Sky 1

Hellow James,

> I would think so - apart from the fact that there's a small fleet
of SkyDivers (we see SkyDiver 4 in PSYCHOBOMBS), in 'Ordeal' we see a
reserve Sky 1 turning up after Foster takes the 'original' Sky 1 to
go on leave.

In 'Ordeal' and 'Sub-Smash', Sky 1s return to 'base' without docking
the Divers.
When Sky 1s approach the 'base', I wonder do them land on a runway
with landing gears extended or splash down on the surface of the sea?

Kaoru

Good question. I have never seen anything in the plans that look like like landing gear doors, but I would think that they would want the ability to do both if at all possible.It would have to be some pretty long "Legs" thought, to clear the booster pods. I don't know how stable such a design would be, or what its landing charateristics would be either. Very touchy, I imagine.

tchbnk <[hidden email]> wrote:Hellow James,

> I would think so - apart from the fact that there's a small fleet
of SkyDivers (we see SkyDiver 4 in PSYCHOBOMBS), in 'Ordeal' we see a
reserve Sky 1 turning up after Foster takes the 'original' Sky 1 to
go on leave.

In 'Ordeal' and 'Sub-Smash', Sky 1s return to 'base' without docking
the Divers.
When Sky 1s approach the 'base', I wonder do them land on a runway
with landing gears extended or splash down on the surface of the sea?

Kaoru





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]

Robert Thomas <[hidden email]>wrote:
> Good question. I have never seen anything in the plans that look
like like landing gear doors, but I would think that they would want
the ability to do both if at all possible.It would have to be some
pretty long "Legs" thought, to clear the booster pods. I don't know
how stable such a design would be, or what its landing charateristics
would be either. Very touchy, I imagine.

Hi Robert,
Thanks for your response.
Watching the bottom side of a Sky 1 sutudio model carefully, we can
find two trapezoid panels along with two rectangular ones just in
front of the 'INTAKE' marking.
I suppose they may suggest that they are doors of a possible nose
landing gear storage.
On the other hand, the Sky fighters might have vertical landing
ability.
In the episode 'Flight Path', we can watch a Sky 1 hoverring above
the scene of the car crush, aboard which Captain Karlin observing the
same accident.

Kaoru

As with the Interceptors, I can't find anything on the models or in the pictures I have, that would suggest an ability to hover like a Harrier. However, I suppose anything is possible in a Sci-fi show.

>In the episode 'Flight Path', we can watch a Sky 1 hoverring above
>the scene of the car crush, aboard which Captain Karlin observing the
>same accident.

Robert Thomas wrote:
> As with the Interceptors, I can't find anything on the models or in
the pictures I have, that would suggest an ability to hover like a
Harrier. However, I suppose anything is possible in a Sci-fi show.

>> In the episode 'Flight Path', we can watch a Sky 1 hoverring above
the scene of the car crush, aboard which Captain Karlin observing the
same accident.

Thanks for your comment, Robert.
I can also find no thruster nozzles underside of a Sky 1's fuselage.
You, however, can find two nozzles on the both sides of its vertical
tail unit each.
What purpose are they for?
The rear edge of the same tail unit is thick and flat just like the
one of the NASA's experimental rocket aircraft X-15.
Therefore, I suppose that a Sky 1 flies like the X-15, the maximum
speed of which is faster than Mach 6 and climbs nearly to the upper
limit of the atmosphere.
For the purpose of three-dimentional maneuver in a near-vacuum, the
Sky 1 needs vertical thrusters, too.
If the Sky 1 has such thrusters, it may be possible for the same
aircraft to hover like a Harrier even just for the limited short
time.
Then where are these thruster nozzles?
My speculation is that the nozzles do exist underside of the Sky 1's
fuselage, and sealed up so tightly that sea water does not sink into
the body when it is combined with a Diver.
Because these seals are very smooth, we cannot find them on the
models.

Of course, I admit this is a strained interpretation, but the Sky 1
did hover, so we need an exposition by any means.

Kaoru

Boy and I thought that I came up with some really wild speculation to explain the things that are shown, that don't make sense.
Actually, if you check your flight history books you will find that the X-15 did have very small thrusters on it to "Help" manuver while in the edges of space, where there wasn't enough air pressure for conventional controls to work.
As to the thought that the forqard thrusters are sealed to avoid an influx of sea water, and are blended smoth with the body of the aircraft, so as to reduce drag... It works for me. I don't know if we have any air enginners out there, or other pilots, so your guess is as good as mine.
Anyone else have any thoghts on this?

At 01:31 PM 5/14/2003 -0700, you wrote:
Okay, I'm a pilot and a former U.S. Air Force tech, so I guess my
input is as valid as anyone else's without a degree in aeronautical
engineering! ;-)

On the Sky 1, it would appear that the underwing missile pods have
liquid-fueled reusable rocket engines designed to get the craft airborne
from an undersea launch, after which the air-breathing engine mounted under
the fuselage would take over the job of providing thrust to keep the
aircraft flying. The intake cover would have to be retractable to keep the
engine from ingesting water (Which is why most jet pilots I knew really
hated to fly underwater!), and such mechanisms exist today to protect
delicate turbine compressor blades from sucking in all sorts of stuff from
unconventional runways (dirt, stones, tools, etc...)-- the MiG-29 has
covers that slide over the front of the intakes while louvered vents on the
dorsal of the jet open to allow air to enter the engine. I think the
Northrop YF-23A Black Widow II also had the same function but not having
exact specs on the craft (I only have a model to speculate from) I can'r be
absolutely sure.

There are two rather glaring discrepancies on the Sky 1 studio model I
can see, though-- the intake built into the nose of the aircraft and more
importantly, the lack of an exhaust on the aft section! If the intake is
indeed under the aircraft, the nose intake is completely redundant, and
actually provides a source of drag and instability at high speeds and high
angles of attack. In other words, if he tries to execute a high-speed turn
with the nose intake that goes nowhere, the drag produced by the thing will
flip the aircraft tushy over teakettle, most likely ripping it to pieces!
(Apologies to all for the coarse language! ;-)

And as for the lack of an exhaust, the only thing that could come
close is a grille-like area on the aft end, but this is also in the spot
where the pilot's access chute would most likely be, so sliding up the
tailpipe of a jet engine just doesn't have an attractive idea to it
(Especially if one has heard of the horror stories of aircraft techs being
sucked into the intakes of running jet engines!).

Anyhow, back to the underwing rocket pods-- Luca Oleastri, designer of
the most excellent Flight Sim Toolkit game "SHADO-- Attack SkyBase", came
up with the idea that the craft could indeed land on the ocean for recovery
and reattachment to Diver, using the now-empty rocket boost pods as
flotation devices. Once the aircraft has landed on relatively calm seas,
diver could rendezvous, send out a diver to attach winch cables to the aft
of Sky 1, and Diver could pull the aircraft into docking position and
reattach the docking clamps, refuel and rearm from onboard stores (Or meet
up with a resupply ship for the same reason), then continue with its patrol!

And if there any typos in the above treatise, please remember that I
have excellent speklling skills! My tpying skills, on the other hand... ;-)



"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines!"

Dave Walsh
Harlington-Straker Sound Productions
[hidden email]

Dave;
EXCELLENT points. Well written and glad to see ya post.
Steve Christensen

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Hi Robert,
Thanks for your comment.
I admit that my exposition on the Sky 1's hovering system is quite
strained on, but I cannot think of another ground how the Sky 1 was
able to hover in the episode 'Flight Path'.
Otherwise, SHADO might have the anti-gravity equipment?

Thank you very much for your professional explanation, Dave.
I almost agree with you except on few points.
Regarding the Sky 1's rocket boosters attached to the rear section of
its underwing missile pods, I suppose they are liquid/solid hybrid
reusable rocket engines.
Watching a Sky 1 departing from a Diver, it ignite their engines
while underwater.
Isn't it quite dangerous to ignite a liquid rocket engine in the
water?
On the other hand, solid rocket engine may much safer, I suppose, and
if my memory serves me right, all the present US Navy submarine-
launched ballistic missiles have solid rocket engines which can be
launched immediately.
In addition, Sky 1's rocket engines exhaust quite dense white smoke,
which is a characteristic of solid rocket engines such as ones of the
Spaceshuttle's SRB.
But a solid rocket engine cannnot be shut down once ignited until it
burns out.
So a Sky 1 also needs liquid rocket engines to fly in the edges of
space.

I quite agree with the idea of that the trapezoid intake should have
a retractable cover.
I'm afraid that the lack of an exhaust which forms a counterpart to
the above intake was one of the most regrettable mistake that the
studio model department done.
Perhaps, Derek Meddings' design pictures did not suggest the cross
section of a Sky 1 and a Diver, I suppose, so they overlooked.
If, however, I am forced to explain what happens to the air taken
into the same intake, I have to say that the compressed air is
refregerated into the liquid air by the cold liauid hydrogen fuel and
transferred to the underwing liquid rocket engines each.

Regarding the nose intake, I would like to consider it is NOT an
intake, but a window for a raser distance measure and reconnaissance
cameras.
There should be covered with a clear glass, and probably the
modelmakers have forgotten to put it in or remitted.
(The STAW WARS X-Wing sturio models' windshields have no glasses.)

Kaoru

At 04:36 AM 5/15/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>Dave;
>EXCELLENT points. Well written and glad to see ya post.
>Steve Christensen

Thanks, bud, I'm just getting warmed up! ;-)

>

At 08:46 AM 5/15/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>Hi Robert,
>Thanks for your comment.
>I admit that my exposition on the Sky 1's hovering system is quite
>strained on, but I cannot think of another ground how the Sky 1 was
>able to hover in the episode 'Flight Path'.
>Otherwise, SHADO might have the anti-gravity equipment?

That theory could also possibly account for the normal gravity seen on
Moonbase.

>Thank you very much for your professional explanation, Dave.
>I almost agree with you except on few points.
>Regarding the Sky 1's rocket boosters attached to the rear section of
>its underwing missile pods, I suppose they are liquid/solid hybrid
>reusable rocket engines.
>Watching a Sky 1 departing from a Diver, it ignite their engines
>while underwater.
>Isn't it quite dangerous to ignite a liquid rocket engine in the
>water?

It isn't being ignited in the water, it's being ignited in the engine
ducting on Diver!

>On the other hand, solid rocket engine may much safer, I suppose, and
>if my memory serves me right, all the present US Navy submarine-
>launched ballistic missiles have solid rocket engines which can be
>launched immediately.

Solid rockets also can't be shut down! They burn continuously until
the fuel supply is consumed, whereas liquid-fueled rockets can simply shut
off the flow of the fuel with a valve! Marc is our resident rocket expert,
so howzabout we defer to his advice?

>In addition, Sky 1's rocket engines exhaust quite dense white smoke,
>which is a characteristic of solid rocket engines such as ones of the
>Spaceshuttle's SRB.

There any number of chemical additives to make fuel exhaust smoky
(Take a look at the smoke generators on the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels),
and Sky 1 could be using something to make a smokescreen to help avoid
detection (Okay, I admit I'm really reaching here and the amount of smoke
it produces isn't nearly enough to hide it, but the only other explanation
is low-tech special effects!).

>But a solid rocket engine cannnot be shut down once ignited until it
>burns out.

Correct!

>So a Sky 1 also needs liquid rocket engines to fly in the edges of
>space.

Or a scramjet! The SR-71 doesn't have rocket engines, and it flies at
80,000 feet plus!

Possibly, but rocket engines burn fuel at an enormous rate as opposed
to a jet engine, so Sky 1 couldn't stay airborne very long (Take a look at
the Messerschmitt Me163B Komet from WWII-- total flight time was something
around 7 1/2 minutes, takeoff to landing, and landings were less than
spectacular (Unleess you count the inevitable fireball!).

>Regarding the nose intake, I would like to consider it is NOT an
>intake, but a window for a raser distance measure and reconnaissance

Then why make it flat, never mind concave? It's still a major drag
(pun intended), and would limit the airspeed big time!

Thank you very much again for your professional comment, Dave.

> Marc is our resident rocket expert, so howzabout we defer to his
advice?

Yes, I agree with you, so Marc please.

> Or a scramjet! The SR-71 doesn't have rocket engines, and it flies
at 80,000 feet plus!

Yes, indeed.
If only a Sky 1 had an exhaust at the end of its fuselage, a scramjet
could be an ideal engine, I suppose.
The air could be compressed by the underside of the forward body just
before it would be taken into the trapezoid intake.
And if my memory serves me right, a scramjet does not need turbines,
doesn't it?
The angled wings would make a Sky 1 supersonic waverider just like
the XB-70 Valkyrie.

>> Regarding the nose intake, I would like to consider it is NOT an
intake, but a window for a raser distance measure and reconnaissance.
> Then why make it flat, never mind concave? It's still a major drag
(pun intended), and would limit the airspeed big time!

I wonder a small flat inclined window makes such a major air
resistance.
For example, the Northrop RF-5 had a flat window at the tip of its
nose, and some variant of SEPECAT Jagur also had such windows.

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.

Kaoru

At 11:20 PM 5/16/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>Thank you very much again for your professional comment, Dave.

Always glad to be of service!

> > Marc is our resident rocket expert, so howzabout we defer to his
>advice?
>
>Yes, I agree with you, so Marc please.

Yeah, Marc, whaddaya waiting for? Put all that SeaLaunch expertise to
work! ;-)

Quite possibly! But since the thing doesn't have a workable exhaust,
... 8-\

> >> Regarding the nose intake, I would like to consider it is NOT an
>intake, but a window for a raser distance measure and reconnaissance.
> > Then why make it flat, never mind concave? It's still a major drag
>(pun intended), and would limit the airspeed big time!
>
>I wonder a small flat inclined window makes such a major air
>resistance.
>For example, the Northrop RF-5 had a flat window at the tip of its
>nose, and some variant of SEPECAT Jagur also had such windows

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!

>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!



"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines!"

Dave Walsh
Harlington-Straker Sound Productions
[hidden email]

>Solid rockets also can't be shut down! They burn continuously until
>the fuel supply is consumed, whereas liquid-fueled rockets can simply shut
>off the flow of the fuel with a valve! Marc is our resident rocket expert,
>so howzabout we defer to his advice?

Uhhh, what was the question exactly? :-)

The rockets on Sky One certainly *look* like solid rockets because
that's undoubtedly what they used to film the miniature effects. :-)
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...

Marc

At 07:25 PM 5/16/2003 -0700, you wrote:
Plus there's the added advantage of being able to shut down
liquid-fueled rockets! To avoid Sky 1, all a UFO needs to do is drop to low
altitude while the aircraft is still going BOH on its solid boosters! It
would take Sky 1 too long to do a 180 and drop down low to find it again!



There was a space traveler named Wright
Who liked to go faster than light
He started one day
In a relative way
And came back the previous night.

Dave Walsh
Harlington-Straker Sound Productions
[hidden email]

Dave Walsh <[hidden email]> wrote:
At 01:31 PM 5/14/2003 -0700, you wrote:
Okay, I'm a pilot and a former U.S. Air Force tech, so I guess my
input is as valid as anyone else's without a degree in aeronautical
engineering! ;-)

On the Sky 1, it would appear that the underwing missile pods have
liquid-fueled reusable rocket engines designed to get the craft airborne
from an undersea launch, after which the air-breathing engine mounted under
the fuselage would take over the job of providing thrust to keep the
aircraft flying. The intake cover would have to be retractable to keep the
engine from ingesting water (Which is why most jet pilots I knew really
hated to fly underwater!), and such mechanisms exist today to protect
delicate turbine compressor blades from sucking in all sorts of stuff from
unconventional runways (dirt, stones, tools, etc...)-- the MiG-29 has
covers that slide over the front of the intakes while louvered vents on the
dorsal of the jet open to allow air to enter the engine. I think the
Northrop YF-23A Black Widow II also had the same function but not having
exact specs on the craft (I only have a model to speculate from) I can'r be
absolutely sure.

There are two rather glaring discrepancies on the Sky 1 studio model I
can see, though-- the intake built into the nose of the aircraft and more
importantly, the lack of an exhaust on the aft section! If the intake is
indeed under the aircraft, the nose intake is completely redundant, and
actually provides a source of drag and instability at high speeds and high
angles of attack. In other words, if he tries to execute a high-speed turn
with the nose intake that goes nowhere, the drag produced by the thing will
flip the aircraft tushy over teakettle, most likely ripping it to pieces!
(Apologies to all for the coarse language! ;-)


Maybe it is vectored by pipes/compressers along the sides of the body to the engines. As for drag, well if UFOes can fly in the atomsphere, they way they are designed, I'm not going to worry about drag on Sky. Besides, as one of my pilot trainers putit, a brink would fly with enough power.


And as for the lack of an exhaust, the only thing that could come close is a grille-like area on the aft end, but this is also in the spot where the pilot's access chute would most likely be, so sliding up the tailpipe of a jet engine just doesn't have an attractive idea to it
(Especially if one has heard of the horror stories of aircraft techs being sucked into the intakes of running jet engines!).


How is one "Sucked" into the exhaust of an engine? Now Barbequed, on the other hand...
Anyhow, back to the underwing rocket pods-- Luca Oleastri, designer of the most excellent Flight Sim Toolkit game "SHADO-- Attack SkyBase", came
up with the idea that the craft could indeed land on the ocean for recovery and reattachment to Diver, using the now-empty rocket boost pods as flotation devices. Once the aircraft has landed on relatively calm seas, diver could rendezvous, send out a diver to attach winch cables to the aft of Sky 1, and Diver could pull the aircraft into docking position and reattach the docking clamps, refuel and rearm from onboard stores (Or meet up with a resupply ship for the same reason), then continue with its patrol!


Seems like a lot of work just to recover Sky, as well as leaving the ship vunerable for the time that it would take to recover. Also, unless you had some way to close the exhauasts of the rockets they would flood and not float at all.
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.

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

And if there any typos in the above treatise, please remember that I
have excellent speklling skills! My tpying skills, on the other hand... ;-)



"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines!"

Dave Walsh
Harlington-Straker Sound Productions
[hidden email]






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]

--- In [hidden email], "tchbnk" <tachibana-kaoru@m...> wrote:
> ... If only a Sky 1 had an exhaust at the end of its fuselage, ...

I suppose that it has to be faced: Sky 1 would not work if made real
as a real fighter plane.

>I suppose that it has to be faced: Sky 1 would not work if made real
>as a real fighter plane.

I think the same could be said for the Interceptors... in fact,
probably most of the vehicles wouldn't work using conventional
technology, and since it appears that they are *supposed* to
be using conventional technology, you could conclude that they
wouldn't work!

I think the Moonmobiles are the only vehicle which seems to be
using non-conventional technology, and I haven't got a clue what
it's supposed to be using... anti-gravity?

Marc

Robert Thomas wrote:

> How is one "Sucked" into the exhaust of an engine? Now Barbequed,
> on the other hand...

Did anyone suggest the notion of being sucked into the exhaust
of a jet engine, or the intake?

Sadly, I know of at least two cases of people being ingested by
jet engines, here in Derby, England.

> Sadly, I know of at least two cases of people being ingested by
> jet engines, here in Derby, England.

A friend of mine served on an aircraft carrier lost his best friend that
way.
He didn't give me any details of what happened but the tight-lipped
haunted look he got was enough to tell me it's a horrible experience. He
left the Navy about a year later. Makes you appreciate what a dangerous
job support personnel have.

Diane


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release Date: 5/13/03