Random facts about planes..

[Eric Mc]

I think it was flown in a ballistic zoom climb - which means that at the top of the climb the aircraft is really just continuing upward more like a rocket rather than an aeroplane.

NASA and the USAF conducted a number of flights using F-104s in a similar fashion - although they actually fitted a booster rocket motor to push the maximum altitude.

[Markbarry1977]

CanAm said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

The major component of Drag on any wing is Induced Drag (also known as Lift Dependant Drag). This arises primarily from the formation of the wing tip vortices - basically the air from the higher pressure region below the wing tries to move into the lower pressure region above the wing by climbing over the wingtip. In so doing it forms a vortex which produces drag (it takes energy to form and maintain the vortex).

There are a number of ways of reducing these vortices (or delaying their onset) such as eliptical wings (eg Spitfire), wingtip tanks (eg Jet Provost), winglets (such as fitted to modern airliners) or, more commonly, the High Aspect Ratio Wing (ie a high length to chord ratio - long and thin) such as on the U2.

Given that the U2 was designed to operate at very high altitude in a region close to 'Coffin Corner' (ie where the Critical Mach Number and Stall Speed are close together), then a means of reducing drag such as a High Aspect Ratio Wing makes a lot of sense.

Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Wednesday 19th April 13:06

Is it true that a Lightning (BAC not the Lockheed one) got up to 88,000 to intercept a U2 and if so (i) how the hell did it manage and (ii) was the pilot in standard issue flying suit?

Legend has it that ther is a photo somewhere from an RAF Canberra of the U2 taking pictures of somewhere. Friend of mine worked Canberras at Marham while I was on Tornando GR1/4 and said the published ceiling was shall we say under estimated.

Having had a look round one I would hate to have been the nav/photo guy lying face down while ejecting.

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

CanAm said:

Is it true that a Lightning (BAC not the Lockheed one) got up to 88,000 to intercept a U2 and if so (i) how the hell did it manage and (ii) was the pilot in standard issue flying suit?

Flt Lt Dave Roome achieved it in a Lightning F6 of 74 Sqn based at Tengah when doing a practice intercept on an USAF RB 57F on the 23rd Oct 1968. He achieved Mach 2 then zoom climbed the a/c.

On 7th August 1979, Wg Cdr Brian Carroll who was at that time the CFI of the RSAF got to 87,300 in a Lightning F53 over the empty quarter of Saudi Arabia.

I know that in the early days Lightning pilots wore pressure jerkins and helmets but I think these had been binned by the late 1960s. Not good if you lost cabin pressure at those sorts of heights!

Markbarry1977 said:

Legend has it that ther is a photo somewhere from an RAF Canberra of the U2 taking pictures of somewhere. Friend of mine worked Canberras at Marham while I was on Tornando GR1/4 and said the published ceiling was shall we say under estimated.

Having had a look round one I would hate to have been the nav/photo guy lying face down while ejecting.

I should imagine that the photo' was taken using the vertical camera in a Canberra PR9, in which case the Nav was bolted into the coal hole in the (solid) nose.

[Eric Mc]

I wonder what the ceiling is for this version of the Canberra?

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

No idea.

When I was in flying training I rolled in behind a PR9 in a JP5a - it left me for dead, climbing like a homesick angel!

[Eric Mc]

The PR9s were pretty special.

NASA is still using three WB-57 for upper atmosphere sampling.

I don't know how the two derivatives compare when it comes to performance.

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

With that big wing and the Pratt & Whitney TF33 fans I should imagine it can get pretty high!

Edit: Apparently the Service Ceiling is 82,000ft.

[thebraketester]

Fact of the day.

No one knows why a wing produces lift, they just do.

[CanAm]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

CanAm said:

Is it true that a Lightning (BAC not the Lockheed one) got up to 88,000 to intercept a U2 and if so (i) how the hell did it manage and (ii) was the pilot in standard issue flying suit?

Flt Lt Dave Roome achieved it in a Lightning F6 of 74 Sqn based at Tengah when doing a practice intercept on an USAF RB 57F on the 23rd Oct 1968. He achieved Mach 2 then zoom climbed the a/c.

On 7th August 1979, Wg Cdr Brian Carroll who was at that time the CFI of the RSAF got to 87,300 in a Lightning F53 over the empty quarter of Saudi Arabia.

I know that in the early days Lightning pilots wore pressure jerkins and helmets but I think these had been binned by the late 1960s. Not good if you lost cabin pressure at those sorts of heights!

Thanks Ginetta Girl. I could have Googled it but I knew you'd have a better answer.
Hats off to the Lightning pilots bearing in mind that the U2 pilots wore pressure suits.

Having recently heard a Mosquito pilot describing the difficulty of controlling his plane at 43,000 ft, it pales into insignificance when you find out that a U2 at 70,000 ft has only a 10 knot difference between the stall speed and Vne (Never exceed speed)!

[nonsequitur]

thebraketester said:

Fact of the day.

No one knows why a wing produces lift, they just do.

Is that true? Calling all pilots for an explanation please.

[thebraketester]

nonsequitur said:

thebraketester said:

Fact of the day.

No one knows why a wing produces lift, they just do.

Is that true? Calling all pilots for an explanation please.

100% true.

Same as magnets. No one know how they work either.

[Super Slo Mo]

nonsequitur said:

thebraketester said:

Fact of the day.

No one knows why a wing produces lift, they just do.

Is that true? Calling all pilots for an explanation please.

It's more likely that a scientist or engineer would have a better idea. It's not really true, more that the conventional explanations of lift are not really correct.

NASA has a fairly informative series of web pages about it. https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/lift1.h...

There are several links to click through too, including a number outlining the 'incorrect' theories.

In a nutshell though, lift is generated when a fluid is turned by a solid object. Change the fluid's direction, and the solid object moves in the opposite one. It gets more complex than that when you drill down into the theory but it's an overall picture of what's going on.

[greghm]

About the SR-71, two things come to my mind:
- I think Kelly's designation of the plane was RS71 but the President at the time read it the other way round and from them it was SR-71.
To be confirmed

- This part in the book written by a former pilot talking to the radio is very good about some pilots boasting about their groundspeed.
http://www.econrates.com/reality/schul.html

[anonymous-user]

nonsequitur said:

thebraketester said:

Fact of the day.

No one knows why a wing produces lift, they just do.

Is that true? Calling all pilots for an explanation please.

Due to the shape of a wing, the air going over it is slowed down, slower than the air passing under it. This produces a pressure differential between the top and bottom of the wing. The top surface being of a lower pressure than the underside therefor the wing is sucked upwards by the lower pressure. Hence why its the top of a wing that produces lift, not the bottom.

[Eric Mc]

There is a story that has been going around for decades that President Lyndon Johnson inadvertently leaked that the aircraft actually existed and at the same time got the designation reversed. That story is now disputed. Lyndon Johnson very rarely did anything inadvertently.

[thebraketester]

AVV EM said:

nonsequitur said:

thebraketester said:

Fact of the day.

No one knows why a wing produces lift, they just do.

Is that true? Calling all pilots for an explanation please.

Due to the shape of a wing, the air going over it is slowed down, slower than the air passing under it. This produces a pressure differential between the top and bottom of the wing. The top surface being of a lower pressure than the underside therefor the wing is sucked upwards by the lower pressure. Hence why its the top of a wing that produces lift, not the bottom.

Nice theory.....

[Eric Mc]

And yet - totally flat plane surfaces - like that of a kite, can create lift too.

As can something that looks nothing like a wing. This is the re-entry profile for a blunt body re-entry vehicle such as an Apollo Command Module -

[nonsequitur]

AVV EM said:

nonsequitur said:

thebraketester said:

Fact of the day.

No one knows why a wing produces lift, they just do.

Is that true? Calling all pilots for an explanation please.

Due to the shape of a wing, the air going over it is slowed down, slower than the air passing under it. This produces a pressure differential between the top and bottom of the wing. The top surface being of a lower pressure than the underside therefor the wing is sucked upwards by the lower pressure. Hence why its the top of a wing that produces lift, not the bottom.

It's all coming back to me now. This is how a pilot explained it to a passenger whom I had taken for a flight deck visit. Visitors nearly always asked 'how does the aircraft fly/stay aloft' etc.

[Super Slo Mo]

nonsequitur said:

AVV EM said:

nonsequitur said:

thebraketester said:

Fact of the day.

No one knows why a wing produces lift, they just do.

Is that true? Calling all pilots for an explanation please.

Due to the shape of a wing, the air going over it is slowed down, slower than the air passing under it. This produces a pressure differential between the top and bottom of the wing. The top surface being of a lower pressure than the underside therefor the wing is sucked upwards by the lower pressure. Hence why its the top of a wing that produces lift, not the bottom.

It's all coming back to me now. This is how a pilot explained it to a passenger whom I had taken for a flight deck visit. Visitors nearly always asked 'how does the aircraft fly/stay aloft' etc.

It's not correct though. At the risk of repeating myself, take a few minutes to peruse the following link on the NASA website https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/lift1.h...

[nonsequitur]

Super Slo Mo said:

nonsequitur said:

AVV EM said:

nonsequitur said:

thebraketester said:

Fact of the day.

No one knows why a wing produces lift, they just do.

Is that true? Calling all pilots for an explanation please.

Due to the shape of a wing, the air going over it is slowed down, slower than the air passing under it. This produces a pressure differential between the top and bottom of the wing. The top surface being of a lower pressure than the underside therefor the wing is sucked upwards by the lower pressure. Hence why its the top of a wing that produces lift, not the bottom.

It's all coming back to me now. This is how a pilot explained it to a passenger whom I had taken for a flight deck visit. Visitors nearly always asked 'how does the aircraft fly/stay aloft' etc.

It's not correct though. At the risk of repeating myself, take a few minutes to peruse the following link on the NASA website https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/lift1.h...

Thanks for the link. I'm sure on that on that occasion the pilot did not have time to explain lift in any detail. But reading through the Nasa piece, he got it right, in curious passenger terms.