A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Douglas Skyray



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #15  
Old August 29th 04, 07:48 PM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Andy Dingley writes:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:54:01 +1000, "The Raven"
wrote:

Just to add another question, how did it compare to the EE Lightning which
was known as a pretty good interceptor performance wise?


No comparison. Their engines are a generation apart.


Yeah - the Skyray used a Pratt & Whitney JT3B (J57) 2-spool high
pressure turbojet with reliable variable-area nozzles and a reliably
lighting afterburner.
The Lightning used a single-spool, low pressure ratio Rolls Avon, and
whenever one would take off or climb, there were always bets on wheter
both, one, or no afterburners (reheat, it's a Brit after all) would
light.
The J57 provided much better fuel economy, and it, and the JT3D
turbofan flavor that followed it, are still pushing airplanes around
all over the world.

(Now, if you were to talk about the XF4D prototype's original
Westinghouse J40 - well, an engine design might be screwed up if it
were a GE, but you can be sure if it's a Westinghouse.)

Aircraft of the Skyray's period, if not the Lightning, were airframes
way ahead of engine technology. Although some did have quite high
performance, they couldn't maintain it owing to their high fuel
consumption. Engines had to become more powerful and more fuel
efficient (and better reliability helped too) before they stopped
being by far the weakest link.


Uhm, if you look at the consumption numbers for more modern engines,
you'll see that they are only more efficient when they aren't using
reheat. The greater ram drag of a turbofan means that they don't
deliver the non-afterburning thrust at high speeds that a straight
turbojet does. The extra unburned mass flow from the fan section
allow for higher afterburning thrust, but at a serious cost in fuel
flow. Consider, if you will, the example of the TOrnado, which can be
routinely outrun by a Tu-95 when it's not using reheat.

The solution to long supersonic endurance has been to make it
big enough and clean enough to fly supersonically on a relatively
small ampunt of thrust while carrying a lot of gas (SR-71, B-58,
F-111, A-5, Mirage IV), or make it able to cruise without
reheat. (Concorde, F-22 - although the Concorde needs reheat for
acceleration and climb)


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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Douglas Pitcairn, Luftwaffe Pilot JDupre5762 Military Aviation 14 July 7th 05 04:03 PM
FS: 1992 "McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle" Hardcover Edition Book J.R. Sinclair Aviation Marketplace 0 August 25th 04 06:12 AM
Historic aviation and aeronautics books for sale Martin Bayer Aviation Marketplace 0 April 24th 04 09:30 PM
Douglas Bader-Colditz RON Military Aviation 7 February 19th 04 09:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.