Sky 1

At 02:37 PM 5/17/2003 -0700, you wrote:

Maybe so, but a brick would still corner like a brick, not like a
high-performance fighter! And as for ducting the exhaust to the rocket
pods, that violates the design principle of keeping it simple. Too many
unnecessary ducts are just more things to go wrong in combat!

I didn't say sucked into the exhaust, I said sucked into the intake!
That happened to a crew chief who got too close to the intake in an F-16
when I was in the U.S.A.F., and what came out the other end wasn't pretty!

That would go without saying! Liquid-fueled rockets could easily close
off the engine nozzles to make them watertight (I suppose solid boosters
could too, like the SRB's on the shuttle).

>By the way, would you need a crane to to replace solid fuel boosters, even
>if they did float? And just where did they store these rather large
>puppies on board the ship?
>I think that those who think they use a liquard fuel rocket are correct
>evven though you would still have storage problems with that as well.

And that's where the supply ships come in, as mentioned in COURT
MARTIAL! They could possibly have a fuel bunker on Diver to refuel the
aircraft, as well as ordnance stores to replenish missiles and gun ammo.

>I am not familar with the this UFO game. Where might you get a copy of it?

Good question! Lemme see if it's still available for download
somewhere-- Frap, I can't find it. Let me check with Steve Christensen, our
flight sim expert...

Okay, I'm currently on the phone with him, he just E-mailed it to me,
and I just uploaded it to the Yahoo file site! So just log into there and
you should be able to download it! It's less than 2 MB so it's easily
downloadable even if you have a <snicker> 56K modem! ;-)

Just in case, the addy for the sim is:
http://f4.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/AM3GPo0NbH-9ciC9iCBiiY7_85NS7v5eXQMEI9BkhwTb-_zScpwECFWsomP9U4ePQdH6zsVshsX2nTC87qumB55hpRI/shado1.zip 




TVJohn: "So it's crows nailed to doors and threatening letters now, eh?"
Hamish: "And how do you know about that?"
TVJohn: "Isobel told me about the letter."
Hamish: "I'm just after telling Isobel!"
TVJohn: "She knew already. Rory told her. And the postman told
him. And Esme told Agnes about the crow on account of
her niece Kirsty hearing Vicky tell Cameron at the barn."
Hamish: "Ohhhhhonestly this place! Unbelievable!"
TVJohn: "I know, I know. You can't clean your ferret's cage out
here without it being on CNN."

Dave Walsh
Harlington-Straker Sound Productions
[hidden email]

Dave Walsh wrote:
>> Regarding the nose intake, I would like to consider it is NOT an
intake, but a window for a raser distance measure and reconnaissance.
>> I wonder a small flat inclined window makes such a major air
resistance.
> It's not just a matter of the "window" being flat, it's also a
matter of area! I have a 1/72 scale model of SkyDiver (Diver still
being under
construction), and if the dimensions are supposed to be accurate, the
"intake/sensor window" would be about 2 1/2 feet (76 cm) vertically
and 3
1/2 feet (106 cm) across!
> That's almost as big as the crappy bay window in my new house, and
way larger than any recon/sensor aperture needs to be!
> In fact it would have to be extremely thick to resist the air
pressure exerted on it from high speed winds on it from the primary
angle of attack!

I see.
A Sky 1, however, does have a recon camera, because in the first
episode 'Identified', Cmdr. Straker ordered Capt. Karlin, "Use a
reconnaissance camera" just after Karlin shut down a Ufo, so there
must be a window for the same camera.

By the way, is your SkyDiver model is an assembled kit or your own
full-scratch built one?

>> Anyway, the Messerschmitt Me163B Komet also reminds me of the Sky
1.
>> Their bodies are both thick and short, and they have same wing-
arrangement, that is, two wings along with one vertical tail unit.
> Yeah, just as long as they don't blow up on landing like the
Komets!

And a Sky 1's squarish fuselage also looks like one of the NASA's
experimental craft X-20 Dynasoar, I think

Marc Martin wrote:
> However, it wouldn't seem like a very practical solution, because
what do they do between launches?
> Does the old solid rocket get ejected and Skydiver plugs in a new
one?
> At least with liquids, all they need to do is refill the tanks...

The old solid rockets do not need to be ejected, I suppose.
A sloid rocket fuel just disappear when it burns out, and its casing
would be thrown away before the liquid fuel engine ignites.
I, however, admit my defeat, and agree to the liquid fuel engine
theory.
Regarding its liquid fuel, it does not seem to use liquid hydrogen
like the Spaceshuttle's main engines, as a Sky 1 exhaust dence white
smoke.
Probably, it is something like hydrazine?

Anyway, thank you very much for the interesting discussion, both of
you!

Kaoru

At 01:27 AM 5/19/2003 +0000, you wrote:

But fi the nose of the aircraft was designed as a recce camera window,
the aperture must be big enough to take pictures of Pluto!

>By the way, is your SkyDiver model is an assembled kit or your own
>full-scratch built one?

One is the IMAI model kit (Not great for detail comparison) and the
other is a resin recast of the WAVE SkyDiver kit (The rersin kit is still
available from http://www.monstersinmotion.com too), which is more accurate.

> >> Anyway, the Messerschmitt Me163B Komet also reminds me of the Sky
>1.
> >> Their bodies are both thick and short, and they have same wing-
>arrangement, that is, two wings along with one vertical tail unit.
> > Yeah, just as long as they don't blow up on landing like the
>Komets!
>
>And a Sky 1's squarish fuselage also looks like one of the NASA's
>experimental craft X-20 Dynasoar, I think

It does, after a fashion, though the Dynasoar's underside is blended
into the wing, where Sky 1's isn't.

I was thinking the same thing! What's the stability of hydrazine
underwater, Marc?

>Anyway, thank you very much for the interesting discussion, both of
>you!

Always ready to argue for (and against) my fave piece of SHADO
hardware! ;-)

>I was thinking the same thing! What's the stability of hydrazine
>underwater, Marc?

Well, that's outside of my speciality... we'd need a propulsion
expert! Not that I couldn't find one, but I don't think they'd
know about the underwater part! :-)

Marc

--- In [hidden email], "tchbnk" <tachibana-kaoru@m...> wrote:
> Marc Martin wrote:
> > However, it wouldn't seem like a very practical solution,
because
> what do they do between launches?
> > Does the old solid rocket get ejected and Skydiver plugs in a
new
> one?
> > At least with liquids, all they need to do is refill the tanks...
>
> The old solid rockets do not need to be ejected, I suppose.
> A sloid rocket fuel just disappear when it burns out, and its
casing
> would be thrown away before the liquid fuel engine ignites.
> I, however, admit my defeat, and agree to the liquid fuel engine
> theory.
> Regarding its liquid fuel, it does not seem to use liquid hydrogen
> like the Spaceshuttle's main engines, as a Sky 1 exhaust dence
white
> smoke.
> Probably, it is something like hydrazine?

It would probably be very impractical for Sky to use liquid hydrogen
and oxygen since, at least in the space shuttle, these have to be
pumped just a few hours before lunch, i.e., it is not easy to
maintain liquid hydrogen and oxygen in a spacecraft's tank for too
long.

Probably a bit OT, but this may help to solve the "mystery" (or
rather, increase the level of confusion) about Sky. Does anyone
remember those images of a ballistic missile (w/ nuclear
warheads) being lunched from a submarine? The names Polaris and
Triton come to mind, but I am not sure. Anyhow, you can clearly see
that when they are launched underwater, they use some kind of
propulsion system, but as soon as they reach the surface and clear
the water, what appears to be another kind of propulsion system
takes over. The creators of Sky were probably trying to give a
similar effect... Anyhow, the point is that you don't see two
separate rockets, but rather both systems are housed within the body
of the missile, and most likely use separate nozzles. And probably,
the volume occupied by the first propulsion system is rather small
in comparison to the other one. Maybe someone that really knows what
he is talking about :-) can comment about this...

David Levine

CONTENTS DELETED

"David Levine" wrote:

> It would probably be very impractical for Sky to use liquid hydrogen
> and oxygen since, at least in the space shuttle, these have to be
> pumped just a few hours before lunch, i.e., it is not easy to
> maintain liquid hydrogen and oxygen in a spacecraft's tank for too
> long.
>

Yes, and that was one of the reasons that Britain's old land-based
ICBM nuclear deterrent had to be abandoned in the 1950s- the
missiles took too long to fuel. They were ultimately replaced by
Polaris and Trident, speaking of which:

> Probably a bit OT, but this may help to solve the "mystery" (or
> rather, increase the level of confusion) about Sky. Does anyone
> remember those images of a ballistic missile (w/ nuclear
> warheads) being lunched from a submarine? The names Polaris and
> Triton come to mind, but I am not sure. Anyhow, you can clearly see
> that when they are launched underwater, they use some kind of
> propulsion system, but as soon as they reach the surface and clear
> the water, what appears to be another kind of propulsion system
> takes over.

They are basically 'fired' from the submarine in an enormous bubble
of compressed air or gas. They don't have their own underwater
propulsion system, just the momentum from the launch. The
missile's own airborne propulsion doesn't kick in until it is clear
of the surface of the water.

However, it's clear that this isn't the case for Sky One - there
is clearly some kind of active underwater propulsion in effect,
and judging from the way it clears the water with rocket motors
blazing, it's the same as the airborne one!

I favour the idea that Sky One has a conventional jet engine, the
rocket motors being used only for launch.

--- In [hidden email], "David Levine" <dlevine2100@y...> wrote:
body
> of the missile, and most likely use separate nozzles. And probably,
> the volume occupied by the first propulsion system is rather small
> in comparison to the other one. Maybe someone that really knows
what
> he is talking about :-) can comment about this...
>
> David Levine

Nevermind. Here I am answering my own questions. Check:

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/missiles/wep-d5.html

In the case of sky, obviously it is not expanding gases out of the
launch tube that propel Sky out of the water.

David Levine

At 12:24 PM 5/19/2003 +0000, you wrote:

Hey, I resent that! I don't deny it, I just resent it! ;-)

Here's an off-the-wall idea-- what about a combination of solid and
liquid? Solid fuel at the lower end of the rocket pod, which could provide
the necessary force to get the aircraft out of the water, where the liquid
engines would take over to boost it to altitude, where the scramjet would
finally spin up. I know, this goes against the rationale of keeping it
simple, but it's the best compromise I could come up with! Any comments on
this, primarily from our rocket expert?

All this talk about Sky1 made me realize something... several weeks
ago we had a discussion of some of the technology difficulties that
would need to be solved for a Sky1 type of aircraft to be real. I
don't think we discussed the issue of buoyancy, which now I think
would need to be at the top of the list. You would like Sky to be
buoyant (like all (?) aircraft, at least in principle), so that it
is not too heavy to fly giving its relative size, and so that you
can sea-land. But on the other hand, if you had a buoyant craft
attached to Diver, that would be a big problem. Given the relative
sizes of Sky and Diver, it would seem rather difficult to be able to
put enough water in the ballast tanks of Diver to maintain the whole
thing leveled! (you would need huge ballast thanks). Of course, you
can speculate that Sky has its own ballast thanks, but that would
introduce another set of problems!

As for the launch of Sky, maybe the most plausible way (although not
as attractive as in the series) would be just to release Sky from
Diver, and Sky's own buoyancy would propel it out of the water, and
use maybe a solid motor sometime just before or right after you get
to the surface to get airborne.

In the series (maybe in Subsmash?), didn't they say that Diver had
to be at a minimum angle to make a launch of Sky possible? I think
this would mean that they were assuming that Sky would be rather
heavy.

Comments?

David Levine

"David Levine" wrote:
> All this talk about Sky1 made me realize something... several
> weeks ago we had a discussion of some of the technology
> difficulties that would need to be solved for a Sky1 type of
> aircraft to be real.

Just one general comment - Arthur C Clarke once noted that "any
sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

I think it's easy for us to forget that at the time it was filmed,
UFO was set ten years in the future - and given all the changes
that took place in the sixties, that must have seemed a long time.
There are many things that we take for granted today which would
have been considered impossible years ago, so why not a submersible
jet fighter?

Perhaps Gerry Anderson's mistake was in setting UFO too close to
the ('69/'70) present day - UFO's depiction of the possible
technological advances of the following ten years was somewhat
unrealistic.

I guess the problem for us today is that 1980 is already over
twenty years in the past, so our overview of the technology
that we see in the UFO universe is a bit more coldly analytical.

James

I think the reason for them saying in Sub-Smash that SkyDiver had to be at a
minium angle to lauch Sky 1 sucessfully is because of the the fact that the
less the angle is from vertical the longer it would take Sky 1 to reach the
surface. Remember that the shortest distance between two points is a
straight line. So this means that unless they want to stand SkyDiver on its
tail to do a vertical launch of Sky 1 it needs to be a certain angle to
launch to cut the distance. This means that the launch boosters that get it
up to the surface for the jet engine to take over have a limited time of
burn.


James K.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In [hidden email], SumitonJD@a... wrote:
> I think the reason for them saying in Sub-Smash that SkyDiver had
to be at a
> minium angle to lauch Sky 1 sucessfully is because of the the fact
that the
> less the angle is from vertical the longer it would take Sky 1 to
reach the
> surface. Remember that the shortest distance between two points is
a
> straight line. So this means that unless they want to stand
SkyDiver on its
> tail to do a vertical launch of Sky 1 it needs to be a certain
angle to
> launch to cut the distance. This means that the launch boosters
that get it
> up to the surface for the jet engine to take over have a limited
time of
> burn.

James,

I don't necessarily buy that! If what you are saying was the case,
then the distance SkyDiver is from the surface just before lunch
wouldn't matter!!
If the restrictive factor is limited booster burning time, then in
this case depth would be a more important factor than angle.

David Levine

David both and angle and depth equal distance. I think SkyDiver would have
patrol at a distance that it could launch from. But if you have to shallow
an angle you can't reach the surface before the booster burns out.

We are really turning this into how many Angels can dance on the head of a
pin.

James K.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"David Levine" wrote:

> If the restrictive factor is limited booster burning time, then
> in this case depth would be a more important factor than angle.
>

Not really - assuming Sky 1 doesn't have a means to manouevre
underwater and essentially just goes where it's pointed until
airborne, then the distance to the surface is a function of both
depth and angle - both would be critical.

However to be fair, from Subsmash, it does seem that Sky 1 diverts
significantly from the angle at which it's 'fired' before breaking
the surface.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Walsh" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: Sky 1



> Here's an off-the-wall idea-- what about a combination of solid and
> liquid? Solid fuel at the lower end of the rocket pod, which could provide
> the necessary force to get the aircraft out of the water, where the liquid
> engines would take over to boost it to altitude, where the scramjet would
> finally spin up. I know, this goes against the rationale of keeping it
> simple, but it's the best compromise I could come up with! Any comments on
> this, primarily from our rocket expert?
>
>

Hey Dave, that's the way I see it.... Small solid rocket canisters
punched into the back of the main tubes, by the submarine, initially blast
the plane out of the water. A solid charge blow starts the airbone flying
engines once up, blowing the solid rocket canisters out the back. These
canisters could be mechanically pressed into the back of the plane by the
sub once reconnected. (Never mind all the salt water flooding
difficulties....)
Too bad even if we did all this, the airframe of Sky 1 would never
fly...the aerodymamics is just too screwed up - wing loading is too high,
profile too HUGE, and so much dirty L&P crap all over it you couldn't get
any usefull flow around the thing. That blocky tail is a dissaster, the boat
tail drag and burbling vorticies off the back would make it slow, loud, and
fishtail all over the sky. There isn't enough rudder pedal in that short
tail to keep the thing pointed into the wind!
Designed by some studio guy thinking: "....Gee, wouldn't it look cool
if we put THIS on it?...."

By the way, if this is late, forgive me. I just lost my internet for a
MONTH, and i'm working my way thru 578 e-mails.
Happy ones....Dave H.

At 12:17 AM 5/23/2003 -0400, you wrote:

Yeah. If UFO were being re-made today, I'd like to see the YF-23 Black
Widow II used as the new Sky 1! It has a nice profile, flies great and
looks futuristic enough to be taken seriously!

Would that be a SkyDiver pin or a SHADO pin?
Since Sky would have to be built to withstand what ever depths Diver opperated at, either Sky is built massively to withstand great depths, or they normally don't go more then a few hundred feet deep and Sky is blocky because the designers liked it that way. (more on this in a seperate E mail.)
So long as Sky had enough forward momentum to keep it airborne until the jet kicked in, it would not matter if the rockets gave out before reaching the surface. However, I wouldn't want to time it very closely so that you would have a "Safety Margain" if something went belly up on you. I would think that five to fifteen seconds of thrust once you broke the surface should give you sufficent time to get your jet running or abort into a gliding landing on the water if you could not.
Angle would be more critical, I would think, since you have to aim the entire ship at that angle. I would love to see SkyDiver sitting on its tail during a launch.
On a totally diffrent tangent, just how do they compenstate for the loss of all that weight on the nose? Subs run their trim by balancing how much air is in each set of ballast tanks. Even if Sky only weighted two tons, that is still a lot of weight suddenly gone.
Under normall circumstances, you would see Diver stand on its tail before they could compenstate for the weight change. Not even a computer would be able to pump water in or out fast enough to prevent this. The pumps just couldn't run that fast to keep up with the shifting center of gravity.

[hidden email] wrote:
David both and angle and depth equal distance. I think SkyDiver would have
patrol at a distance that it could launch from. But if you have to shallow
an angle you can't reach the surface before the booster burns out.

We are really turning this into how many Angels can dance on the head of a
pin.

James K.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

That would be a SHADO pen. Mine is out of ink at the moment.

The design of Sky One is blocky because it has to mate up with the diver
submarine. This does make for a rather un-aerodynamic shape. However, there is a
rule to flight, which is given enough power you can make a brick fly.
According to experts a Bumble Bee shouldn't be able to fly give its body shape and
the power to wing size. But the Bumble Bee does fly very well inspite of the
opinions of so called experts. That is the same case as with the Space Shuttle
and the Lifting Body you used to see Steve Austin crash in the opening of The
Six Million Dollar Man, they have very poor aerodynamics. So poor that the
only thing that keeps them in the air is the power of their engines. No power
they have the glide characteristics of a brick.

James K.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The bumble bee flies because of a scaling issue. If it were the size of a
dog or a person, or especially an airplane, indeed it could NOT fly. But it
uses a totally different set of physical principles in it's flight based on
reynolds no. and viscosity of the air around it, than an airplane or soaring
bird does. To an insect, the air is more like a syrup that a whispy gas, and
the wings "paddle" through it...it is actually more like "swimming" through
a waterlike, or molasses medium that flying through air from the insect's
perspective.

Shuttle aerodynamics and the Austin lifting body are actually very sound,
and each is actually unpowered. The lifting body can be less slim because
the whole body is very curvy and is, in itself, a very well sculpted
airfoil, thus the term "lifting body".

The Sky One airplane is a nightmarish collection of odd shapes and gee-wiz
cool looking angular blocky add-ons that simply don't support the type of
organised and managed flow to produce lift and efficient control.

Also, most of the tested lifting bodies of that era were mostly just
stripped out shells, very light weight and thus low density to their
displaced volumes, much like a beach ball will fly if thrown spinning
backwards. Some of them were even tested by pulling them along the desert
floor by a Chevrolet!

The flying brick theory was best illustrated by the F-4 Phantom II, a
horribly heavy aircraft that with-out engine power had the glide path
similar to that of a brick. It could climb almost straight up though,
without ordinance.

happys....
Dave H