James, I'd really like to see this article too. Can you give a month and
year references to it or provide copy? I could then either look it up in
an archive or maybe just scan hardcopy to a nice small PDF file (to post to
the files area). PM might even have the article in an online archive.
More mixed in with the quoted text>>
>
> As to launching planes from subs, the Japanese had made some at the
>end of the war that launched from subs but they never got used in combat
as
>they came too late. The sub had a special bay that held to fighter with
>folding wings. The wing had to but put in place and the planes picked up
by
>cranes after landing in the water near the sub.
The US had one of these too. It was a tiny hanger on board a sub which
gave the sub a terrible looking wart behind it's conning tower. It
launched a conventional sea plane refitted for a rocket assisted takeoff.
It also got used for covert op's where divers or a smaller submersible
were sent on their way while the big sub stayed submerged in deeper water.
> As to Sky 1 taking off it is done with something similar to Rocket
>Assisted Take-Off device used to boost planes overloaded to take off
speed.
>As to the use of an oxidizer. This would not be needed. The jet engine
of Sky
>1 would not fire till it had left the water and the rocker assist device
>would have its own fuel that burns underwater like the old Gyrojet pistol
>ammo.
>
>James K.
>
Absolutely, Sky is launched using conventional rockets which appear to be
solid fuel type from the configuration. What I was referring to is the
need for an oxidizer for use at the very high altitudes which are
apparently serviced. What I was pointing out is the terrible weight
penalty to carry the oxidizer at low altitudes where it is not needed. It
needs to be carried on board Sky all the time 'just in case' action takes
Sky too high in the atmosphere for conventional turbines to operate. At
that point the oxidizer would be mixed with the fuel instead of or in
addition to air in the engine so combustion and thrust could continue. It
is a hybrid engine type which has indeed been proposed and possibly
developed. (It is expected that the Aerospace plane will use a similar
hybrid design) An engine of this type would be capable of flying through
the atmosphere and then continue right out to space if the rest of the
vehicle could handle that and carry enough fuel&oxidizer. The 250K that
the planes were at in Exposed essentially *is* suborbital space. The
threshold for the X-Prize is 62 miles and 250K is 47 miles up.
So, this means Sky has to have 3 modes and 3 combustibles on board at
launch. The solid rockets for launch, regular fueled turbines for
conventional flight and the addition of an oxidizer for altitudes above
around 100K-150K on out to space. Quite feasible but terribly heavy for a
fighter.
>
>>Providing powerplants that can operate Sky to its demonstrated levels
>>in flight is actually a far more challenging explanation. It would
>>have to be carrying a large amount of oxidizer in addition to it's
>>fuel supply. That's a lot of additional weight and would mostly
>>never be used since Sky appears to operate usually no higher than a
>>regular airliner (50k max) and most often very low. Extra weight
>>cuts performance, then it needs even bigger engines to restore
>>perfomance, which means even more fuel, more weight then yet bigger
>>engines... a real catch 22.
>>
Reference>>
>>>BTW, in Identified [Exposed actually], I think the UFO and Foster's
plane are at 250K feet altitude and
>>>nobody appeared too concerned about Sky-1 going up there to intercept
the UFO so I'd
>>>guess from this that Sky's operational ceiling is even higher than 250K.
It must have rocket
>>>power other than the launch rockets though, because there isn't enough
oxygen up there for
>>>air-breathing engines of any kind to operate, same goes for Fosters
X-plane.
Locked
