Mach 1.67

[Emigdio Binet]

Mach1.67 consists of infamous Japanese punk-filmmaker Sogo Ishii, well-known actor Tadanobu Asano (浅野忠信)and partially Asano's brother Kujun Satou. Their music could now be described as eardrum-shattering industrial/punk noise not unlike Chu Ishikawa's soundtracks to Shinya Tsukamoto's films. On their first Album "Babylon Blood", they made some kind of atmospheric and calm music,(Asano sang the first three tracks on this Album, the rest was sung by two females called Mana and Mar) which changed to much more aggressive sound with the movie "Electric Dragon 80000V". With that movie, Mach 1.67's music changed to their own kind of style. While their lyrics on "Babylon Blood" were exclusive english, they changed their mind and went over to japanese lyrics with the soundtrack to "Electric Dragon 80000V".

Artist descriptions on Last.fm are editable by everyone. Feel free to contribute!

All user-contributed text on this page is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply.

[mach,T,P,rho,area]= flowisentropic(gamma,flow) returns an array that contains an isentropic flow Mach number mach, temperature ratio T, pressure ratio P, density ratio rho, and area ratio area. This function calculates these arrays given a set of specific heat ratios (gamma) for the Mach input mode.

This function assumes that variables vary only in one dimension. It also assumes that the main mechanism for the change of flow variables is the change of cross-sectional area of the flow stream tubes.

If the temperature experiences large fluctuations, the perfect gas assumption might be invalid. If the stagnation temperature is above 1500 K, do not assume constant specific heats. In this case, the medium ceases to be a calorically perfect gas. Consider it a thermally perfect gas. For thermally perfect gas correction factors, see [2]. If the temperature is so high that molecules dissociate and ionize (static temperature 5000 K for air), you cannot assume a perfect gas.

Are you deliberly trying to Come off like a tick headed troll?

Do you even know what T/W ratio means!?

Do you have any idea how much impact different design of a air intake have on performance like supersonic speed of any given jet!?

To you even know what an airfoil actual is, and the aerodynamic impact it has on any given jet!?

Do you know the different pro and con of a turbfan and turbojet engine? Hint, see F119 vs D-30-06..

If you must Come in here and start throw around figures, a very good start would be to pick up P/W own official website.

But never mind, you are not in here to learn anything, only to sound stupid, ignorant, and very nationalistic.

If you must Come in here and start throw around figures, a very good start would be to pick up P/W own webside.

But never mind, you are not in here to learn anything, only to sound stupid, ignorant, and very nationalistic.

@armed isnt engineer, nor has he follow topic of aircraft long enough to have any actual knowledge,

but he is doing well for a novice, and are polite, and arent in la-la land, he will learn fundamentals soon enough

The F-22 will not sustain 80,000 ft, nor will it touch the MiG-25/31 in dash speed performance of Mach 2.83. That is a fact, no matter how effective the F-22 is, it does not bend the laws of physics. Pick up a formal book on aircraft performance before making such claims. Or you'll look as absurd as JSR who thinks the PAK FA can make Mach 3.

Also, the F-22's inlet is not a simple pitot inlet. I'm not sure why some are insisting that it is. A pitot inlet like on the F-16 generates just one normal shock before the intake. The F-22's caret inlet generates a pair of oblique shocks intersecting at the top inboard corner, and a normal shock down the compression ramp.

What I do find strange with some of the knowledgable here is that they all insist that high by-pass ratios (fan engines) work poorly at high speed and altitude.

The A12/SR71 series of a/c flew regularly at Mn 3+ with a very high bypass ratio. The core engine provided 15% of the total thrust at that speed..............

The radar thing is about high-power jamming at range and RF cyberwarfare. And, if Keypubs is to be believed, that is just one of the 'other' apertures the ASQ-239 can call on, as well as it's own dedicated jammers. Not having the ability to blank out sectors of a radar with a blur of crap from range and across the spectrum like an EA-18G, does not mean it doesn't have jamming. 85% of a dedicated EW aircraft is pretty good for an IEWS though.

thing is, you can't compare the bypass ratio of a turbofan, where the bypass is, basically, the air "pushed" by the "fan", going around the core of the engine and out and the J58 which is a jet engine embedded inside a nacelle with most of the air completely bypassing, used to cool it and, most of all, used as a flow for a "ramjet like" functioning.

We also know that the F-35A is limited to Mach 1.6 as it has exceeded that Mach in testing. So, based on what? Looks? you're assuming that the aircraft would struggle to reach that speed?

Yes, I agree the top speeds of most fighters is theoretical because fuel burn makes reaching top speed impractical. The thing is, there is not a single shred of evidence that the F-35A would not, could not achieve and hold it's planned speed of Mach 1.6.

Because: 1. The "B" and the "C" have achieved the speed despite being (in the case of the "B" 3,000lbs heavier, with 2,000lbs less thrust, and a large drag inducing hump). 2. It has achieved top speed with full weapons and even opened weapons bay at said speed. 3. It has exceeded the 700kt/mach 1.6 operational speed in testing by 10% (and we don't even know if that is the aerodynamic limit (simply because they are only testing to operational limits +10% safety margin)

Even if there was a huge performance gap, that's not the critical factor in operational effectiveness: the radar, EW, IDASS, MMI, etc, are what determine and effective combat aircraft. If they held the Swiss eval. tomorrow, I would expect very different scores as all three of the European entries have matured and corrected deficiencies.

You have displayed a strong streak of let's say... cross Atlantic bias, which is fine, there are more than a few members who seem to have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to products from a certain nation. It is galling to watch a member blur fact and opinion yet call others names. Maybe check the bias and stick to verifiable information or at least express dubious claims as opinion.

Think about this. An AESA radar to generate different frequencies, including lower ones, would be massive. The size, the weight, the cooling wouldn't be able to accommodated stealthily. As such ASQ-239, as an integrated suite, does well to cover 85% of a Prowler's abilities on an all-aspect, broadband basis. The NGJ will be a non-stealth fit for the EA-18G and, where necessary, the F-35. Naturally, it offers much more than current capabilities, otherwise it'd be pointless. Why is it needed? Well the F-35 isn't just going to plop out in the thousands during 12 months. Legacy aircraft will need cover for at least 15-20 years to remain relevant. In fact longer, since the F/A-XX won't just plop out in the thousands either. Your looking at 30 years of cover required for all legacy aircraft, including F-15C/D/E, F-18E/F and EA-18G.

why would you want to "spot" the aircraft if you have a video channel with high magnifying capabilities that can do it for you... Rafales can visually identify targets (aircraft) and even the armaments they carry (externally, obviously) at distances up to 50km (27nm) away ( according to wiki: _Rafale - sorry for posting french version, the english speaking one isn't as complete about the systems) . Now, if the french do it today, don't you think that most, if not all, other players will/do try their best to get similar capabilities ? With the RoE over the last few decades, BVR missiles could pretty much never be used in BVR, as they required the positive identification of the aircraft in front of the shooter. If you can identify it 50km away, you can launch your missiles long before the other guy can confirm who you are and shoot at you (unless his RoE allow him to shoot without having to see you first)

[mach,T,P,rho,downstream_mach,P0,P1]= flownormalshock(gamma,normal_shock_relations,mtype) produces an array for each normal shock relation (normal_shock_relations). This function calculates these arrays for a given set of specific heat ratios, gamma, and any one of the normal shock relations, normal_shock_relations. mtype selects the normal shock relations that normal_shock_relations represents. All ratios are downstream value over upstream value. Consider upstream to be before or ahead of the shock and downstream to be after or behind the shock.

Pressure ratios, specified as an array or scalar. normal_shock_relations must be a scalar or array of real numbers greater than or equal to 1. If normal_shock_relations and gamma are arrays, they must be the same size.

This dissertation presents an experimental and numerical consideration of fluid instabilities formed by the interaction of a planar shock wave and a cylindrical column of gas seeded with glycol droplets. Seeding a fluid flow with a passive tracer is a common practice in experimental fluids research and it is important to understand how these tracers behave. It will be shown that these tracers do not explicitly follow the flow, and in extreme cases can cause hydrodynamic instabilities. Experiments were performed in the University of New Mexico (UNM) tiltable shock tube facility and numerical analysis was performed using the Eulerian hydrodynamics code SHAMRC (Second-order Hydrodynamic Automatic Mesh Refinement Code). Two gases are considered. The first gas is sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), which generates the well known Richtmyer-Meshkov Instability (RMI) when accelerated by a shock wave. This instability is formed due to a mis-alignment of the pressure and density gradients during impulsive acceleration. The second gas is air. There is no density gradient between the gas column and the surrounding air, but an instability is formed that is similar in morphology to RMI due to the presence of the glycol droplets. Experimental and numerical results are presented for both types of instability at Mach numbers 1.2, 1.67, and 2.0. Also, numerical parameter studies that vary the Atwood number, Mach number, and the droplet diameter are discussed. The cylindrical gas column represents a three-dimensional set of initial conditions which are often considered two-dimensional due to geometry. The validity of this assumption is explored experimentally and numerically for both types of initial conditions by looking at images taken (or produced) in both horizontal and vertical planes of the instability. The results show that this assumption is valid, with variations in the instabilities morphology occurring only near the walls of the shock tube. Finally, a fully 3D scenario is considered by introducing an angle of incidence between the planar shock wave and the cylindrical column.

3a8082e126