![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Scott Ferrin writes: Sorry for the long answer. That sometimes happens with short questions. Maybe you could answer a question I've had for a long time. If you look at the SR-71's inlets from the side they seem to be pointing somewhat down. I took this to mean that since it seems you'd have to have the inlet lip on a circular inlet perpendicular to the airflow to maximize it's efficiency, that at cruise speed and altitude the Blackbird would be flying at an angle of attack such that the inlet lip would be at 0 degrees AOA. At that angle the exhaust would exit in a somewhat downward direction. So my question is is that setup to maximize the altitude potential (because thrust would be directly aiding lift)? Do ALL aircraft fly at a certain angle of attack at their maximum altitude? Is the only reason you see these things on the Blackbird because it's designed to spend most of it's time in those conditions? Would a Blackbird's max altitude also be at Mach 0.9? Well, I'll try - Yes, an A-12/YF-12/SR-71's inlets do face down a bit, and the reason is to present an inlet face perdenicular to the airflow, as much as possible. The Blackbirds were intended to cruise right at the edge of what was possible for an airplane that could also take off & land, back in the late 1950s. They needed to squeeze every mit of efficiency out of the airframe & powerplant (Which can be hard to tell apart, on an SR), and the airplane was intended to get itself to one point in its flight envelope and stay there. (Mach 3.2/80,000' or so, around 375 KEAS) At that EAS, an for teh weights that would be expected, the Angle of Attack range would be predictable, and so it was dialled in to the inlet design. This maximizes the inlet efficiancy, and helps alleviate the possibility of the inlet getting dicombobulated with the complex series of shock waves that it uses to allow for the maximum pressure recovery. Consider how much of a problem inlet "unstarts", where the shocks got all tangled up & the inlet system stopped properly supplying air to the engine, were in the early stages of the program. Then think about how much worse it would have been with the inlets getting an uneven flow. Very Ugly Indeed. While thrust vectoring with AoA does occur, (A good example would be the F-104. I was told by a CanForce CF-104 pilot that the best way to ensure a hard landing was to pull back on the throttle during the flare - the AoA was high enough that a fair chunk of hte airplane's weight was riding on teh vertical component of the thrust), I don't think that that was a factor. The angle's too small for there to be much of a vertical component to the thrust. It might have an effect on cruise trim, though. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Space Elevator | Big John | Home Built | 111 | July 21st 04 05:31 PM |
| Variable geometry intakes | Boomer | Military Aviation | 17 | April 12th 04 10:42 PM |
| CIA U2 over flight of Moscow | John Bailey | Military Aviation | 3 | April 9th 04 04:58 AM |
| WeserFlug P.1003 Compared to V-22 Osprey | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 29 | December 2nd 03 07:23 PM |
| Me-262, NOT Bell X-1 Broke SB First | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 140 | October 10th 03 09:02 PM |