"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
01/05/2017 at 12:35 • Filed to: wingspan, Planelopnik
11
22|
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
01/05/2017 at 12:35 • Filed to: wingspan, Planelopnik | 11
| 22 |
NASA photo
Photographed on January 27, 1947, this !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! is getting a boost from an airfoil-shaped !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! engine as part of a series of tests carried out for the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! (NACA, the predecessor to NASA). The flight tests were performed from 1945-1948 by the Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory (AERL) based at Lewis Field in Cleveland, Ohio, an organization that was created at Langley Field, Virginia in 1934 to investigate improvements in the power and efficiency of aircraft propulsion systems. The Laboratory moved to Cleveland in 1943, and was renamed the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! in 1999 in honor of Ohio-born astronaut and state senator John Glenn, the first American astronaut to orbit the Earth.
(NASA)
The P-61 was the first American fighter designed specifically for night fighting, and the first American warplane designed to carry a radar to track targets. After the war, the Black Widow served the US Air Force until 1950, and its size and power made it an excellent candidate for testing and research. It was used in the development of ejection seats and as a mother ship to test air-dropped missiles such as the ramjet-powered !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , built for the US Navy by the Glenn L. Martin Company. A handful of P-61s were used extensively in meteorological studies as part of the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Author’s note: This is the first installment in a new series called !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , focusing on events, aircraft, and personalties throughout the history of aviation and in the present day. I hope to make it a weekly feature, but there may be weeks with more than one article, or weeks with none. Regardless, the articles will always post at 12:35 pm ET, so keep your eyes on the sky.
If you enjoy these posts, please join in the conversation and let me know.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Jcarr
> ttyymmnn
01/05/2017 at 12:40 |
|
Look forward to more! Are you interested in idea suggestions?
Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer
> ttyymmnn
01/05/2017 at 12:41 |
|
Was going to say something like “technically 3 and 3" but then I noticed it was a ramjet :)
Side note, the Black Widow really looks odd without its barbette(s).
kanadanmajava1
> ttyymmnn
01/05/2017 at 12:44 |
|
I didn’t know that you could even test ramjets at propeller plane speeds. I guess you can make them work.
|
ttyymmnn
> Jcarr
01/05/2017 at 12:46 |
|
Sure! I can’t promise that I’ll write about them, but I’m always open to suggestions. I’ve got a lot of stuff already in the pipeline, and interestingly, this wasn’t one of them. I was cruising NASA’s Flicker photostream and saw this photo. I had meant to post it a long time ago, but never got around to it. I suspect that is how much of Wingspan is going to work. I want to get away from the calendar, and write when the spirit moves me.
|
ttyymmnn
> kanadanmajava1
01/05/2017 at 12:47 |
|
When they were testing the Gorgon missiles, they had to put the P-61 into a shallow dive to get up enough speed to get the ramjet going. I imagine they did the same thing here.
|
Jcarr
> ttyymmnn
01/05/2017 at 12:47 |
|
Sounds good. I’ll leave a comment if anything comes to mind.
|
ttyymmnn
> Jcarr
01/05/2017 at 12:48 |
|
Either that, or drop me a line at my handle @ gmail.
AfromanGTO
> ttyymmnn
01/05/2017 at 12:50 |
|
How close to breaking the sound barrier could they get with the ramjet? Or was it not on long enough. Wasn’t there stories about fighters hitting close to mach 1 in long dives during WWII, but they couldn’t control them?
|
ttyymmnn
> AfromanGTO
01/05/2017 at 12:59 |
|
I don’t believe that any propeller plane has ever reached Mach 1. It’s my understanding, and I’m no engineer, that the propeller disk would cause too much drag, and the propeller would have to turn too fast (overspeed). Republic put a supersonic propeller on the XF-84H Thunderscreech, but that was intended to shorten the takeoff distance for the Navy so it wouldn’t need a catapult. The torque of the propeller caused serious handling problems (the propeller also caused acute nausea in anybody standing nearby), and the Thunderscreech only reached an official Mach .70. Interestingly, that record was surpassed by a highly modified Grumman F8F Bearcat, a racing plane named Rare Bear that reached Mach .71.
RallyWrench
> ttyymmnn
01/05/2017 at 13:16 |
|
Quite a space-age looking appendage! Now off to read the P61 piece...
|
ttyymmnn
> RallyWrench
01/05/2017 at 13:21 |
|
It will probably sound pretty familiar, since it’s a repost of my piece on the anniversary of its first flight. I reserve the right to plagiarize from myself.
|
RallyWrench
> ttyymmnn
01/05/2017 at 13:25 |
|
A good read nonetheless, I’m sure I forget at least as much as I take in so reminders never hurt.
BobintheMtns
> ttyymmnn
01/05/2017 at 13:48 |
|
I think they’re the one of the all-time coolest looking airplanes...
It’s like a superleggera B-25, but with the millieum falcon’s cockpit and a VW 23=window bus welded on...
Topped off with big cannons....
|
ttyymmnn
> BobintheMtns
01/05/2017 at 14:04 |
|
I would have to agree. When I was a kid, my friend and I would draw spaceships based on existing aircraft, and we used the gondola from a P-61 as the fuselage for some sort of space fighter.
|
AfromanGTO
> ttyymmnn
01/05/2017 at 15:04 |
|
That is what I read/heard about too. The tips of the propeller would start to break the sound barrier, causing the plane to shake, and become hard to control. I can’t remember where I read it though....
|
ttyymmnn
> AfromanGTO
01/05/2017 at 15:12 |
|
There were other issues with existing planes as they approached the sound barrier, one of which you hinted at. As the shock wave moved aft on the wings, particularly the horizontal stabilizer, the control surfaces would freeze, rendering the plane uncontrollable. This problem was solved with the single-piece elevator, better known as a stabilator , a fixture on modern supersonic jets.
But more to your point, here is a more technical explanation:
There are a few issues that drive this limitation on prop aircraft. First off there is a large drag penalty associated with any local flow going supersonic due to the energy needed to generate the shockwaves in the flow. Additionally trans-sonic flow (Mach 0.8-1.2 roughly) creates a lot of instability in the overall aerodynamics. The shockwaves, which are actually huge changes in pressure over a very small diatance, change the overall pressure distribution on the surface which can mean you aren’t nearly as aerodynamically efficient or effective. In trans-sonic flow the locations and strength of these shock waves is dynamically shifting. On a propeller this can cause oscillations which obviously load up all of the associated structure in ways it wasn’t designed for. ( Reddit )
|
AfromanGTO
> ttyymmnn
01/05/2017 at 15:20 |
|
Exactly!
gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
> ttyymmnn
01/05/2017 at 21:47 |
|
So much firepower
|
ttyymmnn
> gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
01/05/2017 at 21:49 |
|
Yeah, they weren’t screwing around.
user314
> ttyymmnn
01/09/2017 at 13:16 |
|
So did Lucas .
|
ttyymmnn
> user314
01/09/2017 at 13:31 |
|
Huh. I never made that connection, but it sure looks like it.
Amoore100
> ttyymmnn
01/12/2017 at 03:22 |
|
Two falling, two bawling, two fucking, two ducking, and two in various states of disrepair.
Just kidding! I’m sure we all know full well it’s meant to be “ two turning , two burning , two smoking, two choking, and two more unaccounted for.” :D
