If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Minyard wrote in
: On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 23:50:43 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik wrote: Why bother converting a B-1 into a supersonic reconnaissance plane,when they could reactivate the SR-71's? What advantage would there be? SRs are *very* expensive to operate and maintain. The savings achieved by using the B-1 would soon pay for themselves. Al Minyard At a shorter range and slower speed,and more vulnerability,not to mention re-engineering costs that would be better spent. -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I've seen two proposals to this effect, makes for some interesting
reading... It is plausible, but the real question is if the money for upgrades would be better spent on systems other than the engines. FWIW reengining does bring interesting new capabilities. Michael Kelly Bone Maintainer Paul F Austin wrote: From this week's AvWeek. Boeing responded to an Air Force RFI against a requirement for improved bombers by suggesting re-engining the B-1 fleet with F-119 engines with the following characteristics: Mach 2 cruise, 3000 mile radius, 60,000 foot ceiling (with a couple of hours loiter). Is this plausible? From others in this group, I though the B-1 was marginal above 30,000 feet. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Ferrin wrote: 3. The B-1A could do Mach 2.2 at 60,000ft so the basic airframe is capable of it. Comes down to the engines, intakes, weight. The article raised more questions than it answered. Weight, fixed inlets and RCS vanes. Unfortunately, everything I've seen on this is not for public consumption Michael Kelly Bone Maintainer |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
breyfogle wrote: The F-101 produces enough thrust for Mach 1.2 to 1.25 and the shock is stable somewhere in the inlet ducting. The F-119 should produce enough extra thrust to increase the max Mach significantly. Sure, the shock front moves aft as Mach increases and at some point the shock will reach the fan and bad things happen. F-16's & F-18's reach 1.6 (1.8?) Mach with fixed inlets. Know some pilots who swear they've gone 1.4, but only for very short times. The biggest limiting factor are those two big RCS vanes in each inlet. Michael Kelly Bone Maintainer |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Bob McKellar wrote: But think of the fun when the fifth version ( fourth modification ) is introduced. Heck, we're already at the Block E configuration which entains quite a few changes to the systems. Michael Kelly Bone Maintainer Bob McKellar |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Settle a bet: Mach speeds | tscottme | Military Aviation | 27 | June 8th 04 10:16 AM |
max altitude and Mach 1 Now With Charts | John R Weiss | Military Aviation | 6 | May 15th 04 05:49 PM |
WWII warplanes vs combat sim realism | [email protected] | Military Aviation | 37 | November 27th 03 05:24 AM |
US Coverup of Me-262 Mach Flight | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 48 | October 2nd 03 04:49 PM |
need 2024 t3 5 foot by 12 foot .020 | groundloop | Home Built | 2 | August 22nd 03 04:29 PM |