SR71:how fast: how high?
****
"Who is going to see the markings when you're at 90,000 feet?"
Duane P Mantick
>On 60 Minutes tonight, Ben Rich made a comment something like,
>"Who is going to see the markings when you're at 90,000 feet?"
I can't resist.
A KH-11, maybe? :-)
Duane
Lee Green MD MPH
Comment monitored at Kansas City air traffic control, unnamed USAF aircraft
(almost certainly SR-71): aircraft requests clearance for 90k feet;
controller says sure, if you can get there; aircraft replies roger, USAFxxx
out of 105 for 90.
--
Lee Green MD MPH Disclaimer: Information for general interest
Family Practice and discussion only. I can't examine you via
University of Michigan the Internet, so you should ALWAYS consult your
gre...@umich.edu personal physician. These posts are my personal
doings, not a service of nor the responsibility
of the University of Michigan.
Thumper!
>JD...@ix.netcom.com (****) writes:
> I can't resist.
> A KH-11, maybe? :-)
Either that, or a 500,000lb XB-70 on a test flight. :)
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Thumper! thu...@netcom.com
Flying Fish Racing FishTek Racing Products
Home of "The Sled" Custom Machining and Fabrication
...and other various things RaceTech-trained suspension tuners
that adrenoline junkies have around. Four and Two Stroke porting experts
FishTek...
Where speed is of the essence.
"Man, you were really flyin' when I passed you!"
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Albert Dobyns
DPM> Subject: Re: SR71:how fast: how high?
DPM> Date: 25 Oct 1994 22:00:12 GMT
DPM> Organization: Purdue University
DPM> JD...@ix.netcom.com (****) writes:
DPM> >On 60 Minutes tonight, Ben Rich made a comment something like,
DPM> >"Who is going to see the markings when you're at 90,000 feet?"
DPM> I can't resist.
DPM> A KH-11, maybe? :-)
DPM> Duane
But Duane, did you forget about the exUSSR spy satellites?? :)
I can't remember their code name, but I bet they were looking for
them also. I don't know what shutter speeds their cameras used, but
if it wasn't a fast one, an SR-71 flying by would just be a streak in
their photos! <VBG>
---
. SLMR 2.1a . "I'm not lost, I'm "locationally challenged"!
----
MidWest BBS - 708-513-1034 -ILINK Charter Member, UsMail Regional Hub, Usenet
Bob Morris
>JD...@ix.netcom.com (****) writes:
>>On 60 Minutes tonight, Ben Rich made a comment something like,
>>"Who is going to see the markings when you're at 90,000 feet?"
A Concorde passenger with a Questar telescope and a steady hand. :-)
Bob Morris
James R Ebright
Lee Green MD MPH <gre...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>Comment monitored at Kansas City air traffic control, unnamed USAF aircraft
>(almost certainly SR-71): aircraft requests clearance for 90k feet;
>controller says sure, if you can get there; aircraft replies roger, USAFxxx
>out of 105 for 90.
Nice story from a FOAF, I suspect.
FL 90 (or even 105) is currently uncontrolled.
--
A/~~\A 'moo2u from osu' Jim Ebright e-mail: ebr...@bronze.coil.com
((0 0))_______ "A million dollars, ... I can get that. I can get that
\ / the \ in cash. That's no problem." -secret White House tape.
(--)\ OSU | "I am not a crook." -speech to American people by RM Nixon
John Stone
Subject: Re: SR71:how fast: how high?
>From: gre...@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH)
G>Comment monitored at Kansas City air traffic control, unnamed USAF aircraft
>(almost certainly SR-71): aircraft requests clearance for 90k feet;
>controller says sure, if you can get there; aircraft replies roger, USAFxxx
>out of 105 for 90.
I'm probably wrong, but I was under the impression that the altitudes
that the SR flew were "uncontrolled" air space, in other words they
monitored the "centers" but they didn't have to ask permission to climb
or descend unless they would be descending into "controlled" airspace.
In fact I don't know at what altitude airspace becomes "uncontrolled",
anyone out there have an idea?
Just a thought,
John Stone
---
þ QMPro 1.52 þ Dragon Lady -Dance with the lady, fight with the dragon
--
Bo Viger
: I'm probably wrong, but I was under the impression that the altitudes
: that the SR flew were "uncontrolled" air space, in other words they
: monitored the "centers" but they didn't have to ask permission to climb
: or descend unless they would be descending into "controlled" airspace.
: In fact I don't know at what altitude airspace becomes "uncontrolled",
: anyone out there have an idea?
60,000 ft. MSL.
Bo
--
____________________________________________________________________________
\|/ /\
-O- /\ /~~\ /\ Bo Viger voice: 303/229-2018
/|\/~~\/ \/~~\/\ Hewlett-Packard Company fax: 303/229-4432
/ \ / /~~\ Fort Collins, Colorado email: b...@fc.hp.com
__/______\__/___/____\______________________________________________________
Mark Blusiewicz
John;
The flight levels run from 180 to 600 (18,000' - 60,000') feet.
Mark.
Jacob M Mcguire
fast: how high? by James R Ebright@magnus.a
>
> FL 90 (or even 105) is currently uncontrolled.
Don't you mean FL 900 and 1050?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Engineer: How will this work? | Jake McGuire |
| Scientist: Why will this work? | jm...@andrew.cmu.edu |
| IM Major: When will this work? | |
| Liberal-Arts Major: Want fries with that? | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Green MD MPH
(John Stone) wrote:
> >From: gre...@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH)
>
> G>Comment monitored at Kansas City air traffic control, unnamed USAF aircraft
> >(almost certainly SR-71): aircraft requests clearance for 90k feet;
> >controller says sure, if you can get there; aircraft replies roger, USAFxxx
> >out of 105 for 90.
>
> I'm probably wrong, but I was under the impression that the altitudes
> that the SR flew were "uncontrolled" air space, in other words they
> monitored the "centers" but they didn't have to ask permission to climb
> or descend unless they would be descending into "controlled" airspace.
> In fact I don't know at what altitude airspace becomes "uncontrolled",
> anyone out there have an idea?
>
I think controllers only really go up to 60k feet. I suspect the pilot
and controller were both cracking wise, as members of both fraternities
are occasionally wont to do...
Jonathan Clough
gre...@umich.edu "Lee Green MD MPH" writes:
> In article <38jv5c$r...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
> wb9...@constellation.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) wrote:
>
> Comment monitored at Kansas City air traffic control, unnamed USAF aircraft
> (almost certainly SR-71): aircraft requests clearance for 90k feet;
> controller says sure, if you can get there; aircraft replies roger, USAFxxx
> out of 105 for 90.
"One Zero Five" for "Nine Zero" would be 10,500 down to 9,000
would it not ?
Listening to SR-71's going in & out of Mildenhall on Eastern
Radar, in "the good old days" I only ever heard "Above FL600"
mentioned & that was usually it was on inbound legs. On departure they
would quite often go "tactical" without giving any altitude
information other than a "passing FL170" or similar.....and where
did they go always got me :-(
You could tell if one was about if there were any "Quids" around,
the then c/s for 9SRW KC-135Q's on TDY at Mildenhall. It later
became a common c/s for any TDY tankers not just 9SRW. It is
still heard but unfortunatly doesn't cause my ears to prick up as
it did before.
Oh to hear something on 287.10 again....which use to be Eastern
Discrete for SR ops - I keep it plugged in Just in case :-)
Likewise I have never heard the U-2's that operate from Alconbury
state any altitude above FL600 but that would be uncontrolled
anyway. You sometimee get them flying the TACAN routes around the
U.K. with London/Scottish Mil, again its always "Above FL600"
--
Cheers,
/-------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Jonathan Clough, | AOR - Alinco - Camnis - Commtel - Bearcat - |
| Javiation, | Fairmate - Icom - Sony - Lowe - Realistic - |
| Bradford, UK | Signal - Tandy - Uniden - Yupiteru & Others |
| \---------------------------------------------|
| Compu$$erve: 100117,535 |
| Internet : Clo...@javiaton.demon.co.uk |
\-------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Bob Niland
> Comment monitored at Kansas City air traffic control, unnamed USAF aircraft
> (almost certainly SR-71): aircraft requests clearance for 90k feet;
> controller says sure, if you can get there; aircraft replies roger, USAFxxx
> out of 105 for 90.
This story is not credible. Apart from the problem of that airspace
being uncontrolled, back when the UASF operated the '71, the policy was
that altitudes above FL600 were identified by CODEs, and the codes
changed frequently.
It is possible, I suppose, that NASA is operating under different
procedures, but that still doesn't address the question of why an SR-71
would need to get "clearance" to change alts in uncontrolled airspace
where NOTHING ELSE FILES.
Regards, 1001-A East Harmony Road
Bob Niland Suite 503
Internet: r...@csn.org Fort Collins
CompuServe: 71044,2124 Colorado 80525 USA
Ted
>would it not ?
Not always. Often pilots (In north america) will just say
altitude in thousands of feet, i.e. "transiting your zone at 33".
As for reporting such high altitudes, it prevents Air Traffic
Controllers from reporting UFO's whenever they see anything at
unusual altitudes, and occasionaly to keep other high flyers
(some fighters, the Concorde) away. SR-71 pilots were also knwon
for making some 'boastful' radio calls, like asking for ground
speed checks just to let everyone on freq hear the controller say
"1800 knots", or let everyone hear about this airplane flying
around at 30 to 40 thousand feet above airliners.
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| All views and opinions expressed herein are not intended to |
| representative of any person or agency other than the author |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Rolf Sondergaard
>Lee Green MD MPH (gre...@umich.edu) wrote:
>
>> Comment monitored at Kansas City air traffic control, unnamed USAF aircraft
>> (almost certainly SR-71): aircraft requests clearance for 90k feet;
>> controller says sure, if you can get there; aircraft replies roger, USAFxxx
>> out of 105 for 90.
>
>This story is not credible. Apart from the problem of that airspace
>being uncontrolled, back when the UASF operated the '71, the policy was
>that altitudes above FL600 were identified by CODEs, and the codes
>changed frequently.
>
>It is possible, I suppose, that NASA is operating under different
>procedures, but that still doesn't address the question of why an SR-71
>would need to get "clearance" to change alts in uncontrolled airspace
>where NOTHING ELSE FILES.
>
well, if it makes you feel any better, i originally heard this story
(actually several times from several different people) as:
sr71: control, request clearance to fl600.
control: if you can reach it you can have it.
sr71: roger. descending to fl600.
now i'm not saying that this proves its not an urban (airman?)
legend, but at least it fits with fl600 being controlled airspace.
rolf
Ken Navarre
I was on vacation a couple years ago and camping outside Barstow, Ca.
I happened to be monitoring Edwards and heard the controller advise,
"Roger... you're cleared THRU 800". Perked my ears right up...!
It was the same week that the YF-22 took it's test hop and had to abort
due to a malfunctioning `thingy'...
A few days later I got a tour of Edwards RAPCON and asked the controller
on duty what might have been up and he said he didn't know. He did say that
in the Goldstone Complex (which was the channel I monitored) it could
have been almost anything... Whatever that meant...
--
Ken Navarre
Mike Mitchell
In article <396d1a$a...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, ro...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rolf Sondergaard) writes:
->
->well, if it makes you feel any better, i originally heard this story
->(actually several times from several different people) as:
->
->sr71: control, request clearance to fl600.
->control: if you can reach it you can have it.
->sr71: roger. descending to fl600.
->
->
->
->now i'm not saying that this proves its not an urban (airman?)
->legend, but at least it fits with fl600 being controlled airspace.
Here is another story (paraphrased) from a SR-71 book.
ATC = Air Traffic Control (Los Angeles I think)
SR-71 pilot: "Heavy 123 desires FL350"
ATC: Hold please, lots of traffic here.
SR-71 pilot: Pilot waits a minute or two.
SR-71 pilot: Repeats "Heavy 123 desires FL350"
ATC: Hold please, We are still busy here.
SR-71 pilot: Pilot waits another minute or two.
SR-71 pilot: Repeats "Heavy 123 descending to FL350"
ATC: Please Hold, we are very busy here.
SR-71 pilot: "Mach 3 aircraft, I can not hold any longer !!"
ATC: Ah, Ah, You have FL350, Heavy 123, Sorry!
I Apologize, The real story was much better than this but I don't have
access to that book right now to refresh my lousy story-telling.
--
Regards,
Mike
Dean Adams
k...@netcom.com (Ken Navarre) says...
>I was on vacation a couple years ago and camping outside Barstow, Ca.
>I happened to be monitoring Edwards and heard the controller advise,
>"Roger... you're cleared THRU 800". Perked my ears right up...!
Yea, I can imagine! :-)
>It was the same week that the YF-22 took it's test hop and
> had to abort due to a malfunctioning `thingy'...
Lessie, that would be 4/25/92.
>A few days later I got a tour of Edwards RAPCON and asked the controller
>on duty what might have been up and he said he didn't know. He did say that
>in the Goldstone Complex (which was the channel I monitored) it could
>have been almost anything... Whatever that meant...
The SR-71 would probably be the best candidate for FL 800, and it just
so happens that Dryden had a flight with their B model on 4/22/92.
Sounds like a good candidate.
Mike Timko
>Lee Green MD MPH (gre...@umich.edu) wrote:
>
>> Comment monitored at Kansas City air traffic control, unnamed USAF aircraft
>> (almost certainly SR-71): aircraft requests clearance for 90k feet;
>> controller says sure, if you can get there; aircraft replies roger, USAFxxx
>> out of 105 for 90.
>
>This story is not credible. Apart from the problem of that airspace
>being uncontrolled, back when the UASF operated the '71, the policy was
>that altitudes above FL600 were identified by CODEs, and the codes
>changed frequently.
>
>It is possible, I suppose, that NASA is operating under different
>procedures, but that still doesn't address the question of why an SR-71
>would need to get "clearance" to change alts in uncontrolled airspace
>where NOTHING ELSE FILES.
>
Could be the pilot was just jerking the controller around. (It has been
known to happen.)
Once, on a C-141 flight from Torrejon (Madrid) to Charleston AFB we (I
was nav) got held up on approach for traffic at some middle altitude,
lets say 10k. The pilot was in a hurry to get home and we were lined up
on the runway. We were only a few miles fro the runway and the pilot
had slowed the plane to a crawl with flaps down. The instant the
controller got our clearance to desend out of his mouth, the pilot
popped the spoilers AND dropped the gear and nosed the plane over. We
dropped like a *&%$ rock. The conversation went something like:
ATC: MACxxx you're clear to descend to 1000'. [He's talking in the
normal SC style so this took about 10 seconds. The pilot had acted on
the word "clear".]
AC: Roger cleared to 1000.
ATC: MACxxx, call passing 8000.
AC: Roger passing ... 7000.
ATC: MACxxx say again.
[ATC sounds a little ticked but he's talking faster.]
AC: Passing uh 5000.
ATC: [pause while he tries to catch up] Stand by for vectors for landing.
AC: Negative, we can go straight in.
ATC: Cleared to land etc [at this point he is talking much faster
trying to finish the clearance before we have our gear on the ground.]
It was VFR and the pilot could see the traffic so I guess everything
was under control. I always wondered how smart it was to mess with ATCs
expectations like that.
[This was 21 years ago, and I haven't been in a cockpit for the past
20 so don't be too hard on me for accuracy!]
---
_______________________________________________________________
Mike Timko michae...@analog.com
_______________________________________________________________
Adrian Thurlow
Mitchell) wrote:
> Here is another story (paraphrased) from a SR-71 book.
>
>
> SR-71 pilot: Repeats "Heavy 123 descending to FL350"
>
> ATC: Please Hold, we are very busy here.
>
> SR-71 pilot: "Mach 3 aircraft, I can not hold any longer !!"
>
> ATC: Ah, Ah, You have FL350, Heavy 123, Sorry!
Which book does this come from? I do not immediately recognise it, although
that's not surprising. If there's a book out there which I do not have I
want to know about it.
The views expressed here are not necessarily those of BT.
Adrian R. Thurlow
e-mail: Adrian....@bt-sys.bt.co.uk
Phone: 44 473 644880
Fax: 44 473 646534
Albert Dobyns
AT> Subject: Re: SR71:how fast: how high?
AT> Date: Mon, 07 Nov 1994 17:17:39 +0000
AT> Organization: BT Labs
AT> In article <1994Nov3.0...@brtph560.bnr.ca>, mmi...@bnr.ca (Mike
AT> Mitchell) wrote:
AT> > Here is another story (paraphrased) from a SR-71 book.
AT> >
AT> > SR-71 pilot: Repeats "Heavy 123 descending to FL350"
AT> >
AT> > ATC: Please Hold, we are very busy here.
AT> >
AT> > SR-71 pilot: "Mach 3 aircraft, I can not hold any longer !!"
AT> >
AT> > ATC: Ah, Ah, You have FL350, Heavy 123, Sorry!
AT> Which book does this come from? I do not immediately recognise it, although
AT> that's not surprising. If there's a book out there which I do not have I
AT> want to know about it.
I have seen variations of these stories but few ever seemed to come with
specific references. One exception is a story that former SR-71 pilot
Brian Shul said in a speech he gave at a place I have forgotten. It was
the one about a C-172 pilot asks radar operator to tell him his ground
speed. Naturally it's not a very high number. Then some twin calls and
asks for their ground speed. Then an F-18 pilot gets his groundspeed.
At the top of the list of course is the SR-71. Radar tells them it's
something like 1800 knots. Obviously none of the other planes come
anywhere close to that.
What I'm wondering if this isn't something that some Blackbird pilots
made up at one of their reunions, and the story/joke managed to make its
way into various aviation networks. Perhaps there is a kernel of truth
in some of the stories, but to raise their "humor" level, they have been
embellished somewhat. On the other hand I could just be another SR fan
who wishes he could have been the first to come up with a good joke! :)
---
. SLMR 2.1a . If you think A-1 makes your steak better, try some TEB!
Michael Brunk
Distribution: world
I don't know the truth of it, but another story I once heard regarding a
"Skunk Works" progeny involved a TR-1. I spent a few years at Seymour
Johnson AFB in Goldsboro, NC. I was assigned to the 2012th Information
Systems Squadron from 85-88 which among other things provided Air Traffic
Controllers. The story goes that the TR-1 (I think it was a TR-1 anyway)
was transiting our air space when he lost power. When asked if he wished
to declare an emergency and land at Seymour Johnson the pilot declined
and replied he would *GLIDE* back to his home base on the West coast. I
don't know if it's true but my ATC room mate at the time swore by the story.
--
=-=-=-=-| Michael E. Brunk * Seattle, WA * mbr...@cyberspace.com |-=-=-=-=-=
http://www.cyberspace.com/mbrunk
Richard D Manning
|> I don't know the truth of it, but another story I once heard regarding a
|> "Skunk Works" progeny involved a TR-1. I spent a few years at Seymour
|> Johnson AFB in Goldsboro, NC. I was assigned to the 2012th Information
|> Systems Squadron from 85-88 which among other things provided Air Traffic
|> Controllers. The story goes that the TR-1 (I think it was a TR-1 anyway)
|> was transiting our air space when he lost power. When asked if he wished
|> to declare an emergency and land at Seymour Johnson the pilot declined
|> and replied he would *GLIDE* back to his home base on the West coast. I
|> don't know if it's true but my ATC room mate at the time swore by the story.
I read about that, once. The version I saw had him gliding back to Groom Lake,
Nevada, though...
Albert Dobyns
MB> Subject: Re: SR71:how fast: how high?
MB> Date: 8 Nov 1994 11:25:02 -0800
MB> Organization: Cyberlink Communications (206) 281-5397
MB> I don't know the truth of it, but another story I once heard regarding a
MB> "Skunk Works" progeny involved a TR-1. I spent a few years at Seymour
MB> Johnson AFB in Goldsboro, NC. I was assigned to the 2012th Information
MB> Systems Squadron from 85-88 which among other things provided Air Traffic
MB> Controllers. The story goes that the TR-1 (I think it was a TR-1 anyway)
MB> was transiting our air space when he lost power. When asked if he wished
MB> to declare an emergency and land at Seymour Johnson the pilot declined
MB> and replied he would *GLIDE* back to his home base on the West coast. I
MB> don't know if it's true but my ATC room mate at the time swore by the story
That sounds similar to one I heard on a Wings program although some
details were different. Supposedly the U-2 flamed out while over
Tennessee(?) and the pilot glided all the way to New Mexico and made
a dead-stick landing. I don't know the glide ratio of a U-2, but it's
bound to be higher than most planes powered by one or more engines.
But it still seems like a long way to glide!! If the pilot was able to
restart the engine and run for awhile and have another flameout, I guess
he could go pretty far if the restarts kept working. But I still think
the person who made this claim in a tv program may have stretched it a
bit. I have wondered how "well" an SR-71 would glide with both engines
out. I bet it's not all that far. Once the engines spool down, the
plane loses its hydraulic pressure so control surfaces are no longer
controllable (at least that's the way I think it works). Eventually the
crew has to eject and let the plane hit the ground.
If someone happens to have a U-2 pilot's manual, maybe the glide data
is listed somewhere. Some indication of the glide data might be in a
very good U-2 book "Dragon Lady" by Chris Pocock.
---
. SLMR 2.1a . Anyone who has a true friend cannot be called poor.
Andrew McNeil
mbr...@cyberspace.com (Michael Brunk) writes:
> I don't know the truth of it, but another story I once heard regarding a
> "Skunk Works" progeny involved a TR-1. I spent a few years at Seymour
> Johnson AFB in Goldsboro, NC. I was assigned to the 2012th Information
> Systems Squadron from 85-88 which among other things provided Air Traffic
> Controllers. The story goes that the TR-1 (I think it was a TR-1 anyway)
> was transiting our air space when he lost power. When asked if he wished
> to declare an emergency and land at Seymour Johnson the pilot declined
> and replied he would *GLIDE* back to his home base on the West coast. I
> don't know if it's true but my ATC room mate at the time swore by the story.
come on, just do the simple math. assume he was flying at 100 ft, let
us
call it 20 miles. Let us give him a glide ratio of 20 to 1. This
gives
20 * 20 = 400 miles glide, not nearly enough to go from north caroline
to
west coast.
Andrew McNeil 'Vincere vel mori' *****************
* These are my
'Every time the legislature meets every man's * opinions, not
life, limb, & property are in danger' * my employers
Thomas Jefferson *****************
steve hix
:In article <39ojae$m...@case.cyberspace.com>
:mbr...@cyberspace.com (Michael Brunk) writes:
:
:> I don't know the truth of it, but another story I once heard regarding a
:> "Skunk Works" progeny involved a TR-1. I spent a few years at Seymour
:> Johnson AFB in Goldsboro, NC. I was assigned to the 2012th Information
:> Systems Squadron from 85-88 which among other things provided Air Traffic
:> Controllers. The story goes that the TR-1 (I think it was a TR-1 anyway)
:> was transiting our air space when he lost power. When asked if he wished
:> to declare an emergency and land at Seymour Johnson the pilot declined
:> and replied he would *GLIDE* back to his home base on the West coast. I
:> don't know if it's true but my ATC room mate at the time swore by the story.
:
:
:call it 20 miles.
The U2 types are limited to about 60K feet or so, say 12 miles tops.
:Let us give him a glide ratio of 20 to 1.
Pretty pessimal...30:1 is closer to what it gets.
:This gives 20 * 20 = 400 miles glide, not nearly enough to go from north
:caroline to west coast.
The story sounds like a transmutation of what I believe describes the
initial event: The call put the aircaft power-out roughly over Bermuda.
The radar type offers to call for SAR support if he plans to ditch.
"No thanks, just give me a vector to <somewhere around Eglin AFB>."
I recall 300 miles as being the distance to target, which at 30:1 (average)
would be a piece of cake from 12 miles up.
Michael B Thomas
steve hix <fid...@Eng.Sun.COM> wrote:
[snip- stuff about gliding into base from high altitudes]
>The U2 types are limited to about 60K feet or so, say 12 miles tops.
>
>:Let us give him a glide ratio of 20 to 1.
>
>Pretty pessimal...30:1 is closer to what it gets.
>
>:This gives 20 * 20 = 400 miles glide, not nearly enough to go from north
>:caroline to west coast.
>
>The story sounds like a transmutation of what I believe describes the
>initial event: The call put the aircaft power-out roughly over Bermuda.
>
>The radar type offers to call for SAR support if he plans to ditch.
>
>"No thanks, just give me a vector to <somewhere around Eglin AFB>."
>
>I recall 300 miles as being the distance to target, which at 30:1 (average)
>would be a piece of cake from 12 miles up.
>
Only as long as the pilot would not have to avoid any weather on the way in.
Although.... I wonder if a U2 pilot could ride the thermals and updrafts like a
glider could. I have heard of gliders travelling 100's of miles by riding out
in front of a weather front.
--
Matt Lih
be able to catch thermals like a sailplane? This could extend range
significantly, if s/he knew what he was doing.
Matt Lih (l...@venice.sedd.trw.com)
Analytical Methods {NWNet}
though I'd throw out this tidbit. As I understand it, the World's
Fastest Air Breathing Man and Woman are:
Darryl Greenamyer M=3.6 (on a Lockheed test flight)
Marta Bohn-Meyer M=3.2 (she's one of the NASA backseaters - the
other is her husband)
BTW - The NASA SR-71 "users manual" has a chapter on what changes are
necessary to make the airplane M=4 capable, which lends credence to
M=3.6 being the top speed of the aircraft.
-Dave Lednicer
Albert Dobyns
AM{> Subject: Re: SR71:how fast: how high?
AM{> Date: 10 Nov 1994 22:29:23 GMT
AM{> Organization: UW Networks and Distributed Computing
AM{> Since this is supposed to be about "how high and how fast" I
AM{> though I'd throw out this tidbit. As I understand it, the World's
AM{> Fastest Air Breathing Man and Woman are:
AM{> Darryl Greenamyer M=3.6 (on a Lockheed test flight)
Do you have any details on when, where, which plane he flew?
AM{> Marta Bohn-Meyer M=3.2 (she's one of the NASA backseaters - the
AM{> other is her husband)
Hey, this may be a case of discrimination here!. She should be allowed
to go Mach 3.3 or 3.35!
AM{> BTW - The NASA SR-71 "users manual" has a chapter on what changes are
AM{> necessary to make the airplane M=4 capable, which lends credence to
AM{> M=3.6 being the top speed of the aircraft.
When is NASA going to start making the mods? :)
Mach 4 sounds like a nice round number! I think the plane needs more
wing area so it can fly/cruise in the 90,000+ range. And the engines
may need a bit of tweaking.
Does anyone know if NASA/Dryden still has any copies of the Volume I
or II books left! I would buy copies if NASA offered them. I'm sure
the extra income wouldn't add much to their budget, but I think they
are really good documents! I'd love to get my hands on a set but maybe
NASA is tired of giving away such gems. :( I still have uncovered wall
space that could use another Blackbird photo!
ps: is "users manual" the same as the "researcher's manual"? If not,
is there a way I can get a copy of the "users manual"?
Al (the eternal Blackbird fanatic)
---
. SLMR 2.1a . "I never saw a Blackbird I didn't like!"
MBandor
Dobyns) writes:
When I was stationed at RAF Alconbury, UK ('84-'87), we had a TR-1 develop
engine problems while returning from a flight. From what I heard, he was
somewhere over Belgium and, rather than "punching out," decided to glide
it back to Alconbury. I was in the Commissary parking lot when he put it
down. Had it not been for a slight crosswind, he might have put it down
NEXT to the commissary.
Another interesting one during that time was when one of the TR-1's
"suddenly went inverted" when the autopilot was engaged. (I saw the
maintenance write-up on this one. That's what it said, inverted!)
Mike Bandor
MBa...@AOL.COM
Matthew Ross Miller
what is TEB (tetra-ethyl butane)?
USAFScootr
:That sounds similar to one I heard on a Wings program although some
:details were different. Supposedly the U-2 flamed out while over
:Tennessee(?) and the pilot glided all the way to New Mexico and made
:a dead-stick landing. I don't know the glide ratio of a U-2, but it's
:bound to be higher than most planes powered by one or more engines.
:But it still seems like a long way to glide!! If the pilot was able to
:restart the engine and run for awhile and have another flameout, I guess
:he could go pretty far if the restarts kept working. But I still think
:the person who made this claim in a tv program may have stretched it a
:bit.
Actually, take a look at a picture of a U-2 and a sailplane (much like the
Schweizer S-2). Assuming that the U-2 was at 60,000 or so feet in
altitude, it is not totally unbelievable, especially if the glide ratio is
in the order of 20:1 or more.
As far as the hydraulics are concerned, many aircraft have intakes that
force air into the aircraft, and the air, in turn, turns hydraulic pumps.
The controls are more sluggish, I've heard, but better more sluggish
controls, than no controls at all.
Lt Scooter
Albert Dobyns
US> Subject: Re: U-2 maximum glide?
US> Date: 11 Nov 1994 14:50:30 -0500
US> Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
[..deleting my part..]
US> Actually, take a look at a picture of a U-2 and a sailplane (much like the
US> Schweizer S-2). Assuming that the U-2 was at 60,000 or so feet in
US> altitude, it is not totally unbelievable, especially if the glide ratio is
US> in the order of 20:1 or more.
I now wonder why I didn't get out the old Road Atlas and compute the
distance between Tennessee and New Mexico! The person on Wings just
might be right after all. One unknown factor remains: what were the
winds aloft?? He must have been high enough to have flown through
the jet streams. Maybe the pilot took off from New Mexico and landed
in Tennessee!! Going east gives the U-2 a chance to take advantage of
strong tailwinds. Since I can't remember the details exactly, perhaps
I should withdraw my earlier post.
US> As far as the hydraulics are concerned, many aircraft have intakes that
US> force air into the aircraft, and the air, in turn, turns hydraulic pumps.
US> The controls are more sluggish, I've heard, but better more sluggish
US> controls, than no controls at all.
I wonder if the U-2s have those. Is this the same as the ram air
turbine that can be exteneded into the airstream so that some hydraulic
or electrical power can be generated? I read about this device in a
description of an F-102 or similar plane many years ago. It looked like
a great feature to have in an emergency!
US> Lt Scooter
Just plain Al :)
---
. SLMR 2.1a . I'm not sure where we're at, but we're making good time.
Bernard B. Yoo
: MB> From: mbr...@cyberspace.com (Michael Brunk)
--
The aerodynamic design of the U-2 is excellent for gliding- long,
straight, narrow wings. This design provides a high lift:drag ratio at
low speeds. Check out the planform of any real glider and you'll see
that the U-2 planform is very similar. The SR-71 is optimized for high
speed flight and is a poor glider.
***********************************************************************
* Bernard B. Yoo * Wiess College *
* ber...@owlnet.rice.edu * 6340 S. Main St. *
* Team Wiess! * Houston, TX 77005 *
***********************************************************************
Lee Green MD MPH
> what is TEB (tetra-ethyl butane)?
TEB is triethylborane, a boron-based "zip" fuel originally considered for
use in the WS-110 program in the late 1950s. It spontaneously combusts
when injected into the airstream of a jet engine, and is used for engine
starts in the Blackbird if I recall correctly (some Blackbird fan please
chime in here). It has a very high energy content, but also makes a dense
white smoke.
--
Lee Green MD MPH | Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are my own,
Family Practice | and do not represent the University of
University of Michigan | Michigan. Medical commentary is for general
gre...@umich.edu | information and discussion; consult your
| personal physician for your own care.
phil stuart-jones
> I have heard of gliders travelling 100's of miles by riding out
> in front of a weather front.
Solo record set by Terry Delore a couple of weeks ago in NZ; 2100+ kms.
BLEESS
: I have wondered how "well" an SR-71 would glide with both engines
: out. I bet it's not all that far. Once the engines spool down, the
: plane loses its hydraulic pressure so control surfaces are no longer
: controllable (at least that's the way I think it works). Eventually the
: crew has to eject and let the plane hit the ground.
A Blackbird probably wouldn't glide all that well, but a U-2/TR-1 might
be a different story, as these are ENTIRELY different airframes. If the
payload weight -fuel, cameras, instrumentation wasn't too bad, the U-2
would be a close cousin to any of the modern powered gliders. Besides
the outstanding glide ratio, these aircraft are capable of taking
advantage of THERMALS to ride aloft. If the pilot was an accomplished
glider pilot, he would have been able to ride the max glide as far as
he could towards home then find thermals and ride them back up to an
altitude to continue the trip. (I'm not a glider pilot -how high up is it
reasonable to ride a thermal?) The limiting factor becomes what kind of
forward airspeed can you get? Even at 150-200kt TAS (which I think is
very unreasonable to expect of a glider) with a 50kt tailwind, (if you
can find one) it's going to take a lot of TIME to get home. Will the
military risk (in peacetime) a pilot and aircraft to fatigue on a little
'experiment' like this?
I would guess that with the appropriate preparation it is possible for a
glider in the hands of an experienced pilot to fly some kind of x-country
like this (check the record books -it may already have been done) but I
find it difficult to believe the circumstances of this one.
I'm not certain, but the U-2/TR-1 may not even have hyd. boosted flight
controls. The airframe is small and light enough, flown slow enough, and the
control surfaces are distanced far enough apart that they should provide
sufficient ease of control to the pilot without artificial augmentation.
(Anyone know a Crewmember?)
--
Dean M. Bleess
SHAS Parts (OMA)
USAFScootr
Dobyns) writes:
:One unknown factor remains: what were the
:winds aloft?? He must have been high enough to have flown through
:the jet streams. Maybe the pilot took off from New Mexico and landed
:in Tennessee!! Going east gives the U-2 a chance to take advantage of
:strong tailwinds. Since I can't remember the details exactly, perhaps
:I should withdraw my earlier post.
He could have flown through the jet stream, but really don't know, since
I'm not a WX guy, and don't know the ins and outs of the weather. No need
to withdraw your post; it makes a great story! =o) Regardless, you bring
up an excellent point.
[continuing, deleting my commentary]
:I wonder if the U-2s have those. Is this the same as the ram air
:turbine that can be exteneded into the airstream so that some hydraulic
:or electrical power can be generated? I read about this device in a
:description of an F-102 or similar plane many years ago. It looked like
:a great feature to have in an emergency!
These were the ram turbines to which I referred. I don't know if the U-2
has them or not, but I hope for the pilot's sake, it did (otherwise I
would imagine he had quite a workout)!
Lt Scooter
Albert Dobyns
LGMM> Subject: Re: SR71:how fast: how hi
LGMM> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 22:07:21 -0400
LGMM> Organization: University of Michigan
LGMM> TEB is triethylborane, a boron-based "zip" fuel originally considered for
LGMM> use in the WS-110 program in the late 1950s. It spontaneously combusts
LGMM> when injected into the airstream of a jet engine, and is used for engine
LGMM> starts in the Blackbird if I recall correctly (some Blackbird fan please
LGMM> chime in here). It has a very high energy content, but also makes a dens
LGMM> white smoke.
According to the USAF unclassified SR-71 pilot's manual, you are correct
about the full name of TEB. Many books have called it tetraethylborane,
but the manaul says the "T" stands for "Tri". From what I have read in
the manual and other Blackbird books, TEB is really nasty stuff. The
Blackbird's engines need a squirt of TEB to ignite the JP-7 fuel in the
engine and also another squirt to get fuel pumped it into the after-
burner section to light and stay lit. I'd like to have one of those
600 cc TEB tanks as a souveneir but empty of course!!
Someone once asked if the J58 engines were used in any aircraft other
than the Blackbirds. As far as I know the answer is no unless the
engine was tested in some other plane before being delivered to the
Skunk Works. Due to the delays Pratt & Whitney had in getting the engine
to run properly plus the fact that Skunk Works had planes waiting for
these engines, I'm inclined to think that the Blackbirds went through
a lot of testing effort for everything in the plane! Well, I have
"chimed" enough I think, but it's fun to participate in these
discussions. I just hope most people know that I have never had any
direct contact with these planes so that, at most, I am just an
"armchair expert".
---
. SLMR 2.1a . "Be quick, be quiet, be on time" -Kelly Johnson
Mark Blusiewicz
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Keywords:
Cc:
At 60,000 feet MSL, a 20:1 glide ratio would result in a no wind
distance travelled of 227 miles. Don't know, but I'd guess that the
actual glide ration is closer to 40:1 (60:1 sailplanes exist). Still,
that would only give him a range for <500 miles. The stories are just
that: stories.
Mark.
Brian Echard
> A Blackbird probably wouldn't glide all that well, but a U-2/TR-1 might
>be a different story, as these are ENTIRELY different airframes. If the
>payload weight -fuel, cameras, instrumentation wasn't too bad, the U-2
>would be a close cousin to any of the modern powered gliders. Besides
>the outstanding glide ratio, these aircraft are capable of taking
>advantage of THERMALS to ride aloft. If the pilot was an accomplished
>glider pilot, he would have been able to ride the max glide as far as
>he could towards home then find thermals and ride them back up to an
>altitude to continue the trip. (I'm not a glider pilot -how high up is it
>reasonable to ride a thermal?) The limiting factor becomes what kind of
>forward airspeed can you get? Even at 150-200kt TAS (which I think is
>very unreasonable to expect of a glider) with a 50kt tailwind, (if you
>can find one) it's going to take a lot of TIME to get home. Will the
>military risk (in peacetime) a pilot and aircraft to fatigue on a little
>'experiment' like this?
> I would guess that with the appropriate preparation it is possible for a
>glider in the hands of an experienced pilot to fly some kind of x-country
>like this (check the record books -it may already have been done) but I
>find it difficult to believe the circumstances of this one.
Absolutely no way a plane the size of the U2 or Sr-71 can glide a very long
distance. I'm a private pilot and I fly small planes such as Piper Archers and
Cessna 172's. The best glide speed on these planes are aroun 60-70 knots. Go
to a smaller plane and even then the glide speeds will not allow those planes
to glide very long. As for the thermals....once again...no way. They do go up
very far and glider pilots do go on VERY long cross country's. But those are
gliders, not a multi-ton plane.
Brian Echard
> There's a couple of things about "gliding" you ought to know. First,
>the gross weight of a given airframe doesn't change the glide ratio. A
>lightly loaded or a heavily loaded U-2 have exactly the same glide ratio.
>The heavier aircraft's best L/D ratio (lift / drag) will occur at a
>higher airspeed than the lighter aircraft. The airspeed at which the
>lowest L/D occurs is called Vy (best rate of climb). Sailplane pilots
>call it the "speed to fly".
> Secondly, any aircraft can take advantage of thermals (or any other
>rising airmass, such as from orographic lifting); not just aircraft with
>relatively high glide ratios. Perhaps you recall that Charles Lindbergh
>spent time instructing P-38 pilots during WWII. What he was primarily
>teaching them was how to utilize thermals to extend the operational range
>of their aircraft. Or maybe you've heard of the F-4 pilot who bailed out
>in a thunderstorm over Virginia (Paxtuxent ?). While few would argue that
>a man on a chute is much of an aircraft, the pilot in that story found
>himself thermal soaring for a couple of hours!
Yea, but these thermals have to be very stroung to lift a plane like the Sr-71
or the U2. I don't even think a thermal can actually lift a Cessna. Help it
get better lift yes, but nly while under it's own power. I've just never heard
of this before. A glider is a totally different beast.
BLEESS
: >dbl...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu (Dean M. Bleess)
: >WROTE:
: >
: > A Blackbird probably wouldn't glide all that well, but a U-2/TR-1 might
: >be a different story, as these are ENTIRELY different airframes. If the
: >payload weight -fuel, cameras, instrumentation wasn't too bad, the U-2
: >would be a close cousin to any of the modern powered gliders. Besides
: >the outstanding glide ratio, these aircraft are capable of taking
I should have added the word 'BETTER' here.
: >advantage of THERMALS to ride aloft. If the pilot was an accomplished
: >glider pilot, he would have been able to ride the max glide as far as
====
====
: Dean;
: There's a couple of things about "gliding" you ought to know. First,
: the gross weight of a given airframe doesn't change the glide ratio. A
: lightly loaded or a heavily loaded U-2 have exactly the same glide ratio.
But I would think that a light U-2 would be able to INCREASE altitude
in a weaker thermal more efficiently than if it were fully loaded. I'm
more interested in actual Vertical Speed in a thermal because this
decides your delay time between legs.
: The heavier aircraft's best L/D ratio (lift / drag) will occur at a
: higher airspeed than the lighter aircraft. The airspeed at which the
: lowest L/D occurs is called Vy (best rate of climb). Sailplane pilots
: call it the "speed to fly".
Sure, that is coming down. But is HAS to take more thermal energy to
lift a heavier mass to a higher altitude if you want to use the thermal
to spiral climb to extend range. We're trying to do this LONG x-country
hopping from thermal to thermal as far apart as possible and as quickly
as possible before the pilot gets tired.
: Secondly, any aircraft can take advantage of thermals (or any other
: rising airmass, such as from orographic lifting); not just aircraft with
: relatively high glide ratios. Perhaps you recall that Charles Lindbergh
But I would think that the glide ratio would be good indication of
the efficiency you would have in using thermals.
: spent time instructing P-38 pilots during WWII. What he was primarily
: teaching them was how to utilize thermals to extend the operational range
: of their aircraft. Or maybe you've heard of the F-4 pilot who bailed out
: in a thunderstorm over Virginia (Paxtuxent ?). While few would argue
: that a man on a chute is much of an aircraft,
**I would** :-)
: the pilot in that story found himself thermal soaring for a couple
: of hours!
Yeah, but I bet you couldn't get the Phantom itself to gain altitude
(sans engine power) as efficiently in a thermal as a U-2 :-)
: Mark.
:
Here's my flight plan:
Failed engine, glide at Vy as far as practical to a good thermal, plan
to avoid (or exit) jet stream -which to my understanding may curve and
waver but is not always excessively wide and should be at the least
partly avoidable even if we have to remain below it. The U-2 is a SAC
aircraft, (WAS, I know the command has changed, I LIVE next to Stracom
HQ for god's sake) who has some of the BEST meteorologists around, so
our pilot can get good winds aloft info, as well as cloud coverage data
(wouldn't this help to plan for likely location of distant thermals?),
and work around this data maybe even working around the prevailing
westerly winds.
Upon getting low enough, (again not a glider pilot -judgement call
from pilot's experience I suppose) we hit a thermal column or orog.
lift and rise up as high as judgment says. Then do next leg and
repeat procedure. Like I said before; this will be EXTREMELY time
consuming.
As for Mark:
Maybe I fail to understand what you were trying to explain to me.
It seemed to be irrelevant to the conjecture I was creating. I did
not mean to say that gliders were the ONLY aircraft capable of using
energized airmasses to gain advantage and I don't think that I
actually said so. I merely meant that they were most efficient and
lighter HAS to be better from a physics standpoint because less
energy would be needed to lift the mass.
Does my addition of one word to my original article get me out of
trouble? Did anyone else have a problem understanding my line of
conjecture?
DMB PP-ASEL (Private Pilot - Airplane Single Engine Land)
Asst. Parts Mgr. Sky Harbor Air Service (OMA)
Live from Bellevue, Home of STRATCOM Hq
NEBRASKA Home of the HUSKERS
As soon as I can afford to sit down and teach myself Diff. Eq. I'm
going to go back to school and finish my Mech. & Aerosp. Eng. Degree,
I may not know it all, but I know enough to make a fool of myself if
nothing else.
Albert Dobyns
BE> Subject: Re: SR71:how fast: how hi
BE> Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 20:58:54 GMT
BE> Organization: The Ohio State University
BE> I have the edition of Aviation Week, when the SR-71 was retired. In it they
BE> talk about adapting the SR-71 to a smaller, fighter version. And I believe
BE> the same engines. I'll have to read that again and refresh my memory.
There were 3 YF-12A planes which were designed to be fighters that would
be sent to shoot down incoming bombers. The YF-12A look very much like
their better known SR-71s, but instead of recon gear, they carried 3
(X)AIM-47 missiles which were capable of taking out a target nearly 100
miles away. Much of their brief life was spent doing research for NASA.
In the interceptor role, these planes probably would have been the best
ever built, but they probably would make poor dogfighters. I believe
the YF-12 was about 5 feet shorter than the SR-71 (had to look up the
numbers so I would be reasonably accurate). By late 1971 I think they
were retired. The only complete one left was flown to the Air Force
Museum in Ohio and several years later (1990) an SR-71 was flown to the
museum and put on display. If planes could talk, imagine what stories
those two planes could talk about! :)
---
. SLMR 2.1a . "If life is just a highway, then the soul is just a car!"
Jake McGuire
echa...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Brian Echard) wrote:
> Absolutely no way a plane the size of the U2 or Sr-71 can glide a very long
> distance. I'm a private pilot and I fly small planes such as Piper
Archers and
> Cessna 172's. The best glide speed on these planes are aroun 60-70 knots. Go
> to a smaller plane and even then the glide speeds will not allow those planes
> to glide very long. As for the thermals....once again...no way. They do go up
> very far and glider pilots do go on VERY long cross country's. But those are
> gliders, not a multi-ton plane.
You are wrong. Weight has nothing to do with gliding. The only things
that make the slightest bit of difference in how well something can glide
are wing loading and lift-drag ratios.
--
When all else fails, use bloody great nails.
Jake McGuire jm...@andrew.cmu.edu
Jake McGuire
(BLEESS) wrote:
> I merely meant that they were most efficient and
> lighter HAS to be better from a physics standpoint because less
> energy would be needed to lift the mass.
But a piece of lead shot is lighter than any airplane, and will sink
like, well, a piece of lead shot. A heavier plane, if it has very low
wing loading, will rise just fine. Again, it is not the absolutes that
matter, but the ratios.
Richard D Manning
|> > I merely meant that they were most efficient and
|> > lighter HAS to be better from a physics standpoint because less
|> > energy would be needed to lift the mass.
|>
|> But a piece of lead shot is lighter than any airplane, and will sink
|> like, well, a piece of lead shot. A heavier plane, if it has very low
|> wing loading, will rise just fine. Again, it is not the absolutes that
|> matter, but the ratios.
I have to think he meant "All other things being equal, lighter...".
Meaning that a U-2 at a relatively light weight would be better off than one at
max. gross...
Ron Magnus
: >dbl...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu (Dean M. Bleess)
: >WROTE:
: There's a couple of things about "gliding" you ought to know. First,
: in a thunderstorm over Virginia (Paxtuxent ?). While few would argue that
: a man on a chute is much of an aircraft, the pilot in that story found
: himself thermal soaring for a couple of hours!
: Mark.
:
The reference to riding the T-Storm is from the Book "The Man Who Rode
the Thunder" by William H. Rankin (Lt. Col. USMC) it is copyrighted in
1960 ( I got the copy when I was about 10 years old) the incident occured
on July 26, 1959, and the aircraft was a F8U.
Cheers
Ron
Mark Blusiewicz
>be a different story, as these are ENTIRELY different airframes. If the
>payload weight -fuel, cameras, instrumentation wasn't too bad, the U-2
>would be a close cousin to any of the modern powered gliders. Besides
>the outstanding glide ratio, these aircraft are capable of taking
>advantage of THERMALS to ride aloft. If the pilot was an accomplished
>glider pilot, he would have been able to ride the max glide as far as
Dean;
There's a couple of things about "gliding" you ought to know. First,
the gross weight of a given airframe doesn't change the glide ratio. A
lightly loaded or a heavily loaded U-2 have exactly the same glide ratio.
The heavier aircraft's best L/D ratio (lift / drag) will occur at a
higher airspeed than the lighter aircraft. The airspeed at which the
lowest L/D occurs is called Vy (best rate of climb). Sailplane pilots
call it the "speed to fly".
Secondly, any aircraft can take advantage of thermals (or any other
rising airmass, such as from orographic lifting); not just aircraft with
relatively high glide ratios. Perhaps you recall that Charles Lindbergh
spent time instructing P-38 pilots during WWII. What he was primarily
teaching them was how to utilize thermals to extend the operational range
of their aircraft. Or maybe you've heard of the F-4 pilot who bailed out
Albert Dobyns
BL> Subject: Re: U-2 maximum glide?
BL> Date: 12 Nov 1994 15:53:57 GMT
BL> Organization: University of Nebraska Omaha
BL> : I have wondered how "well" an SR-71 would glide with both engines
BL> : out. I bet it's not all that far. Once the engines spool down, the
BL> : plane loses its hydraulic pressure so control surfaces are no longer
BL> : controllable (at least that's the way I think it works). Eventually the
BL> : crew has to eject and let the plane hit the ground.
BL> A Blackbird probably wouldn't glide all that well,
Yes, I would estimate a ration of something like 2 to 1 perhaps? :)
but a U-2/TR-1 might
BL> be a different story, as these are ENTIRELY different airframes. If the
BL> payload weight -fuel, cameras, instrumentation wasn't too bad, the U-2
BL> would be a close cousin to any of the modern powered gliders. Besides
BL> the outstanding glide ratio, these aircraft are capable of taking
BL> advantage of THERMALS to ride aloft. If the pilot was an accomplished
BL> glider pilot, he would have been able to ride the max glide as far as
BL> he could towards home then find thermals and ride them back up to an
BL> altitude to continue the trip. (I'm not a glider pilot -how high up is it
BL> reasonable to ride a thermal?)
I don't know the answer either. I've never flown a glider.
The limiting factor becomes what kind of
BL> forward airspeed can you get? Even at 150-200kt TAS (which I think is
BL> very unreasonable to expect of a glider) with a 50kt tailwind, (if you
BL> can find one) it's going to take a lot of TIME to get home. Will the
BL> military risk (in peacetime) a pilot and aircraft to fatigue on a little
BL> 'experiment' like this?
I don't believe I suggested that such an experiment be done. I was just
trying to determine if the claim made by someone on one of the Wings
documentary series was reasonable or possible. The person was talking
about an event that had already happened. I was just trying to find out
if anyone here had reasons to believe the person's statement.
BL> I would guess that with the appropriate preparation it is possible for a
BL> glider in the hands of an experienced pilot to fly some kind of x-country
BL> like this (check the record books -it may already have been done) but I
BL> find it difficult to believe the circumstances of this one.
BL> I'm not certain, but the U-2/TR-1 may not even have hyd. boosted flight
BL> controls. The airframe is small and light enough, flown slow enough, and t
BL> control surfaces are distanced far enough apart that they should provide
BL> sufficient ease of control to the pilot without artificial augmentation.
BL> (Anyone know a Crewmember?)
I have spoken with a former U-2 pilot who also flew SR-71s once, but
that was quite awhile ago. I wish I had remembered to ask him about
"cross-country gliding" in a letter I wrote to him which was maily about
the SR-71. I would like to hear from former U-2 pilots too, but as far
as I know, none of them spend time posting messages to us. Even if one
U-2 and/or SR-71 pilot did want to participate, he or she would always
have to be careful how they word things. I have to rely mainly on the
various books and videotapes I've collected. Speaking of which, Ben
Rich of Skunk Works fame has written a very interesting book. He has
added a number of interesting details to my "data bank"! :}
---
. SLMR 2.1a . []<- Please write complaint in this box. Write legibly.
Brian Echard
>Someone once asked if the J58 engines were used in any aircraft other
>than the Blackbirds. As far as I know the answer is no unless the
>engine was tested in some other plane before being delivered to the
>Skunk Works. Due to the delays Pratt & Whitney had in getting the engine
>to run properly plus the fact that Skunk Works had planes waiting for
>these engines, I'm inclined to think that the Blackbirds went through
>a lot of testing effort for everything in the plane! Well, I have
>"chimed" enough I think, but it's fun to participate in these
>discussions. I just hope most people know that I have never had any
>direct contact with these planes so that, at most, I am just an
>"armchair expert".
I have the edition of Aviation Week, when the SR-71 was retired. In it they
talk about adapting the SR-71 to a smaller, fighter version. And I believe w/
JST...@delphi.com
Maximum glide also depends on knowledge of using thermals.
Otherwise the finest of sailplanes would be on the ground
within minutes. We all know that several skilled pilots
have remained aloft for extended periods of time.
What is a U-2? A powered sailplane! Nuff said?
Jim Strand Long Island, NY
Internet: JST...@DELPHI.COM JIM.S...@ASB.COM
Rainbow V 1.06 for Delphi - Registered
Richard D Manning
|> Absolutely no way a plane the size of the U2 or Sr-71 can glide a very long
|> distance. I'm a private pilot and I fly small planes such as Piper Archers and
|> Cessna 172's. The best glide speed on these planes are aroun 60-70 knots. Go
|> to a smaller plane and even then the glide speeds will not allow those planes
|> to glide very long. As for the thermals....once again...no way. They do go up
|> very far and glider pilots do go on VERY long cross country's. But those are
|> gliders, not a multi-ton plane.
You forget, though, that the U-2 is, at lower altitudes, say < about 30,000 feet
or so, the U-2 is really little more than a jet-powered glider. It's more the
lift-to-drag ratio that's important on glide range, not the weight. Just keep
the plane at it's best-glide speed for the weight and altitude, and you'll glide
the farthest. (I'm not sure, but I think that a 747 at 40,000 feet will glide
farther than a 182 at 10,000, even though each one is at about the same point in
it's envelope when cruising at those altitudes.) On takeoff, the U-2 climbs at
a deck angle of about 60 degrees or so, so it has EXTREMELY high lift. OK, lets
say that the U-2 has a 30:1 glide ratio. That may seem high to some, but since
some championship sailplanes manage 60:1, that's entirely possible. I have no
idea what the performance numbers on a U-2 actually are, but let's have it in
cruise at 70,000 and 350 knots. For the sake of argument, I'll say that best-
glide is 350 at 70,000 and decreases linearly to 91 (too fast, really, but it's
good for argument) at 5,000, which will be the elevation of our target airfield.
That means that a best-glide for this weight by altitude (on 5000 foot intervals
for simplicity) would look like:
altitude best-glide speed
70,000 350
65,000 331
60,000 318
55,000 299
50,000 270
45,000 251
40,000 238
35,000 209
30,000 190
25,000 171
20,000 158
15,000 129
10,000 110
5,000 91
Now, from that, it's fairly simple to model what will happen. Find the average
best-glide over each interval (actually, with it decreasing linearly, you only
need to find the overall average for it to be accurate. If it were a non-linear
change, though, you'd need to follow this procedure for maximum accuracy--I'm
using it out of habit. That's what a calculus class does to ya...), and figure
a reasonable rate of descent to maintain to hold on the line through all of the
points listed. From the RoD, you can determine how long it will take to descend
the difference in altitude, and multiply that by that step's average best-glide,
converted into nmi per minute (since RoD would likely be in ft/min). Add all of
the distances covered over each step for the maximum glide range--that's how
it's done for the glide-range charts in the POH. For these numbers, the gliding
range would come out to...
(lot's of arithmetic left out of message...)
Assuming an average RoD of 500 ft/min, this means a range of 476.7 nautical
miles. That's about equal to the distance from... hmm...
548.6 statute miles. About the distance from, hmm, Chicago to New York City, I
guess. And remember, this is a fairly conservative guesstimate...
Dale Saukerson
Lih) wrote:
> With respect to the TR-1 gliding from N.C. to West coast: wouldn't the pilot
> be able to catch thermals like a sailplane? This could extend range
> significantly, if s/he knew what he was doing.
>
> Matt Lih (l...@venice.sedd.trw.com)
Interesting--I've seen many birds get a "free ride" on thermals, as well
as model rockets, scale and full size gliders, and debris (trash).
Are thermals capable of supporting something as heavy as a powered aircraft?
steve hix
:In article <jmeu-13119...@pc18998.mac.cc.cmu.edu> (Jake McGuire) writes:
:
:> You are wrong. Weight has nothing to do with gliding. The only things
:>that make the slightest bit of difference in how well something can glide
:>are wing loading and lift-drag ratios.
:I truly don't think so. You people actually believe a Cessna could gain
:altitude in a thermal while gliding????? I've never seen it, I've never
:experienced it, and it doen't happen.
You're experience can't be disputed (well...), but you'll have to bow to
wider experience, I think.
It's been a while since I've done it, but I have several times found good
enough lift to climb in a lightly-loaded Aeronca 7AC, and at least once
in a Cessna 150 with just me (in my skinny youth) and low fuel load.
The Aeronca would do well in ridge soaring conditions, and occasionally in
very strong thermals, although it was hard to stay in lift while circling,
although that might just be because I never got much sailplane time to learn
how to do it right.
Perhaps you lack good vertical air out in Ohio?
: Now you think the U2 can do that? It may
:have the characteristics of a glider, but weight does matter. [...snip...]
: I say the ONLY force that could lift a plane like the U2 is it's own thrust
:or something w/ the force of a mountain wave or thunderstorm updraft.
Don't think "weight", think "wing loading". Jake is right.
Daniel Lockhart
: IN:
: >>rec.aviation.military #26829
: >>From: dbl...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu (BLEESS)
: >>Re: U-2 maximum glide?
: >>Date: Sat Nov 12 08:53:57 MST 1994
: WROTE:
: >> A Blackbird probably wouldn't glide all that well, but a U-2/TR-1 might
: >>be a different story, as these are ENTIRELY different airframes.
: >>If the payload weight -fuel, cameras, instrumentation wasn't too bad,
: >the U-2 would be a close cousin to any of the modern powered gliders.
: ...
: >>Because of the outstanding glide ratio, these aircraft are capable of
: >>taking advantage of THERMALS to ride aloft.
: >>
Just to add some real numbers to this backseaters review......
From 76,000ft the dead engine glide distance is 254 nautical miles.
This is also given that the aircraft is "clean" (U2a-f's no slipper or
drop tanks, no antenna farm's,etc...U-2R's no superpods or farms)
Takeoff speed for a light bird is approx 70-80 kts, fully loaded it's
115kts.
The bird does not want to land normally due to excessive idle thrust which
lead to the cut engine landings until someone decided to use a stall landing
which would put both wheels down at the same time.
Normal mission cruise would be at .72 Mach.
For followup stories I would recommend "Dragon Lady by Chris Pocock"
For followup tech info "Aerograph 3 and Aerofax Minigraph 28 by
Jay Miller"
daniel
Terry Lennox
i am no pilot at all, more like a layman, but i don't think the U-2's
glide ratio is too outstanding, for several reasons.
it was designed more than 30 years ago, when even record gliders didn't
make better than 25:1. and those were specifically designed ones,
*lightweight*, with no turbulence causing intakes and pipes...
but i always wondered if those machines regularly used to do part of
their operation gliding.
-rick
--
\\ // \\ //
\\ // ...if you think too hard it only makes you mad... \\ //
\\// -- ka...@iastate.edu \\//
## ##
Brian Echard
> You are wrong. Weight has nothing to do with gliding. The only things
>that make the slightest bit of difference in how well something can glide
>are wing loading and lift-drag ratios.
I truly don't think so. You people actually believe a Cessna could gain
altitude in a thermal while gliding????? I've never seen it, I've never
experienced it, and it doen't happen. Now you think the U2 can do that? It may
have the characteristics of a glider, but weight does matter. Just look at
it's best glide speed. It's so high because it loses altitude very quickly. A
thermal may assist in extending a glide, but it won't allow a plane like the
U2 to GAIN altitude. And how big do you think thermals are? You think the U2
can maintain a safe glide speed and turn at the rate that will allow it to
stay w/in the thermal???
Nils Martin Fredriksen
I remember some aviation legend about the U2's first tests. It goes something
like this:
During the first tests the pilot had problems landing it. Once it entered
the ground effect, it would not descend the last feet to the runway before
passing it. Several attempts was made, each one closer to stall speed, and
at last with only seconds left of gasoline the pilot succeeds.
When the pilot left the plane in a rage he showed his finger at the
constructors for trying to kill him, then turned at the plane. He showed
the finger at it and shouted "You too!!". Hence the name, legend claims.
Nils
Steve Reid
>
> Meaning that a U-2 at a relatively light weight would be better off than one at
> max. gross...
True... if he wants to stay up for a longer time. If he wants to glide FARTHER
he's better off with more weight & a resultant higher best glide speed.
Glide ratio says nothing about how long an aircraft will stay up, only how far it
will go before it hits the ground. Long distance, x-country gliders always carry
water ballast in order to increase their best glide speed and range.
The key to gliding far is more weight/more speed. The key to staying up along time
is less weight/less speed.
-Steve
Mark Blusiewicz
>>rec.aviation.military #26829
>>From: dbl...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu (BLEESS)
>>Re: U-2 maximum glide?
>>Date: Sat Nov 12 08:53:57 MST 1994
WROTE:
>> A Blackbird probably wouldn't glide all that well, but a U-2/TR-1 might
>>be a different story, as these are ENTIRELY different airframes.
>>If the payload weight -fuel, cameras, instrumentation wasn't too bad,
>the U-2 would be a close cousin to any of the modern powered gliders.
...
>>Because of the outstanding glide ratio, these aircraft are capable of
>>taking advantage of THERMALS to ride aloft.
>>
>mblu...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark Blusiewicz)
WROTE:
>the gross weight of a given airframe doesn't change the glide ratio. A
>lightly loaded or a heavily loaded U-2 have exactly the same glide ratio.
..
> Secondly, any aircraft can take advantage of thermals (or any other
>rising airmass, such as from orographic lifting); not just aircraft with
>relatively high glide ratios. Perhaps you recall that Charles Lindbergh
<END OF EXCERPTS>
There are three possibilities with regards to lower weight here:
1) Still air scenario (lower weight has NO effect on range)
2) Tail wind scenario (lower weight INCREASES range)
3) Head wind scenario (lower weight DECREASES range)
Lower weight is not good of itself, it depends upon the winds aloft.
In the scenario presented in this thread (an East to West Flight), the
possibility of headwinds aloft (the Westerlies) is likely. Therefore,
I'll put my money on a U-2 loaded to gross maximum over one that is
lighter, because it will have greater range, with the same glide ratio.
As far as the effect of thermals, any aircraft in level flight, exposed
to an updraft of, let's say, 1000 fpm for 60" will gain 1000' of altitude,
whether Cessna 152, SR-71 or U-2. It follows that a high L/D ratio
aircraft will make the most of that 1000'.
BTW: Bill Gunston, in "American Warplanes" (p.156-157) states the
L/D ratio of the later model U-2's is 27.
Mark.
Mark Blusiewicz
>It seemed to be irrelevant to the conjecture I was creating. I did
>not mean to say that gliders were the ONLY aircraft capable of using
>energized airmasses to gain advantage and I don't think that I
>actually said so. I merely meant that they were most efficient and
>trouble? Did anyone else have a problem understanding my line of
>conjecture?
The one word being ONLY ? Yeah, that does make a difference.
Evidently, you do understand the effect of rising (and falling) air-masses
on aircraft, as your clarification shows. I think some people really
misunderstand, however. Take a look at this post, for example, by a
Skyhawk driver. BE implies that the range in a glide is a function of
aircraft size ?! I suppose he means size in terms of mass.
I think there is also some general confusion over what the word "thermal"
implies, when perhaps the the words "thermal soaring" would serve better.
It wasn't clear to me in your previous post, but it is now.
>echa...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Brian Echard)
WROTE:
>>In article <3a2oel$n...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu> dbl...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu
>>(BLEESS) writes:
>> A Blackbird probably wouldn't glide all that well, but a U-2/TR-1 might
>>be a different story, as these are ENTIRELY different airframes. If the
>>payload weight -fuel, cameras, instrumentation wasn't too bad, the U-2
>>would be a close cousin to any of the modern powered gliders. Besides
>>the outstanding glide ratio, these aircraft are capable of taking
>>advantage of THERMALS to ride aloft. If the pilot was an accomplished
>Absolutely no way a plane the size of the U2 or Sr-71 can glide a very long
>distance. I'm a private pilot and I fly small planes such as Piper Archers and
>Cessna 172's. The best glide speed on these planes are aroun 60-70 knots. Go
>to a smaller plane and even then the glide speeds will not allow those planes
>to glide very long. As for the thermals....once again...no way. They do go up
>End of article 26852
So, to me it looks like four scenarios have emerged:
1) Seymour Johnson AFB in Goldsboro, NC. ---> West coast
2) somewhere over Belgium ---> Alconbury.
3) Tennessee ----> New Mexico
OR
4) from New Mexico and landed in Tennessee
I have several related questions and my thoughts on them:
Was such a flight possible ?
Well, that depends on the facts. I don't think we have much
as far as facts go, maybe none as far as the flight path goes.
IMHO, this thread is based mostly on speculation. BTW, that doesn't
detract much from my enjoyment of it :)
Try this scenario:
Did the flight actually occur ?
Dean, you said something like "no way the mil is going to take this
kind of risk in peace-time". I whole-heartedly agree.
Revealing the flight plan would entail a major security breach.
It's unlikely that the reports reveal an actual flight.
In addition, if I were the pilot's CO, my orders to him would be
something like; "Bring back the plane, or destroy it."
A maximum range glide would necessitate the risk of an off-field
landing, and having to destroy the aircraft. Prudence would dictate
that the pilot pick a suitable, easily reachable landing site. The
easiest place to get to from the air is the one directly below you:
that rules out maximum range.
It seems likely that this alternate site would have been established
for each leg of the flight in the pre-flight plan. This would be a base
where appropriate security measures could be enforced. The pilot may
have chosen the site, but I'm sure it wasn't spontaneously.
Did the conversation with ATC actually occur ?
Possibly. The pucker-factor in a flame-out at altitude would've
been quite high. The handling of U-2's at altitude were infamous.
In a flame-out, getting the nose down and establishing the glide
attitude could've been real hairy. It seems reasonable to assume
that an intelligent person under great stress (the pilot) might make
a joke about it: ie.
"I'm going to glide this aircraft back to <some ridiculously far,
but possible distance>".
It would be good PR, with a positive security risk (disinformation)
to reveal such a converstation, if it had occurred. It's just the
type of thing to get out to the citizens, and just the sort of thing
you might find on the net.
Well, that's my $.02 .. have fun with it.
Mark.
dave pierson
"..clear if you can make it/descending.."
Mach 3 emergency
And flame out/no emergency, i'll glide into....
Have appeared in the various balcck/recce a/c books. Which does not
them true. Last time i looked for "...if you can make it" i could not
find the ref. The version of engine-out/glide in i saw as the one
involving Bermuda...
thanks
dave pierson |the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation |the opinions, my own.
200 Forest St |I am the NRA.
Marlboro, Mass 01751 |pie...@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing." A J Raffles
Charles K. Scott
echa...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Brian Echard) writes:
> I have never flown into a thermal strong enough
> to lift my cessna.
I can remember several instances when there was nothing I could do to
keep from going up in our Waco UPF-7, a big heavy biplane. The
Citabria in formation with us just took off in this mass of heated air
by sticking it's nose down and increasing speed. The Citabria was able
to increase it's speed but we could not, we just went up. This was
over Western Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio, heading west southwest.
But there was no question we were going up. Maybe the Waco doesn't
count because it has two wings which makes for a lot of lift but the
Citabria was also affected.
Corky Scott
Tony Knight
In article <sauke001-131...@dialup-2-163.gw.umn.edu>,
<sauk...@gold.tc.umn.edu> writes:
> Interesting--I've seen many birds get a "free ride" on thermals, as
well
> as model rockets, scale and full size gliders, and debris (trash).
>
> Are thermals capable of supporting something as heavy as a powered
aircraft?
>
A thermal is a mass of heated air rising through the atmosphere,
cooling as it expands. If an aircraft, in the glide, normally
descends at, say, 100ft per minute, then a thermal ASCENDING at 100ft
per minute would allow the aircraft to maintain level flight relative
to the ground. A more powerful thermal, moving at more than 100 ft
per minute, would appear to give lift and the aircraft would climb.
Anything can ride a thermal, even rocks (in nuclear explosions and
volcanic eruptions) but the hot air would have to be very hot
relative to the surrounding atmosphere. Glider pilots around here
can tell you about the "Piggeries Thermal" at Dunstable, smelly, but
effective!
TonyK
Brian Echard
>You're experience can't be disputed (well...), but you'll have to bow to
>wider experience, I think.
I'm not sure what this means, but my experience in flying lights planes will
not bow to anyone. I know what I know.
>It's been a while since I've done it, but I have several times found good
>enough lift to climb in a lightly-loaded Aeronca 7AC, and at least once
>in a Cessna 150 with just me (in my skinny youth) and low fuel load.
>The Aeronca would do well in ridge soaring conditions, and occasionally in
>very strong thermals, although it was hard to stay in lift while circling,
>although that might just be because I never got much sailplane time to learn
>how to do it right.
>Perhaps you lack good vertical air out in Ohio?
Number one, you mentioned ridge soaring. We're talking about thermals.
Thermals are better over flat ground. ie. Ohio
I fly out of an airport where a glider manufacturer is and where the Central
Ohio Soaring Assoc. is based. I fly in the same conditions they fly in. They
also fly long cross countries. I have never flown into a thermal strong enough
to lift my cessna.
>Don't think "weight", think "wing loading". Jake is right.
I'm sorry, this is so wrong. Weight means everything. Would you kindly explain
why the U2's best glide speed is so high? Is it because it MUST trade altitude
for forward air speed? If you agree w/ this, and it is true, then you
must realize it HAS to trade altitude for airspeed because it's weight
is so high. Jane's does mention that it often shut down to conserve fuel and
it would glide. You are a fool if you think that it rode UP on thermals while
gliding. It traded it's high altitude for airspeed, lost altitude, and started
back up to gain altitude.
One more thing, no one is adressing the obvious. The U2 could not maintain a
safe turn rate to stay w/in a thermal. Just not possible. If they did, we'd be
talking about the spins the U2 often went into.
Brian Echard
>I can remember several instances when there was nothing I could do to
>keep from going up in our Waco UPF-7, a big heavy biplane. The
>Citabria in formation with us just took off in this mass of heated air
>by sticking it's nose down and increasing speed. The Citabria was able
>to increase it's speed but we could not, we just went up. This was
>over Western Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio, heading west southwest.
>But there was no question we were going up. Maybe the Waco doesn't
>count because it has two wings which makes for a lot of lift but the
>Citabria was also affected.
What other conditions were present? Thunderstorms near by? Ridges? You need to
tell this to Aviation Safety. Never had I read about thermals causing loss of
control of an aircraft. Loss or gain of altitude, such as you have described,
is usually the result of mountain waves or extreme thunderstorm drafts.
Richard D Manning
Take another look at the thing. HUGE wings. Incredibly light. That equals a
phenomenally low wing loading. It's not weight that affects thermals, it's wing
loading. Remember, that plane, as I recall, does NOT weigh much more than 8000
pounds...
Richard D Manning
I think that this one even has some basis in fact--on the first test flight, as
I recall the story, Kelly Johnson was insisting that the pilot fly the plane all
the way down onto the runway, and the test pilot was insisting that the only way
that one could POSSIBLY land that plane was a full-stall landing. Eventually,
the pilot got so frustrated that he said, "OK, we'll try it your way!" He did,
and he floated the entire length of the runway. Johnson didn't believe that he
had actually tried to land, so he made the pilot make several go arounds and try
again, until the pilot said, "OK, dammit, this time I'm doing a full-stall!" and
promptly plunked it down nicely onto the runway.
I have no idea where the part after leaving the plane came from...
Richard D Manning
|> BTW: Bill Gunston, in "American Warplanes" (p.156-157) states the
|> L/D ratio of the later model U-2's is 27.
Is L/D the same as the glide ratio? I know that T/W in pounds per pound equals
the maximum acceleration (from thrust) in Gs...
Charles K. Scott
echa...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Brian Echard) writes:
> Never had I read about thermals causing loss of
> control of an aircraft. Loss or gain of altitude, such as you have described,
> is usually the result of mountain waves or extreme thunderstorm drafts.
Whoa, who said anything about loosing control of the aircraft? We were
going up at about 300 fpm but we were under control. I could have
stopped the upward movement by nosing over significantly more than I
wanted to. It was three years ago during a long heat wave and there
were occasional ridges near by and sometimes it was flying over a town
or small city where we found the thermal. It was a very bumpy day to be
flying. The whole point of the discussion was that someone said he'd
never flown in any circumstances in which his Cessna was affected by a
thermal. I just described one in which the airplane I was flying in
was.
Corky Scott
phil bartlett
mblu...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Mark Blusiewicz) writes:
>>dbl...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu (Dean M. Bleess)
>>WROTE:
>>
>higher airspeed than the lighter aircraft. The airspeed at which the
>lowest L/D occurs is called Vy (best rate of climb). Sailplane pilots
>call it the "speed to fly".
this is mostly true, but "speed to fly" is more complicated than this,
involving headwind/tailwind component and anticipated thermal strengths.
phil bartlett
Marshall Cram
In article <3a2v0n$d...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, mblu...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Mark Blusiewicz) writes...
>Sender:
>Followup-To:
>Distribution:
>Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
>Keywords:
>Cc:
>
>
> At 60,000 feet MSL, a 20:1 glide ratio would result in a no wind
>distance travelled of 227 miles. Don't know, but I'd guess that the
>actual glide ration is closer to 40:1 (60:1 sailplanes exist). Still,
>that would only give him a range for <500 miles. The stories are just
>that: stories.
>Mark.
"Wings/Airpower" magazine a few years back had a great two part article on the
U-2via a long pilot interview.
In that article they reported the Bermuda U-2 story
first appeared in "Reader's Digest", that the U-2 was just more than 200 miles
out, and that the pilot told the tower to hold the SAR chopper because he was
gliding in.
Not a very specific first-hand story, and it doesn't seem to show up in the
definite sources. (Did Kindley Field (?) ever have a SAR chopper?).
Marshall
steve hix
:In article <3a8bil$m...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> fid...@Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:
:
:>You're experience can't be disputed (well...), but you'll have to bow to
:>wider experience, I think.
:
:I'm not sure what this means, but my experience in flying lights planes will
:not bow to anyone. I know what I know.
:Number one, you mentioned ridge soaring. We're talking about thermals.
:I fly out of an airport where a glider manufacturer is and where the Central
:Ohio Soaring Assoc. is based. I fly in the same conditions they fly in. They
:also fly long cross countries. I have never flown into a thermal strong enough
:to lift my cessna.
Well, I *have* flown in thermal strong enough to lift the Aeronca 7AC.
It's hard to stay in lift with it, but you can manage some useful lift,
and when conditions were right to form cloud streets, it could be even
more fun...if bumpy.
It was rare to get strong enough thermal activity, but it did occur on
occasion.
BLEESS
: You are wrong. Weight has nothing to do with gliding. The only things
: that make the slightest bit of difference in how well something can glide
: are wing loading and lift-drag ratios.
Look up the definition of wing loading and post it to the newsgroup 500
times for your punishment. You just contradicted yourself. Wing area
stays the same, lessen weight AND you lessen the load on the wing and
decrease wing loading. (Down force per unit wing area)
: --
: When all else fails, use a bloody REFERENCE BOOK !!
Richard DeCastro
etc has nothing to do with it, the pertinent factor is the L/D ratio of the
airframe. The wing loading of the aircraft is important, large wing
area airplanes that don't weigh much (U2/TR1) do better than small wing heavy
aircraft (F4's).
In fact, very large very heavy aircraft (B707) have been flown in thermals,
and have gained altitude.
Rick De Castro (ATP, CFIAI, phormer phantom phlier)
At, but not for, Quarterdeck
BLEESS
: In article <jmeu-13119...@pc18998.mac.cc.cmu.edu>, jm...@andrew.cmu.edu (Jake McGuire) writes:
: |> > I merely meant that they were most efficient and
: |> > lighter HAS to be better from a physics standpoint because less
: |> > energy would be needed to lift the mass.
: |>
: |> But a piece of lead shot is lighter than any airplane, and will sink
: |> like, well, a piece of lead shot. A heavier plane, if it has very low
: |> wing loading, will rise just fine. Again, it is not the absolutes that
: |> matter, but the ratios.
: I have to think he meant "All other things being equal, lighter...".
: Meaning that a U-2 at a relatively light weight would be better off than one at
: max. gross...
Yes, thank you. Too many of you other goofballs are WAY too literal.
I would like to think I don't have to explain EVERY word I write, and
that you can fill some of it in yourselves like this Gentleman.
Mark Blusiewicz
Good question about L/D. I quoted Gunston and you asked the question:
that's what I get for quoting former RAF pilots who probably know 100X
what I do about aeronautics. I was hoping someone in the peanut gallery
(re: "The Howdy Doody Show") would chime up and explain the thing. But,
alas, no-one did, so I do feel oblidged to provide the little info that
I can.
They are NOT the same, as far as I can figure, although they are some-
what similar. Glide ratio is expressed as the ratio between altitude
and range, ie. the SLOPE of the glide angle (eg. 56:1).
L/D is the ratio between the co-efficeint of LIFT and the co-efficeint
of DRAG and is equal to the cotangent of the ANGLE of glide.
cot 0 (angle of glide) = Cl / Cd
So, Gunston states that the L/D = 27 (Cl/Cd = 27) (for the later U-2's).
Therefore, 27 is the cot of angle 0, so the angle of glide is ????
Shit, help me out here .. what is theta if the cot is 27 ? The slope of
theta (gamma) is equal to the glide ratio.
Mark.
Steve Reid
>
> Is L/D the same as the glide ratio?
No! Glide ratio is the number of units the aircraft will proceed horizontally
for each unit of measure it losses vertically. If you're 1 mile up, G/R tells
you how many miles you can glide before you hit the ground, in still air.
Any airplane maintains level flight only in relation to the airmass in which it is
flying. If that air mass moves up, for whatever reason, the airplane, regardless
of weight, speed, L/D ratio, speed, or phase of the moon, or anything else will
also move upward, as long as it's in that airmass.
-Steve
steve hix
A friend and I flew from California to NY via I-80 (most of the way) in an
Aeronca 7AC. Took three days. No radio, no lights, no electric system.
We found lots of thermal activity one afternoon over Wyoming, with the VSI
pegging up *and* down alternately, as we attempted level flight.
No lumpy ground anywhere near, no significant surface winds, scattered
cumulus.
It was interesting, but not fun after a while, particularly after one down
air resulted in feet coming up off the pedals, and baggage floating out of
the baggage well around us.
Howard Jones
: flying. The whole point of the discussion was that someone said he'd
: never flown in any circumstances in which his Cessna was affected by a
: thermal. I just described one in which the airplane I was flying in
: was.
: Corky Scott
of the air mass it is in that aircraft will climb in "a thermal".
it is that simple and does not matter what size the aircraft.
just out from mandurah in western australia, in the jandakot training
area is a large near circular swamp which dries enough in summer, or used to,
to grow vegetables. over this feature is an enormous thermal and it was
my practise during training to fly out of jandakot, and make a high speed
beeline to the feature. on feeling the first bump i would execute a turn
and hold it into an orbit, the thermal would take me upto the 10th floor
and I would then beetle around practising all the height loosing manouvers
and head back to the elevator for a fresh go. reliable as clockwork.
it was only during my licence checkout (many years ago now) that I found
that almost no one else seemed to be aware of it. cessna's at 12:1 are
actually not much worse than early primary gliders. the only problem in
747's is finding a big enough thermal....maybe the red dot on mars???
C. Emory Tate
Strand) wrote:
>...We all know that several skilled pilots have remained aloft for
>extended periods of time. What is a U-2? A powered sailplane!
I doubt very much if a U-2 pilot would thermal to stretch a glide.
Yeah, competition soaring pilots do it, but they're usually working
off a cloud street (a buncha cumuli in a line), where they thermal
up under one, zip over to the next, thermal up under that one, etc.
Strong thermals (i.e., well-organized) in those conditions typically
don't get much above the bases of the cu... yeah, they go higher,
but they tend to get torn apart. Same story if there's much wind.
And there's no ridge or wave between TN and NM to make any appreciable
use of (though if he were going into Kirtland, he might get a little
wave off Sandia Peak in the closing stages... not enuff to matter).
The new declared world distance record is 2100km/13hr back and forth
over NZ's South Island, using lotsa wave. And the U.S. East Coast
distance flights (600km typical) are along the Blue Ridge, from up
in PA to down around Waynesboro or Staunton or Harrisonburg, VA,
and back (in ridge lift).
--
C. E. Tate snailmail: BDM Federal, Inc.
Program Manager 1501 BDM Way, McLean, VA 22102
Next Generation Aircraft Firefighting
Requirements, Improvements & Technologies
____________________________________________________________
Always turn AWAY from the ridge.
C. Emory Tate
(Mark Blusiewicz) wrote:
>There's a couple of things about "gliding" you ought to know. First,
>the gross weight of a given airframe doesn't change the glide ratio. A
>lightly loaded or a heavily loaded U-2 have exactly the same glide ratio.
>lowest L/D occurs is called Vy (best rate of climb). Sailplane pilots
>call it the "speed to fly".
(i.e., if you're stalled, the glide ratio's more like 1:27 than 27:1
<g>). The L/D curve really has two points of interest, min sink
speed and max L/D speed. At min sink (typically not too far above
stall speed), lift is low, but so's induced and parasitic drag. At
higher speeds, lift is higher, but so is induced and parasitic
drag. Flaps help, but at the expense of induced drag (some
sailplanes have a negative flap angle ability to help with the
induced drag at higher speeds). I'll fly min sink if I need
more time aloft (i.e., this is a good boomer to be in, or the
pattern's full and I'm fresh outta thermals). I'll fly max L/D
if I need to cover a lotta ground in a hurry, and don't plan on
spending any time thermalling along the way. But I'll fly "speed
to fly", somewhere in between and accounting for the lift I got from
this thermal and the expected lift in the next (there's a handy
calculator ring around the vario dial to help in figuring this
out), when going from the top of this mushed-out mess over to
where that redtail's circling.
--
C. E. Tate snailmail: BDM Federal, Inc.
Program Manager 1501 BDM Way, McLean, VA 22102
Next Generation Aircraft Firefighting
Requirements, Improvements & Technologies
____________________________________________________________
Loaf of bread, jug of Gatorade, and a long cloud street...
C. Emory Tate
echa...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu wrote:
>I don't even think a thermal can actually lift a Cessna.
In article <echard.2.7...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>, he also wrote:
>...Thermals are better over flat ground. ie. Ohio
>...I have never flown into a thermal strong enough to lift my Cessna.
Gee, I really need to come out to Ohio to fly, where there's none of
that pesky phenom known to the layfolk as "turbulence"... Mr.
Echard's indeed been fortunate in his flying to never have hit
a "bump", which, after all, is usually just lift from a thermal
you're passing through (at least at Cessna altitudes). 8-)
Flat ground's not a required precursor for strong thermals; good
differential heating is. Strongest thermals I've ever been in were
800-1000fpm in the house thermal at HDH on Oahu's North Shore, above
that lava outcropping on the eastern end of the Mokuleia ridge (well-
warmed by the tropical sun). My son, a soaring IP at USAFA, recently
saw 1500fpm under big cu (bases at 18,000): started at 12,000 in
an aggro stall, did that and two back-to-back spiral dives and
finished at 12,2 (in an SGS 2-33!).
Oh, and the Cessna? Well, I use the Super Cub, Scout, or Pawnee
towplane as a pretty good indicator of (a) where the boomers are,
and (b) that I'd better get ready to balloon in that thermal he
just hit.
--
C. E. Tate snailmail: BDM Federal, Inc.
Program Manager 1501 BDM Way, McLean, VA 22102
Next Generation Aircraft Firefighting
Requirements, Improvements & Technologies
____________________________________________________________
Happiness is a straight yaw string and an 800ft/min thermal.
C. Emory Tate
Echard also wrote:
>...this type of thermal (not really) comes from mountain waves
>and thunderstorms.
Nope. A thermal's just a rising parcel of air; if it weren't a
bubble (or actually, a string of bubbles like the ones streaming
from the bottom of a pot on the stove), you could fly within it
and climb without raising the nose. As long as the rate of ascent
of the rising air parcel's greater than your rate of descent,
you're gonna go up. To maximize lift from a thermal, then,
you want to fly at a speed that minimizes your rate of descent
(i.e., the min sink speed). And you've gotta do that while
turning to stay within the perimeter of the rising air parcel.
But they've nothing to do with waves or ridge lift (or other
orographic phenoms) or thunderstorms (convective lift, sure,
but of a different sort: mesoscale vs. micromet).
So max L/D has little to do with good thermalling performance;
the key's how low the min sink speed is, taking into account
the way it changes with bank angle (that's how ya turn, after
all - "g's" are just the resultant vector). Thermals tend to be
kinda tight if they're any good (the largest I've seen is on
the order of 1/4mi in diameter, and it was pretty skoshi), so
you've either gotta pull a lotta g's or fly really slow while
turning. So the reason our friend in the Cessna hasn't done
much thermalling is that he won't pull the 3-4g at just above
his turning stall speed to stay inside the rising parcel of
air. I typically thermal at 2-2.5g's around here (in a 2-33);
but that's at 39-42mph. The resulting thermal diameter's left
to the reader as an exercise. Go faster (i.e., to stay aloft),
and you've gotta honk more than that... up to the limit of either:
the thermal's boundary, the a/c's maneuvering limits, or your own
comfort level (3-4g's on the front-seat meter of the Schleicher
ASK-21'll bend the tips up to a degree sufficient to alarm a
nonflying passenger). I dunno what the min sink speed or max
g-loading for a U-2 are, but the min sink speed's gotta be
above the landing speed. And at 2.5g and about 130KTAS, he's
really at the upper limit of any thermal diameter, way above
any good core diameter. After all, what was the diameter of the
biggest dust devil you ever saw?
--
C. E. Tate snailmail: BDM Federal, Inc.
Program Manager 1501 BDM Way, McLean, VA 22102
Next Generation Aircraft Firefighting
Requirements, Improvements & Technologies
____________________________________________________________
Sink happens.
Brian Echard
>Whoa, who said anything about loosing control of the aircraft? We were
>going up at about 300 fpm but we were under control. I could have
>stopped the upward movement by nosing over significantly more than I
>wanted to. It was three years ago during a long heat wave and there
>were occasional ridges near by and sometimes it was flying over a town
>or small city where we found the thermal. It was a very bumpy day to be
>flying. The whole point of the discussion was that someone said he'd
>never flown in any circumstances in which his Cessna was affected by a
>thermal. I just described one in which the airplane I was flying in
>was.
OKay, I'll concede that a smaller plane can ride a thermal. I just talked to a
friend that has had this happen. I still want to experience it.
Anyhow, on to the U2 discussion. Even though smaller planes may be able to
ride a thermal, the thermal that could cause a large plane to rise would leave
a smaller plane out of control. Sorry if I caused confusion.
And like I said, this type of thermal (not really) comes from mountain waves
and thunderstorms.
rit...@phantom.ma02.bull.com
<some stuff snipped>
|> The whole point of the discussion was that someone said he'd
|> never flown in any circumstances in which his Cessna was affected by a
|> thermal. I just described one in which the airplane I was flying in
|> was.
And that reminds me of a time down in Texas, when I was flying with my
father in his Cessna 182. We were tooling along in level flight, and hit
a large bump :-). My father pointed to the rate-of-climb indicator, which
now read 1000 fpm up! Since I believe the power-off descent rate of a
C-182 can be about 500 fpm, we could have soared in that thermal with
no problem, had we needed to.
--
Roger Ritter N1FZZ (R.Ri...@ma02.bull.com) PP-ASEL, AGI
WWW: http://stout.ma02.bull.com/~ritter/Welcome.html
1946 Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky"
Sheep do not so much fly as plummet! - MPFC NH CAP: Profile 49
Dale Saukerson
> > [discussion about "U2, glider or brick?" deleted]
>
> I remember some aviation legend about the U2's first tests. It goes something
> like this:
>
> During the first tests the pilot had problems landing it. Once it entered
> the ground effect, it would not descend the last feet to the runway before
> passing it. Several attempts was made, each one closer to stall speed, and
> at last with only seconds left of gasoline the pilot succeeds.
> When the pilot left the plane in a rage he showed his finger at the
> constructors for trying to kill him, then turned at the plane. He showed
> the finger at it and shouted "You too!!". Hence the name, legend claims.
>
>
> Nils
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ground effect is discussed in the Yeager book too. He had a
fascination for ground effect, and also experienced a couple aircraft that
"refused" to land.
Indeed, he has being checked out by a senior officer, who grinned as he
struggled to put the plane down. My memory fails me, but I believe it was
a bomber and not a fighter. I'm checking the book as I type.
Dale Saukerson
Brian Echard
>Gee, I really need to come out to Ohio to fly, where there's none of
>that pesky phenom known to the layfolk as "turbulence"... Mr.
>Echard's indeed been fortunate in his flying to never have hit
>a "bump", which, after all, is usually just lift from a thermal
>you're passing through (at least at Cessna altitudes). 8-)
>Flat ground's not a required precursor for strong thermals; good
>differential heating is. Strongest thermals I've ever been in were
>800-1000fpm in the house thermal at HDH on Oahu's North Shore, above
>that lava outcropping on the eastern end of the Mokuleia ridge (well-
>warmed by the tropical sun). My son, a soaring IP at USAFA, recently
>saw 1500fpm under big cu (bases at 18,000): started at 12,000 in
>an aggro stall, did that and two back-to-back spiral dives and
>finished at 12,2 (in an SGS 2-33!).
>Oh, and the Cessna? Well, I use the Super Cub, Scout, or Pawnee
>towplane as a pretty good indicator of (a) where the boomers are,
>and (b) that I'd better get ready to balloon in that thermal he
>just hit.
Oh, let's put words in my mouth. There's a huge difference between RIDING a
thermal and hitting turbulence. Alos know that Ohio has great conditions for
gliders and has it's days of turbulence.
I swear, if more of you were both glider pilots and powered pilots, you'd
understand what I'm getting at. I fly around gliders enough that I know how to
do it. Most of you are going strictly on glider experience or powered
experience.
BTW, I also conceded that a small plane CAN indeed get caught in a thermal and
not be able to lose altitude. However, I still say, and there are many more
that agree, that the U2 did not ride thermals and it did not gain altitude on
thermals. It would simply trade altitude for airspeed.
One more hole on the U2 story. If it starts at 70,000 feet and glide to,
Arizona you say, what happened to the jet stream? Did it change direction? Did
it cease to exist for this story?
Brian Echard
>No! Glide ratio is the number of units the aircraft will proceed horizontally
>for each unit of measure it losses vertically. If you're 1 mile up, G/R tells
>you how many miles you can glide before you hit the ground, in still air.
>Any airplane maintains level flight only in relation to the airmass in which
it is>flying. If that air mass moves up, for whatever reason, the airplane,
regardless>of weight, speed, L/D ratio, speed, or phase of the moon, or
anything else will >also move upward, as long as it's in that airmass.
So, I can take a 3 ton block of granite, drop it into a thermal, and watch it
rise? Remember your words...regardless of weight, speed, L/D ratio, etc..
Albert Dobyns
BE> Subject: Re: U-2 maximum glide?
BE> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 12:25:33 GMT
BE> Organization: The Ohio State University
[..deleting a previously posted message..]
BE> Oh, let's put words in my mouth. There's a huge difference between RIDING a
BE> thermal and hitting turbulence. Alos know that Ohio has great conditions fo
BE> gliders and has it's days of turbulence.
BE> I swear, if more of you were both glider pilots and powered pilots, you'd
BE> understand what I'm getting at. I fly around gliders enough that I know how
BE> do it. Most of you are going strictly on glider experience or powered
BE> experience.
BE> BTW, I also conceded that a small plane CAN indeed get caught in a thermal
BE> not be able to lose altitude. However, I still say, and there are many more
BE> that agree, that the U2 did not ride thermals and it did not gain altitude
BE> thermals. It would simply trade altitude for airspeed.
BE> One more hole on the U2 story. If it starts at 70,000 feet and glide to,
BE> Arizona you say, what happened to the jet stream? Did it change direction?
BE> it cease to exist for this story?
I feel like I owe the readers of my original post on the glide of the
U-2 an apology. I wrote that the person on the show claimed the U-2
flamed out over Tennesee to New Mexico, but I may have reversed the two
state names by mistake. I'm still not sure which tv show I saw the
claim. If Wings ever reruns their episodes related to the U-2s maybe I
will tape it and try to get the person's quote correct. This does not
automatically mean the person is telling a true story, but I would like
to get the direction of the glide correct. Some of the messages on this
topic make me feel like I have stirred up a hornet's nest. That was not
my intention.
---
. SLMR 2.1a . "Open your mind to extreme possibility." -- Fox Mulder
----
MidWest BBS - 708-513-1034 -ILINK Charter Member, UsMail Regional Hub, Usenet
Andrew Lavery
In a previous article, echa...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Brian Echard) says:
>So, I can take a 3 ton block of granite, drop it into a thermal, and watch it
>rise? Remember your words...regardless of weight, speed, L/D ratio, etc..
Give enough surface area... a stable platform (ie not tumbling) and a
strong enough thermal... You sure will...
Andrew
--
"All I wanna do is Mountain bike..."
-Boy its strange what you hear on the radio early in the morning getting
ready for a ride isn't it? :)
Doug Jones
: Sender:
: Distribution:
: Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
: Keywords:
: Cc:
: At 60,000 feet MSL, a 20:1 glide ratio would result in a no wind
: distance travelled of 227 miles. Don't know, but I'd guess that the
: actual glide ration is closer to 40:1 (60:1 sailplanes exist). Still,
: that would only give him a range for <500 miles. The stories are just
: that: stories.
: Mark.
Once, while hitchhiking to the DZ for some skydiving, an Air Force U2
driver picked me up (in a car, alas). He said he often encountered wave
lift at FL600+. Maybe he just SOARED back....
--
Doug Jones (ran...@usa.net)
Please contribute to the Frank Corder Memorial 747 Fund! 1-202-863-8000
C. Emory Tate
echa...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu wrote:
>I swear, if more of you were both glider pilots and powered pilots, you'd
> that the U2 did not ride thermals and it did not gain altitude on
Gee, I thought I *was* agreeing with you, that no way did the
U-2 thermal to stay aloft... max L/D and glide ratio's got
nothing to do with thermaling performance, it's the combo of
min sink speed, max gust-loaded g's allowable, and typical
thermal radius.
Thermal performance just ain't independent of some fundamental
factors. Even the heftiest thermal (the aforementioned 1500fpm)
can be overcome with 4-5g of nose-down spiral dive with the boards out...
However, I agree, Brian, if you're losing altitude (e.g., from sink
or a flameout) and need to cover ground in a hurry, though, there's
no substitute for a good max L/D... which is prolly what the U-2 pilot
used (in a straight line... the shortest distance between two points,
give or take a great-circle arc). Stories (perhaps apocryphal) from
Bermuda NAS and Hickam AFB put the engine-out perf of a U-2 at around
300nm from cruise with enough to spare for a decent deadstick pattern.
--
C. E. Tate snailmail: BDM Federal, Inc.
1501 BDM Way, McLean, VA 22102
____________________________________________________________
Stick forward and opposite rudder to stop the spin...
Andrew Lavery
In a previous article, jc...@boi.hp.com (Jeff Crowell) says:
>Andrew Lavery (bc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>
>: In a previous article, echa...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Brian Echard) says:
>
>: >So, I can take a 3 ton block of granite, drop it into a thermal, and watch it
>: >rise? Remember your words...regardless of weight, speed, L/D ratio, etc..
>
>: Give enough surface area... a stable platform (ie not tumbling) and a
>: strong enough thermal... You sure will...
>
>
>Hey, isn't there a separate thread for the Phantom and why it flies?
No jeff, this isn't the B-50 Thread... or the X-3 thread (oh...wait...that
thread is "Given enough power even a brick can go Mach 1!" Silly me :)
Jeff Crowell
: In a previous article, echa...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Brian Echard) says:
: >So, I can take a 3 ton block of granite, drop it into a thermal, and watch it
: >rise? Remember your words...regardless of weight, speed, L/D ratio, etc..
: Give enough surface area... a stable platform (ie not tumbling) and a
: strong enough thermal... You sure will...
Hey, isn't there a separate thread for the Phantom and why it flies?
8-)
Jeff
--
###################################################################
# #
# Jeff Crowell | | #
# jc...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com | _ | #
# _________|__( )__|_________ #
# DMD Process Engineer x/ _| |( . )| |_ \x #
# (208) 396-6525 x |_| ---*|_| x #
# O x x O #
# #
###################################################################
Hey, paranoids have enemies, too.
Larry Doering
> In article <39tolk$1...@venice.sedd.trw.com>, l...@venice.sedd.trw.com (Matt
> Lih) wrote:
> > With respect to the TR-1 gliding from N.C. to West coast: wouldn't the pilot
> > be able to catch thermals like a sailplane? This could extend range
> > significantly, if s/he knew what he was doing.
Theoretically, yes, but not likely. There's a limit to how much altitude
you can gain in a thermal - in most of the US, they generally top out
below 10,000 feet. Also, you have to circle to stay in the rising air,
so you wouldn't make any progress towards your destination while climbing,
and there aren't any thermals at night unless you're over a forest fire
or something.
I'd have less difficulty believing it if the TR-1 supposedly glided from
Pennsylvania to Georgia (along the Appalachians) on a winter day with
good conditions for mountain wave. Wave lift can go higher than 30,000
feet, and you can fly long distances in continuous lift.
> Interesting--I've seen many birds get a "free ride" on thermals, as well
> as model rockets, scale and full size gliders, and debris (trash).
> Are thermals capable of supporting something as heavy as a powered aircraft?
Thermals don't care how heavy an aircraft is. The strongest thermal I've
ever encountered had a vertical velocity of over 1,000 feet per minute.
You could easily soar something like a Piper Cherokee (with the prop
windmilling) in lift that strong. The limiting factor would probably
be whether the plane could turn tightly enough at minimum sink speed
(close to best angle-of-climb speed) to stay in the thermal.
I've personally seen not one, but *two* aircraft connected by 200 feet of rope
being "supported" by thermals. Glider towplane pilots routinely take advantage
of thermal lift to get gliders to release altitude faster.
Larry Doering, PP-ASEL & Glider
doe...@xrayspex.nlm.nih.gov
Mike Ramsey
: And that reminds me of a time down in Texas, when I was flying with my
: father in his Cessna 182.
Also in Texas:
I was on a solo cross country in a 150. Cruising straight and level...
when I felt the nose pitch down and heard the engine RPM increase.
Look at the VSI and I'm climbing at 500 fpm... in a powered dive!
I figured I entered a thermal and the rising air lifted the tail causing
me to pitch down.
(Quick reality check on the mechanics: rising air on the wings = force
at the center of mass = no moment... rising air on the tail = force
applied some distance from the center of mass = pitching moment)