR-71.
>
> Well, there's "reach," then there's "reach with a decent chance of
> hitting it."
>
> The problem is that the few missiles with the height (80,000 feet plus)
> didn't have enough targeting capability to hit the Blackbird at that
> height, especially in a stern chase. The best they could do would be to
> loft one up and try to get in the way.
>
> The newer ones, like the "big" SA-20, might be able to do it, but it
> would still be a fairly tough targeting solution - you'd need to loft
> one up before the SR-71 was in range, then acquire it while in midair.

at which point in time, couldn't the 71 see it coming, and maneuver
to make the geometry as bad as for the others?

redc1c4,
curious ground pounder
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

In article >,
(The Enlightenment) writes:
> (frank wight) wrote in message >...
>> There was a time when I thought that
>> the blackbird could secretly hit 5 on the
>> mach meter--but isn't there solid science
>> agains this? Such as:
>>
>> I don't think the engines have the ability
>> to rev up to such a speed. Maybe the jet fuel
>> itself cannot produce sufficent BTU's (thrust)
>> to propel it that fast, maybe the fuel lines
>> are too small to exceed Mach 3.3
>>
>> Perhaps the real inhibitor is the lack of
>> enough combustible oxygen to feed the engines
>> to shatter established speed records.
>>
>> I know that the outer metal shell of the
>> jet couldn't sustain the high atmospheric
>> friction.
>>
>> Am I right about all this, or is there OTHER
>> things to consider?
>
>
> The SR71 is limited in speed by the shock wave from the nose of the
> aircraft impinging on the inlet lip of the engines over about Mach
> 3.5. The dash speed of the aircraft is not limited by either engine
> thrust or or short term thermal issues.
>
> Theoreticaly the A12 should be faster becuase of its shorter nose.

Uhm, Bernie - If one of the limiting factors in an A-12/SR-71's speed
is shock impingement, (Which it is, a;though IIRC it's shoc
impingement on the leading edges of the wings, not the nacelles), how
is a shorter nose going to give you a higher Mach Number? A longer
nose would allow a steeper included angle. (Y'know, all that Opposite
vs. Adjacent stuff from High School Trig.) Unless, of course, Shock
Waves work backwards in Australia?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

(robert arndt) wrote:

> Funny how the all-white Mach 3 XB-70 seemed to hold up to kinetic
> heating all right... and that was just simple nuclear anti-flash
> white.

They did that by using a fairly scary system of pipes that ran through
high-heat areas, and used the plane's fuel as a heat sink, combined with
extensive use of titanium in the worst spots.

In a combat-ready version, you can safely assume that they would have
used the "iron ball" black paint for radar reduction and heat protection.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article >,
redc1c4 > wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
>
> > The newer ones, like the "big" SA-20, might be able to do it, but it
> > would still be a fairly tough targeting solution - you'd need to loft
> > one up before the SR-71 was in range, then acquire it while in midair.
>
> at which point in time, couldn't the 71 see it coming, and maneuver
> to make the geometry as bad as for the others?

At those speeds and heights, it's like trying to skeet shoot cannonballs
from behind after you see the flash from the cannon.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:24:22 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

(robert arndt) wrote:
>
>> Funny how the all-white Mach 3 XB-70 seemed to hold up to kinetic
>> heating all right... and that was just simple nuclear anti-flash
>> white.
>
>They did that by using a fairly scary system of pipes that ran through
>high-heat areas, and used the plane's fuel as a heat sink, combined with
>extensive use of titanium in the worst spots.

Not to mention the 4000 gallon tank of water. (It might have been 4000
pounds not gallons but I'm fairly certain it was gallons. They also
had an additional tank with ammonia just in case the water ran out)



>
>In a combat-ready version, you can safely assume that they would have
>used the "iron ball" black paint for radar reduction and heat protection.

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> > Funny how the all-white Mach 3 XB-70 seemed to hold up to kinetic
> > heating all right... and that was just simple nuclear anti-flash
> > white.
>
> They did that by using a fairly scary system of pipes that ran through
> high-heat areas, and used the plane's fuel as a heat sink, combined with
> extensive use of titanium in the worst spots.
>
> In a combat-ready version, you can safely assume that they would have
> used the "iron ball" black paint for radar reduction and heat protection.

"Iron Ball" black paint was derived from the Third Reich's
radar-absorbing "Schornsteinfeger" (Chimney Sweep) carbon paint meant
for the Go-229 jet flying wing.

Rob

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> "Iron Ball" black paint was derived from the Third Reich's
> radar-absorbing "Schornsteinfeger" (Chimney Sweep) carbon paint meant
> for the Go-229 jet flying wing.

Please lose this silly delusion that every aircraft advance in the last
60 years came from the Nazis. It's just plain silly.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Can someone confirm or deny the design "flaw/feature/consequence" of
the SR71/A12leaking fuel tanks? I have heard stories which varied
from this being a feature (to allow for expansion of the fuel tank
structure due to aerodynamic heating) to a design flaw which was never
fixed to a known consequence of aerodynamic heating which was never
resolved with the high temperature sealants available at the time.

I just cannot believe that Kelly Johnson's team would allow such a
flaw to exist in their design. I would rather believe that the Skunk
Works team knew that aerodynamic heating would seal the tanks and so
did relatively nothing to resolve the fuel leakage on the ground
issue.


Scott Ferrin > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:24:22 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> (robert arndt) wrote:
> >
> >> Funny how the all-white Mach 3 XB-70 seemed to hold up to kinetic
> >> heating all right... and that was just simple nuclear anti-flash
> >> white.
> >
> >They did that by using a fairly scary system of pipes that ran through
> >high-heat areas, and used the plane's fuel as a heat sink, combined with
> >extensive use of titanium in the worst spots.
>
> Not to mention the 4000 gallon tank of water. (It might have been 4000
> pounds not gallons but I'm fairly certain it was gallons. They also
> had an additional tank with ammonia just in case the water ran out)
>
>
>
> >
> >In a combat-ready version, you can safely assume that they would have
> >used the "iron ball" black paint for radar reduction and heat protection.

On 1 Dec 2003 11:27:25 -0800, (Jens Peter) wrote:

>Can someone confirm or deny the design "flaw/feature/consequence" of
>the SR71/A12leaking fuel tanks? I have heard stories which varied
>from this being a feature (to allow for expansion of the fuel tank
>structure due to aerodynamic heating) to a design flaw which was never
>fixed to a known consequence of aerodynamic heating which was never
>resolved with the high temperature sealants available at the time.
>
>I just cannot believe that Kelly Johnson's team would allow such a
>flaw to exist in their design. I would rather believe that the Skunk
>Works team knew that aerodynamic heating would seal the tanks and so
>did relatively nothing to resolve the fuel leakage on the ground
>issue.
>

Both of your reasons apply. They couldn't come up with a sealant and
since the expansion sealed them they pretty much said "screw it" and
decided to live with it.

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:46:31 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> (robert arndt) wrote:
>
>> "Iron Ball" black paint was derived from the Third Reich's
>> radar-absorbing "Schornsteinfeger" (Chimney Sweep) carbon paint meant
>> for the Go-229 jet flying wing.
>
>Please lose this silly delusion that every aircraft advance in the last
>60 years came from the Nazis. It's just plain silly.


I seem to recall that "paint" being more like BBs in a sheet of
rubber.

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> > (robert arndt) wrote:
> >
> > > Funny how the all-white Mach 3 XB-70 seemed to hold up to kinetic
> > > heating all right... and that was just simple nuclear anti-flash
> > > white.
> >
> > They did that by using a fairly scary system of pipes that ran through
> > high-heat areas, and used the plane's fuel as a heat sink, combined with
> > extensive use of titanium in the worst spots.
> >
> > In a combat-ready version, you can safely assume that they would have
> > used the "iron ball" black paint for radar reduction and heat protection.
>
> "Iron Ball" black paint was derived from the Third Reich's
> radar-absorbing "Schornsteinfeger" (Chimney Sweep) carbon paint meant
> for the Go-229 jet flying wing.
>
> Rob


Geeze, you probably think the integrated circuit and microprocessor
were both derived from Nazi research, huh? What is it with this
Pavlovian reaction you demonstrate to all things (allegedly) Germanic?

Brooks

Scott Ferrin > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:24:22 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> (robert arndt) wrote:
> >
> >> Funny how the all-white Mach 3 XB-70 seemed to hold up to kinetic
> >> heating all right... and that was just simple nuclear anti-flash
> >> white.
> >
> >They did that by using a fairly scary system of pipes that ran through
> >high-heat areas, and used the plane's fuel as a heat sink, combined with
> >extensive use of titanium in the worst spots.
>
> Not to mention the 4000 gallon tank of water. (It might have been 4000
> pounds not gallons but I'm fairly certain it was gallons. They also
> had an additional tank with ammonia just in case the water ran out)

32,000 pounds of water sounds quite a bit excessive.

Brooks

>
>
>
> >
> >In a combat-ready version, you can safely assume that they would have
> >used the "iron ball" black paint for radar reduction and heat protection.

"redc1c4" > wrote in message
...
> Chad Irby wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > "Brian" > wrote:
> > > What height invulnerability? It worked in the 60's but in todays
> > > environment, there are quite a few missiles that could reach out and
touch
> > > the SR-71.
> >
> > Well, there's "reach," then there's "reach with a decent chance of
> > hitting it."
> >
> > The problem is that the few missiles with the height (80,000 feet plus)
> > didn't have enough targeting capability to hit the Blackbird at that
> > height, especially in a stern chase. The best they could do would be to
> > loft one up and try to get in the way.

Maybe back in the 60's, but today's modern missiles shouldn't have that
tough of a time with it. The Navy has been dealing with hi-alt hi-speed
targets for a while (AS4/6, SS-N-12, SS-N-19) and practices with Vandals
(hi-speed hi-alt). If an enemy SR-71(ok, imagine we sold one to some rogue
nation), came cruising near an Aegis or NTU(ER) ship it would stand a good
chance of becoming fish food(nothing is 100%). The SA-12 and SA-20 are
downright nasty missiles as well

> > The newer ones, like the "big" SA-20, might be able to do it, but it
> > would still be a fairly tough targeting solution - you'd need to loft
> > one up before the SR-71 was in range, then acquire it while in midair.

Missiles like the SA-12/20 and SM-2 have incredibly high speeds and
altitudes.....the SR-71 is not in a favorable position being up in the sky
with no clutter around. If it could reach M3.2 on the deck, there would be
more problems with targeting.

> at which point in time, couldn't the 71 see it coming, and maneuver
> to make the geometry as bad as for the others?

Sure, but then the 71 misses it's intended track and gets no intel.

In article >,
"Brian" > wrote:

> Missiles like the SA-12/20 and SM-2 have incredibly high speeds and
> altitudes.....the SR-71 is not in a favorable position being up in the sky
> with no clutter around. If it could reach M3.2 on the deck, there would be
> more problems with targeting.

You have to remember that the SAM-20 tops out at about 4600 MPH, about a
third faster than the SR-71, which makes it a *lot* easier to spoof the
missile's radar, and doesn't give it enough of a speed advantage to make
a strong chance of catching a Mach-3+ aircraft from behind.

They *do* have a much better chance to hitting one nowadays, which is
part of the reason you wouldn't see many SR-71-type planes anywhere near
the big SAM sites. Or why there's that persistent rumor about an SR-71
followup out there...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On 1 Dec 2003 12:53:27 -0800, (Kevin Brooks)
wrote:

>Scott Ferrin > wrote in message >...
>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:24:22 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>>
>> (robert arndt) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Funny how the all-white Mach 3 XB-70 seemed to hold up to kinetic
>> >> heating all right... and that was just simple nuclear anti-flash
>> >> white.
>> >
>> >They did that by using a fairly scary system of pipes that ran through
>> >high-heat areas, and used the plane's fuel as a heat sink, combined with
>> >extensive use of titanium in the worst spots.
>>
>> Not to mention the 4000 gallon tank of water. (It might have been 4000
>> pounds not gallons but I'm fairly certain it was gallons. They also
>> had an additional tank with ammonia just in case the water ran out)
>
>32,000 pounds of water sounds quite a bit excessive.
>
>Brooks

Yeah that's why I thought too. The tank didn't look like it could
hold 4000 gallons either. Must have been 4000 pounds. I'd look it up
but the book is boxed up in the shed somewhere.

I'm fairly certain it was in this book

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0760305552/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-0393996-5471225#reader-page

but ti could have been any of a number of books. I have foru or five
on the thing (one of my favorite aircraft).

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:29:36 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Brian" > wrote:
>
>> Missiles like the SA-12/20 and SM-2 have incredibly high speeds and
>> altitudes.....the SR-71 is not in a favorable position being up in the sky
>> with no clutter around. If it could reach M3.2 on the deck, there would be
>> more problems with targeting.
>
>You have to remember that the SAM-20 tops out at about 4600 MPH, about a
>third faster than the SR-71, which makes it a *lot* easier to spoof the
>missile's radar, and doesn't give it enough of a speed advantage to make
>a strong chance of catching a Mach-3+ aircraft from behind.


Why the fixation of hitting the aircraft from behind? The idea with a
SAM is to hit the target from the front BEFORE it's dropped it's bombs
or hit the target. The reason I think the Bomarc would have a fair
chance is because it certainly had the altitude and head to head it
doesn't have to chase it down. They'd have seen it far enough out and
with that 400 plus mile range it's going to be at speed and altitude
well before the Blackbird would be overhead. Hell even the limited
maneuvering the Blackbird could do at Mach 3 wouldn't help it because
the Bomarc had the energy to maneuver too.

In article >,
Scott Ferrin > wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:29:36 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >You have to remember that the SAM-20 tops out at about 4600 MPH, about a
> >third faster than the SR-71, which makes it a *lot* easier to spoof the
> >missile's radar, and doesn't give it enough of a speed advantage to make
> >a strong chance of catching a Mach-3+ aircraft from behind.
>
> Why the fixation of hitting the aircraft from behind?

Because about half of all engagements with long-range missiles happen
from the rear aspect, or from the side (which can be worse in some
cases). Very few aircraft drivers are going to run right down the
throat of a radar when they can sit off to one side and make the missile
work harder. Even with a very long range (400 kilometer) SAM, you have
to have about a 50% overlap with the systems on either side to make sure
you have good coverage, or the penetrating aircraft will just look at
signal strengths on their RWR and drive in between, forcing that
long-range tail chase (or avoiding your engagement ranges altogether).
Even at 7200 KPH, you're looking at a delay of a couple of minutes to
get out to a couple of hundred klicks, which can be a problem when the
target is doing 2/3 of that speed, jamming madly.

Most countries have no chance of affording to cover their entire border
with high-speed, high-altitude, long-range missile sites, especially
places like the former Soviet Union. Sure, you could ring your major
cities with them, but even that's too expensive in the long run. Even
putting one next to each major military target gets pretty darned
expensive.

....and if you do, and you turn those radars on at any time, you get
"tagged" for later attention, which is death on the modern battlefield.
Big radars and fast missiles are great in some cases, but they're easy
targets. They move slowly and they're easy to kill.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (The Enlightenment) writes:
> > (frank wight) wrote in message >...
SNIP
> >
> > The SR71 is limited in speed by the shock wave from the nose of the
> > aircraft impinging on the inlet lip of the engines over about Mach
> > 3.5. The dash speed of the aircraft is not limited by either engine
> > thrust or or short term thermal issues.
> >
> > Theoreticaly the A12 should be faster becuase of its shorter nose.
>
> Uhm, Bernie -

Frederick actualy. Bernxard is my spanish blue cat. I use his email.

> If one of the limiting factors in an A-12/SR-71's speed
> is shock impingement, (Which it is, a;though IIRC it's shoc
> impingement on the leading edges of the wings, not the nacelles), how
> is a shorter nose going to give you a higher Mach Number? A longer
> nose would allow a steeper included angle. (Y'know, all that Opposite
> vs. Adjacent stuff from High School Trig.) Unless, of course, Shock
> Waves work backwards in Australia?

You got me there.

The shockwave story re impingingment on the nacels I though I read in
a review of sled driver published in Air International.

Are you sure its wing tips? The solution I think is in a protractor
and a photocopy of and SR71 outline.

In article >,
(The Enlightenment) writes:
> (Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
>> In article >,
>> (The Enlightenment) writes:
>> > (frank wight) wrote in message >...
> SNIP
>> >
>> > The SR71 is limited in speed by the shock wave from the nose of the
>> > aircraft impinging on the inlet lip of the engines over about Mach
>> > 3.5. The dash speed of the aircraft is not limited by either engine
>> > thrust or or short term thermal issues.
>> >
>> > Theoreticaly the A12 should be faster becuase of its shorter nose.
>>
>> Uhm, Bernie -
>
> Frederick actualy. Bernxard is my spanish blue cat. I use his email.

But it's pronounced Raymond Luxury-Yacht.
Bright cat.

>> If one of the limiting factors in an A-12/SR-71's speed
>> is shock impingement, (Which it is, a;though IIRC it's shoc
>> impingement on the leading edges of the wings, not the nacelles), how
>> is a shorter nose going to give you a higher Mach Number? A longer
>> nose would allow a steeper included angle. (Y'know, all that Opposite
>> vs. Adjacent stuff from High School Trig.) Unless, of course, Shock
>> Waves work backwards in Australia?
>
> You got me there.
>
> The shockwave story re impingingment on the nacels I though I read in
> a review of sled driver published in Air International.
>
> Are you sure its wing tips? The solution I think is in a protractor
> and a photocopy of and SR71 outline.

Yep. That's how I figured it out. The wingtips would be impinged upon
first, then the chines on the outboard sides of the nacelles, then the
outer nafelle lip. Of course, you'd get some complicated shock
interactions going on in the region of the nacelle, so simple
straightedge and protracter stuff is only approximate.

There's a whole bunch of stuff going on that would limit the max speed
to somewhere between Mach 3.2 -> 3.5. The shock impingement stuff, the
air temperature at the compressor face, the ability of the fuel to
carry heat away from critical components pop into mind at a first
stab. Those factors all meet at or about Mach 3.5.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message >...
> (robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> > Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> > > (robert arndt) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Funny how the all-white Mach 3 XB-70 seemed to hold up to kinetic
> > > > heating all right... and that was just simple nuclear anti-flash
> > > > white.
> > >
> > > They did that by using a fairly scary system of pipes that ran through
> > > high-heat areas, and used the plane's fuel as a heat sink, combined with
> > > extensive use of titanium in the worst spots.
> > >
> > > In a combat-ready version, you can safely assume that they would have
> > > used the "iron ball" black paint for radar reduction and heat protection.
> >
> > "Iron Ball" black paint was derived from the Third Reich's
> > radar-absorbing "Schornsteinfeger" (Chimney Sweep) carbon paint meant
> > for the Go-229 jet flying wing.
> >
> > Rob
>
>
> Geeze, you probably think the integrated circuit and microprocessor
> were both derived from Nazi research, huh? What is it with this
> Pavlovian reaction you demonstrate to all things (allegedly) Germanic?


It's quite possible that German research in this area influenced or
inspired later western work.

The Germans were using a sort of rubberised ironball for u-boat
snorkels and conning towers. Screens were also carried on board
u-boats that could be errected around the conning tower. Finaly the
Go 229 was to recieve a sort of carbon black based 3-ply skin that had
RAM properties and the aircraft showed use of re enterant structures.

Surely opperation paperclip must have made use of some of this or been
aware of German approaches to the issue.

German pre war doctrine held that radar or radio emisions would reveal
one to the enemy and empphsised passive techniques and this may have
influenced their neglect at maintaining their lead in radar.

It has to be rememberd that Randle and Boots magnetron was developed
because they wanted a cheap radar emiter for the detector and
direction finder they were developing.

If they had of been given a bigger budget they may not have stumbelled
upon it.

As far as Germans inventing the integrated circuit goes? Well that
never happened but it might have because an ex Luftwaffe technician
may actualy have invented a transistor. It's quite a sad story
actualy:

http://home.t-online.de/home/Benduhn/summary.htm

Scott Ferrin > wrote in message >...
> On 1 Dec 2003 11:27:25 -0800, (Jens Peter) wrote:
>
> >Can someone confirm or deny the design "flaw/feature/consequence" of
> >the SR71/A12leaking fuel tanks? I have heard stories which varied
> >from this being a feature (to allow for expansion of the fuel tank
> >structure due to aerodynamic heating) to a design flaw which was never
> >fixed to a known consequence of aerodynamic heating which was never
> >resolved with the high temperature sealants available at the time.
> >
> >I just cannot believe that Kelly Johnson's team would allow such a
> >flaw to exist in their design. I would rather believe that the Skunk
> >Works team knew that aerodynamic heating would seal the tanks and so
> >did relatively nothing to resolve the fuel leakage on the ground
> >issue.
> >
>
> Both of your reasons apply. They couldn't come up with a sealant and
> since the expansion sealed them they pretty much said "screw it" and
> decided to live with it.


The SR-71 airframe expanded IIRC 4 inches in flight and the leaking
tanks posed no threat as the fuel had a very high flash point.

Rob

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
om...
> (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message
>...
> > (robert arndt) wrote in message
>...
> > > Chad Irby > wrote in message
>...
> > > > (robert arndt) wrote:
> > > >

> > Geeze, you probably think the integrated circuit and microprocessor
> > were both derived from Nazi research, huh? What is it with this
> > Pavlovian reaction you demonstrate to all things (allegedly) Germanic?
>
>
> It's quite possible that German research in this area influenced or
> inspired later western work.
>

Hardly since the Germans didnt actually do any work in this area.
The Germans's fell far behind the allies in terms of electronics
and electronic warfare as the war progressed.

The transistor came out of work done at Bell Labs that began in
1939 by Russel Ohl and the IC was invented at Texa Instruments
by Jack Kilby.

> The Germans were using a sort of rubberised ironball for u-boat
> snorkels and conning towers. Screens were also carried on board
> u-boats that could be errected around the conning tower. Finaly the
> Go 229 was to recieve a sort of carbon black based 3-ply skin that had
> RAM properties and the aircraft showed use of re enterant structures.
>
> Surely opperation paperclip must have made use of some of this or been
> aware of German approaches to the issue.
>

Hardly , the german countermeasures were almost entirely ineffective
since they were working on the assumption that allied radars
were operating in the metre band rather than the centimetric
radar that was actually being used.

> German pre war doctrine held that radar or radio emisions would reveal
> one to the enemy and empphsised passive techniques and this may have
> influenced their neglect at maintaining their lead in radar.
>
> It has to be rememberd that Randle and Boots magnetron was developed
> because they wanted a cheap radar emiter for the detector and
> direction finder they were developing.
>

That would be Randall and Boot who developed the cavity
magnetron at Birmingham University in 1940.

The Germans also developed active radar systems and Telefunken
had been working on just such a device as early as 1935 but had
been unable to get even close to the efficiencies and power levels
that Randall and Boot achieved.
> If they had of been given a bigger budget they may not have stumbelled
> upon it.
>
> As far as Germans inventing the integrated circuit goes? Well that
> never happened but it might have because an ex Luftwaffe technician
> may actualy have invented a transistor. It's quite a sad story
> actualy:
>
> http://home.t-online.de/home/Benduhn/summary.htm

What it describes is interesting but its not a transistor but a cold cathode
tube and that was first demonstrated by Philo Taylor Farnsworth II in 1934

Its entirly possible that your ex Luftwaffe technician was aware if it since
an article in Radio by Arthur Halloran described it in detail in the
issue published in October 1934.

http://www.borderlands.com/archives/arch/multipact.htm


The claim that the first tubeless radio was built in 1948 is so
wrong its farcical. The crystal set was common in the 1920's.

Keith

In message >, Keith Willshaw
> writes

snip
>
>> As far as Germans inventing the integrated circuit goes? Well that
>> never happened but it might have because an ex Luftwaffe technician
>> may actualy have invented a transistor. It's quite a sad story
>> actualy:
>>
>> http://home.t-online.de/home/Benduhn/summary.htm
>
>What it describes is interesting but its not a transistor but a cold cathode
>tube and that was first demonstrated by Philo Taylor Farnsworth II in 1934
>
>Its entirly possible that your ex Luftwaffe technician was aware if it since
>an article in Radio by Arthur Halloran described it in detail in the
>issue published in October 1934.
>
>http://www.borderlands.com/archives/arch/multipact.htm
>
>
>The claim that the first tubeless radio was built in 1948 is so
>wrong its farcical. The crystal set was common in the 1920's.

The oscillating crystal was also discovered in the '20's.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message
> >...
> > > (robert arndt) wrote in message
> >...
> > > > Chad Irby > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > (robert arndt) wrote:
> > > > >
>
> > > Geeze, you probably think the integrated circuit and microprocessor
> > > were both derived from Nazi research, huh? What is it with this
> > > Pavlovian reaction you demonstrate to all things (allegedly) Germanic?
> >
> >
> > It's quite possible that German research in this area influenced or
> > inspired later western work.
> >
>
> Hardly since the Germans didnt actually do any work in this area.
> The Germans's fell far behind the allies in terms of electronics
> and electronic warfare as the war progressed.
>
> The transistor came out of work done at Bell Labs that began in
> 1939 by Russel Ohl and the IC was invented at Texa Instruments
> by Jack Kilby.
>

A marker on the sidewalk in Palo Alto, Ca.just north of El Camino
on San Antonio Road notes that being the site where Dr. Shokley(sp)
and associates invented the transistor. A dozen or so blocks north on
San Antonio at Charleston there is a building with a monument at the
door noting that "At this site Dr Robert Noyce and associates at
Fairchild invented the first practical application of the integrated
circuit." That would have been the Planar Process and the whole
Silicon Valley evolved from that.

JK

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message
> >...
> > > (robert arndt) wrote in message
> >...
> > > > Chad Irby > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > (robert arndt) wrote:
> > > > >
>
> > > Geeze, you probably think the integrated circuit and
microprocessor
> > > were both derived from Nazi research, huh? What is it with this
> > > Pavlovian reaction you demonstrate to all things (allegedly)
Germanic?
> >
> >
> > It's quite possible that German research in this area influenced
or
> > inspired later western work.
> >
>
> Hardly since the Germans didnt actually do any work in this area.
> The Germans's fell far behind the allies in terms of electronics
> and electronic warfare as the war progressed.

They fell behined in the high frequency field. In other areas they
reamained on par.

>
> The transistor came out of work done at Bell Labs that began in
> 1939 by Russel Ohl and the IC was invented at Texa Instruments
> by Jack Kilby.

Noyce (of intel fame) invented it simultaneously.


The Tranistor is credited to William Schokley. An Englishman who
received the Noble prize leading the team that developed it. I admire
Schokely's political views incidently.

>
> > The Germans were using a sort of rubberised ironball for u-boat
> > snorkels and conning towers. Screens were also carried on board
> > u-boats that could be errected around the conning tower. Finaly
the
> > Go 229 was to recieve a sort of carbon black based 3-ply skin that
had
> > RAM properties and the aircraft showed use of re enterant
structures.
> >
> > Surely opperation paperclip must have made use of some of this or
been
> > aware of German approaches to the issue.
> >
>
> Hardly , the german countermeasures were almost entirely ineffective
> since they were working on the assumption that allied radars
> were operating in the metre band rather than the centimetric
> radar that was actually being used.

Ugh! This misapprehension lasted for less than 1 year and ended by
1943.

The German had succesfully used simple radar as early as 1935 to
detect ships up to 1km away. They however had to use minature valves
that had outputs limited to a watt at most.

Either way they were aware of what was being used against them and
succesfully put into service countermeaures such as warning devices
and homing devices.


>
> > German pre war doctrine held that radar or radio emisions would
reveal
> > one to the enemy and empphsised passive techniques and this may
have
> > influenced their neglect at maintaining their lead in radar.
> >
> > It has to be rememberd that Randle and Boots magnetron was
developed
> > because they wanted a cheap radar emiter for the detector and
> > direction finder they were developing.
> >
>
> That would be Randall and Boot who developed the cavity
> magnetron at Birmingham University in 1940.

Because they couldn't afford the klystrons that were around at the
time for their radia direction finding work.

>
> The Germans also developed active radar systems and Telefunken
> had been working on just such a device as early as 1935 but had
> been unable to get even close to the efficiencies and power levels
> that Randall and Boot achieved.

Yep, the power levels were around 50W but apparently stable. To low
to give a radar more than 1km range.

The Japanese appear to have beaten Randall and Boot but the value of
their device was not recognised.


> > If they had of been given a bigger budget they may not have
stumbelled
> > upon it.
> >
> > As far as Germans inventing the integrated circuit goes? Well
that
> > never happened but it might have because an ex Luftwaffe
technician
> > may actualy have invented a transistor. It's quite a sad story
> > actualy:
> >
> > http://home.t-online.de/home/Benduhn/summary.htm
>
> What it describes is interesting but its not a transistor but a cold
cathode
> tube and that was first demonstrated by Philo Taylor Farnsworth II
in 1934
>

Good try:

From you own link.
"The performance of this new type of tube depends upon the emission of
secondary electrons from two cathodes which are bombarded with
high-velocity primary electrons. "

Clearly your cold cathod tube requirs a high tension power supply.


> Its entirly possible that your ex Luftwaffe technician was aware if
it since
> an article in Radio by Arthur Halloran described it in detail in the
> issue published in October 1934.
>
> http://www.borderlands.com/archives/arch/multipact.htm

Denk would have been a 18 year old kid.


Or he may have just come across it himself as claimed: To make a
transistor
1 Dope Germanium or Silicon lightly as P type material. This is the
base of the transistor.
2 Press 2 tungsten pins into the above base and pass a current. This
will form n-type regions at the point contacts.

That is a pont contact tranistor and it was the first type to enter
production. Making selenium rectifiers and crystal radio 'cats
whisker' rectifiers relied on a similar process at the time.


>
>
> The claim that the first tubeless radio was built in 1948 is so
> wrong its farcical. The crystal set was common in the 1920's.

You're spliting hairs again. Why are you compelled to do that?

Clearly the claim is that he developed some sort of amplification that
did not require heated cathodes or valves.

It's not inconceivable that he stumbelled across some sort of solid
state effect perhaps due to the odd metals used in valves of the time
and followed up on it.

His desire to retain the benefit for his people entirely is
understandable if misguided. The lot of a Sudeten German (Actualy
Austrian prior to that Bavarian) was miserable before and after the
War.

******

You make a mistake when you call me pro-German.

I have had similar claims in realation to me being pro-serbian, pro
ukranian, pro english and pro-russian. I for instance found myself
disgusted by the British act of supporting the Turks against Russians
who were trying to defend Bulgaria during the Crimean war.

British participation in WW1 was an act of collosal stupididy and WW2
doubled that. If German involvement on behalf of Austria in WW1 was
stupid then Bristish Involvement was mendanciouly stupid as the people
of the UK were manouvered into war by upper class ****s pumping out
lies and faked atrocity rumors.

Sadly things in the UK haven't changed and the English in particular
are suffering for it.

> >> As far as Germans inventing the integrated circuit goes? Well that
> >> never happened but it might have because an ex Luftwaffe technician
> >> may actualy have invented a transistor. It's quite a sad story
> >> actualy:
> >>
> >> http://home.t-online.de/home/Benduhn/summary.htm
> >
> >What it describes is interesting but its not a transistor but a cold cathode
> >tube and that was first demonstrated by Philo Taylor Farnsworth II in 1934

No, the Germans didn't invent the transistor but they did have the
Magnetophon in WW2:

http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/MULLIN.html

The Germans also had portable tube radios like the Nora K 62:

http://www.rolaa.de/sehensw/radio/bilder/koffer/nora_e.htm

Rob