SkyDiver Design Overboard? Enjoy

It has been an interesting run of comments on both Sky and its partner Diver, but I wonder if we are any closer to the truth then when we set out on adiscussion of SubSmash.

All things considered, I think we can ASSSUME several things based on both the state of current technology as well as things that are implied in the show.

1: Sky is a jet aircraft that uses a RATO unit (Rocket Assisted Take Off) for the initial punch necessary to get airborne from underwater. I do not believe that I have ever seen it launched from the surface.

The boosters are more then likely liquid fueled, so as to afford greater control over burn time and power ratios. It is possible that they are small jestionable solid fuel “Packets” inside the main Booster tubes, that would give a short assist to launch the aircraft. Each one would be a one shotand then be ejected from the tube automatically. If this were the case, then a number of launches could be carried out without refueling that part ofthe aircraft.

1A: There are no visible provisions for refueling Sky while airborne. Therefore it is somewhat limited in its combat capabilities by range. Judging from the information provided, I would say that Sky has a Cruising Range of one thousand Nautical Miles (1850 KM) that is without any combat and throttles set at fifty eight percent power. Combat range would more then likely behalf of that, or less, considering the fact that using full military powerwould burn fuel at much higher rates.

Skys Service Ceiling is 50,000 feet (15,240 meters). Its Operational Speed is 900 Knots (1,668 KM/H), which is 1,042 miles per hour, not exactly supersonic but then it was never meant to be.[i]

2: Sky is an air breathing jet and not a scram or ram jet engine. It is most likely that the intake is in the nose and passes under the cockpit area, through a series of compressors and other items so that it is ready to be force feed to the jet engine which is buried inside of Sky’s massive body.

There is something that could be an air intake “Step” on the bottom of Sky, but why would you have an intake there, as well as the intake in the nose? If the “Nose” is not an intake, then just what is it?

The intakes would have to be protected in a major way since they would not only have to survive the pressure of an underwater launch, but the extensive and constant pressure of a submerged submarine. All parts of Sky would have to be able to stand up to what ever Diver could because they are one unit. I don’t know what Divers crush depth is, but I am willing to bet that it is considerable. None of the models or “Blue Prints” suggests it butI wouldn’t be surprised if there were retractable covers for the cockpitglass. Otherwise it would have to be several feet thick like the “Glass” on submersibles are now. (Anyone for them having “Borrowed” Transparent Aluminum from Scotty’s little time trip back to the eighties?)

3: So as to avoid any more openings then necessary, the engines exhausts are channeled out of the RATO tubes. This way you would not have to have another set of openings for the exhausts, nor would there be added vulnerability from the relentless attack of sea pressure. The only time that the exhausts would be exposed to sea pressure on them specifically would be during launch time, in which case the RATO exhaust would probably equal or exceed the sea pressure outside of the tubes.

The design of the exhausts would quite likely be similar to that of the F-117 Night Hawk, both to quiet the engine noise and to reduce the infrared signature from the aircraft. The smoke that comes out of the tubes for a few seconds after the RATO units cut out is the RATO Fuel residue that is beingburned off by the jet exhaust.

4: Sky is able through means of very small vectored thrust units to “Semi-hover” over a given area at very low altitude. So as to not expose any large vents to outside sea pressure, the vents were kept purposely small andconcealed behind panels in the main body of the aircraft. Unlike a Harrier, Sky can not hold still or land vertically. It must always maintain some forward motion, or it will lose its lift coefficient and stall out. (Sounds good at any rate)

5: Sky does have a set of tricycle landing gear so that it can land on landif necessary. So as to help control the aircraft on the ground and to reduce its center of gravity, the gear is very short, barely extending a meter past the bottom of the RATO tubes.

The tires are more then likely solid so as to reduce the chance of a blow out during a rough field landing. I rather doubt if Skys use a drogue chute to slow them down on ground landings.

6: Sky is first and foremost an air to air fighter. It is fitted with the most advanced radar and other sensors to pick up UFOes and other traffic. Itcarries a “Canister” of twenty Seven point Five inch rockets of the fire and forget type, with a four pound “Shaped” warhead. Since UFOes have some sort of masking system that renders them invisible to normal tracking systems, it was deemed unnecessary to equip them with heat seekers or other advanced guidance systems. (To the best of my knowledge, UFOes do not have a “Tail pipe’ or other source of exhaust for a heat seeker to lock in on. Just what propels UFOes is a discussion for another day)

While Skys rockets could be used to attack ground targets, I would think this would be limited to those times when they caught an UFO on the ground. There are just too many easier ways to destroy targets, other then UFOes with out bringing Sky in on them.

Sky does not carry any bombs or other types of weapons. Its rockets are itsonly weapons. (Of course, we say that about the Interceptors too, and we may be wrong on both counts.)

For air to air combat, Sky carries an Litton ALR-67 EMM/APG-65 Radar plus Forward Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR) for all weather capability. I am not sure just what modifications were made to the unit to allow it to pick up the UFOes at close range, but some would have obviously been needed.[ii]

7: Using the old Sea Dart[iii] as a comparison, the Skys would have to havesome sort of landing gear for water landings. I can’t see them just belly flopping into the ocean, no mater how calm the seas are.

What this landing gear is anybody’s guess, but I would conjecture that they use a set of retractable skis, like the Sea Dart, to keep the nose up and to prevent the jet engine from flooding. Since I very much doubt that they come in without power when landing, the engine would have to be running until the very last second, if not beyond that point.

Sky would need some way to maneuver on its own while in the water. It wouldbe totally illogical for them to not have a way to move in the water. You couldn’t afford to wait for divers to come and set you up to rejoin the ship. Besides, short of using a mini-sub, divers wouldn’t be able to maneuver the aircraft around. I don’t know how many tons Sky weighs, but I would bet that it is a fairly hefty amount, not easily moved by anything this side of a crane or tug.

Since we have never seen a recovery of a Sky, and I don’t remember one being described in any of the “Cannon” books, we can only guess at how they would have done it.

8: As we all know, Skys are never launched “Just for patrol”; they always have a specific mission in mind when launched. It is for this reason andthe over all clutter of the design that I have speculated that they have alimited range. Skys are very unaerodynamic, as noted, which is strange, given that they have to function in two similar environments where streamlining would be very important to the operation of the vehicle.

Now for what I call the “Hmm, what the heck is that?”

Just what are the four bulges located under the cockpit? They are too largefor twenty or thirty seven millimeter cannons and there are too many of them to be feeds for engine or other instruments. If they are guns of some kind then the pilot must be sitting on top of them.

While on the subject of bulges, what is the bulge on the aft part of the fuselage? The fact that the bulge is equal on both sides suggests that it is something that runs across the entire fuselage. One has to wonder what it is, given that there are similar bulges on the wings directly above the rockets.

Are these “Actual” pieces of equipment, or just something that the designers threw in to break up the outline of the ship?[iv]

How does one service a Sky? Where are the access panels for the engine or the avionics? Are the radar and other sensors in the “Nose” as some havesuggested? (Tachibana Kaoru for one, who has given me a lot of things to think about on how SkyDiver “Works”)

It is not necessary to have such a large area devoted to the radar dish andother attack avionics. The design is cumbersome at best and would be a major source of drag on the aircraft[v] The design of the nose is more like that of the F-86D Super Sabers with a nose cone and air intake, then anythingthat has the intakes in another location.

As noted, Sky has reconnaissance cameras located “Somewhere”, but are they mounted or hand held? Where are they mounted? In the nose or maybe an wing?

Who gets the fun of digging out the film box or was it one of the first alldigital cameras? Again, something that we can only guess at.

As far as Diver goes, since they are integrated…

1: Diver is normally crewed by a crew of either four or five; The Captain/Pilot, the Helmsman/Dive Station Operator, The Sonar/Electronics Technician and the Navigator/Chief Engineer. All sections of the ship are heavily computerized to cut the crew needs down to the bare minimum. This also alleviates the need for large quantities of food or other perishable supplies.

Since the Sub is nuclear powered, they do not have to worry about large fuel bunkers or other storage of quantities of fuel. However, there are some fuel bunkers since the Sub employs some kind of hydrofoil like act called “Sea Skimming” which requires a noisy start from the amidships turbine section, as well as a puff of smoke as if from a starter cartridge of some kind. If this ability was powered by the reactor, then you would not need the cartridge to get the turbine or what ever it was, up to speed. You coulduse the reactor to spin it up to speed, and then engage it with a clutch type device. In SubSmash you can hear what is apparently a secondary propulsion system kicking in before the sub begins to pick up speed. Either that or it is the impellors way of saying that they do not work well half out of the water.[vi]

Somewhere on board are fuel cells for Sky, since it runs on JP 5 (Or its equivalent) as well as some spare parts and armaments. Since Sky would be extremely hard to service while in the water, only minor maintaince and armingis provided for while under sea conditions.[vii]

2: The reactor is located all the way in the stern of the boat, behind the Captains and Crew Cabin. Thanks to the use of space age technology and the fact that the reactor is only big enough to power the boat at ninety four percent of the boats projected possible total need, the reactor chamber onlytakes up forty three square feet. It comes in at just under three tons total weight. One of the main reasons the reactor is in the rear of the boat is to counter act the weight of Sky. When ever launch stations is called, the computer begins to flood certain ballast tanks in a specific plan to counter act the weight loss. Although they can’t be seen because of the turbulence caused by the launch of Sky, there are small impellors that provide acounter thrust to keep Diver from pitching up onto its tail during a launch, due to the sudden loss of Skys weight.

The reactor is in a sealed compartment so as to minimize the crew’s exposure to radiation hazards. Any repairs beyond the most basic would have to be handled at a major base because of the need for proper tools and handlingprocedures.[viii]

Of course, the biggest question is why Diver needs a nuclear power plant inthe first place. I can’t really see any practical reason for SHADO to have a nuclear navy. Considering the size of SkyDiver, you would have to be constantly meeting with supply ships anyway, so why not transfer fuel at thesame time during the night?[ix]

3: The head and other facilities are located in the rear of the crew compartment. Since two crewmembers are always on duty, there is only need for three racks. (Two regular ones and a spare for “Guests”.) Under normal patrol conditions the crew would speed eight on and eight off watches.

Like on an aircraft, the galley is little more then an alcove where prepared meals are reheated. There are no recreational or exercise facilities on board the ship. Laundry is done by partially flooding Escape Tube One, and adding detergent.[x]

4: I would hazard a guess based on the scale models, and the objects shown around them, that SkyDiver is somewhere in the neighborhood of two hundred and thirty feet long. This would make it one hundred feet smaller then a standard U.S. Navy Fleet sub (Los Angeles Class). I would guess that she displaces about thirteen thousand tons[xi].

Considering that the standard reactor for combat subs, of the time, was theGeneral Electric S8G (Submarine Model 8, General Electric), this is most likely the ships power plant, since they would want to use as much “Off the shelf” technology as possible. Normally this would drive a single screwat a speed of twenty knots surfaced (37 KMPH) and forty knots submerged (74 KPH). I can not say with any degree of certainty how fast the act of “Sea Skimming” allowed the ship to travel.

5: While no attempt has been made to “Camouflage” the ship from visual detection, it is hoped that they would have some sort of sound baffling andother ways of reducing their “Profile” while submerged. (Considering the design flaws inherent in such a multi-task vehicle, I rather doubt this.)

6: Considering the time period, the ship is probably equipped with the following Combat Data Systems; CCS Mark 2 with UYK 43/44 computers. Radar wouldlikely be a Surface/Search/Fire control BPS 15A, operating in the I through J bands. Sonar systems would have been IBM BBQ 6 Passive System, linked to an Amtek BQS 15 Active/Passive system for close combat. (Before you thinkthat I just strung a series of letters together to get this, my source forthe equipment is Janes Naval Ships 2000. I figured that SHADO would have access to the prototypes of these systems, if they hadn’t contracted them in the first place.)

6: Diver has a number of ways to escape from the ship, in the event of an emergency, as shown in SubSmash. Also as shown in SubSmash, there emergency procedures are not anywhere near up to snuff, but then good drama wouldn’t have come out of it, if they had been able to escape as easily as they should have.[xii]

According to the “Blue Prints” I have, there are three regular ways to exit from Diver while she is submerged. The main escape chamber is also used as a dive station, for the times when an EVA is required. Just how much scuba gear is carried and where I am uncertain. I do know that they carry three water sleds for divers stored in the rear of the Aft deck. What else might be stored in this are, beyond the “Emergency Locator Buoy” is a matter of conjecture.

7: One of the “Blue Prints” I have shows some type of missile as well as a torpedo of some kind (SHADO SkyDiver Special Gear) but I do not remember any shows where these were used. If anyone has any information on them, please contact me and give me the low down on them.

I do like the flip up dish that are shown in these plans, since it is totally unnecessary, if the point is to maintain contact with base. It would be useless under water, and is much too large for contacting anyone this side of MoonBase. The “Shaft” that is supporting the periscope is more then likely an antenna for the radio system, since it would be necessary to haveat least the tip of it out of the water to operate. The sub could receive if it was no more then a few feet submerged. If I remember my physics right, radio waves don’t travel very far underwater, something to do with the density of the water or something like that.



I am sure that there are other things that I have missed since I don’t have all of the SkyDiver shows yet, but I think we have made a good start on the design flaws between the series and real life.



I guess that it would be easier to start from scratch and totally redesign SkyDiver from the keel up since we can speculate until we are blue in the face, and we won’t be able to accommodate all of the things that the show showed because it was good drama rather then possible from an engineering standpoint.

Perhaps they will design SkyDiver from the Keel up if they make a UFO movie, but I would hope that they do not modify it too serverely. It would not be UFO if they threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Robert Thomas wrote:

>1: Sky is a jet aircraft that uses a RATO unit (Rocket Assisted Take Off)
>for the initial punch necessary to get airborne from underwater. I do not
>believe that I have ever seen it launched from the surface.


Neither have I and that's something I've always wanted to see. But note
that the RATO units seem to also be the same tubes carrying the missiles.
Is it possible that the tube is a "binary" package: the forward end being
missiles and the aft end being a RATO unit?


>The boosters are more then likely liquid fueled, so as to afford greater
>control over burn time and power ratios. It is possible that they are small
>jestionable solid fuel “Packets” inside the main Booster tubes, that would
>give a short assist to launch the aircraft. Each one would be a one shot
>and then be ejected from the tube automatically. If this were the case,
>then a number of launches could be carried out without refueling that part
>of the aircraft.


I would rather postulate that the boosters are solid-fuel for convenience in
handling. Let's say, for sake of argument, that Diver has to launch Sky
from within a narrow "window" combining depth with angle. The boosters can
take Sky to another point (airborne) within that "window", and then the main
engines kick in and perhaps automatically compensate for whichever part of
the "window" Sky was launched from.


>1A: There are no visible provisions for refueling Sky while airborne.
>Therefore it is somewhat limited in its combat capabilities by range.
>Judging from the information provided, I would say that Sky has a Cruising
>Range of one thousand Nautical Miles (1850 KM) that is without any combat
>and throttles set at fifty eight percent power. Combat range would more
>then likely be half of that, or less, considering the fact that using full
>military power would burn fuel at much higher rates.


Could a refueling probe be retracted and, therefore, not immediately
visible?


>There is something that could be an air intake “Step” on the bottom of Sky,
>but why would you have an intake there, as well as the intake in the nose?
>If the “Nose” is not an intake, then just what is it?


Could the "air intake step" on the bottom be something that assists Diver in
its operation? Not to say that Diver is useless without the Sky attachment,
but perhaps its performance is enhanced if it can make use of auxiliary
systems provided by having Sky in place. For instance: I've often wondered
if having Sky attached to Diver made the sub more maneuverable, if Diver
could make use of Sky's wings and tail as maneuvering vanes?


>5: Sky does have a set of tricycle landing gear so that it can land on land
>if necessary.


Something else I've always wanted to see.


>7: Using the old Sea Dart[iii] as a comparison, the Skys would have to have
>some sort of landing gear for water landings. I can’t see them just belly
>flopping into the ocean, no mater how calm the seas are.


Could the infamous "air intake step" serve as a sort of "water-landing
assist" system, redirecting engine thrust so as to slow Sky to a speed where
a water landing would be easier? Another possibility: the outer skin of the
RATO/Missile tubes can inflate, providing landing pontoons.



Housing for radar or communication or target acquisition avionics?


>How does one service a Sky? Where are the access panels for the engine or
>the avionics? Are the radar and other sensors in the “Nose” as some have
>suggested? (Tachibana Kaoru for one, who has given me a lot of things to
>think about on how SkyDiver “Works”)


I would presume that, being submersible, access panels would be set very
flush into the skin. Another possibility: servicing a Sky is accomplished
by entering the plane through the access tunnel, then working on the various
systems from the inside (this would also allow servicing of Sky when it's
attached to Diver and underwater, in emergency situations).


>As noted, Sky has reconnaissance cameras located “Somewhere”, but are they
>mounted or hand held? Where are they mounted? In the nose or maybe an wing?


Perhaps those bulges you noted earlier.


>Somewhere on board are fuel cells for Sky, since it runs on JP 5 (Or its
>equivalent) as well as some spare parts and armaments. Since Sky would be
>extremely hard to service while in the water, only minor maintaince and
>arming is provided for while under sea conditions.[vii]


Wouldn't it be likely that the fuel cells are in the forward end of Diver,
attached via umbilicals to Sky until launch?


>Like on an aircraft, the galley is little more then an alcove where
>prepared meals are reheated. There are no recreational or exercise
>facilities on board the ship. Laundry is done by partially flooding Escape
>Tube One, and adding detergent.[x]


"Captain, can we swing around? I accidentally jettisoned my
tighty-whities."


>4: I would hazard a guess based on the scale models, and the objects shown
>around them, that SkyDiver is somewhere in the neighborhood of two hundred
>and thirty feet long. This would make it one hundred feet smaller then a
>standard U.S. Navy Fleet sub (Los Angeles Class). I would guess that she
>displaces about thirteen thousand tons[xi].


SkyDiver's design might be based or inspired on the "pocket subs" employed
by both the British and the Japanese.


>7: One of the “Blue Prints” I have shows some type of missile as well as a
>torpedo of some kind (SHADO SkyDiver Special Gear) but I do not remember
>any shows where these were used. If anyone has any information on them,
>please contact me and give me the low down on them.


I'm wondering if SkyDiver can make use of Sky's missile tubes while
submerged?


>I do like the flip up dish that are shown in these plans, since it is
>totally unnecessary, if the point is to maintain contact with base. It
>would be useless under water, and is much too large for contacting anyone
>this side of MoonBase. The “Shaft” that is supporting the periscope is more
>then likely an antenna for the radio system, since it would be necessary to
>have at least the tip of it out of the water to operate. The sub could
>receive if it was no more then a few feet submerged. If I remember my
>physics right, radio waves don’t travel very far underwater, something to
>do with the density of the water or something like that.


Correct. Modern submarines employ Very Low Frequency (VLF) or Extremely Low
Frequency (ELF) receivers to pick up messages while submerged. The nature
of these systems means a very limited transmission rate (about one character
every fifteen to thirty seconds sent over teletype), so the systems are
usually employed to signal a submarine to rise far enough to be able to
employ standard contact means.


>From my experiences with ships, admittedly mostly troop transports,[xiii] I
>know that Diver could not exist as shown in the series. It is too small and
>woefully undermanned. Even if you gave major control of the ship to a
>computer system, there still would not be enough people to monitor the
>ship, let alone run it in combat.


Yes but keep in mind that Diver was not consciously designed for combat, but
rather to provide SHADO with a chain of "mini-aerodromes" for launching
air-defense fighters.


>[ii] While I can understand why they didn’t want any normal radar sets to
>pick UFOes up, I always amused at the fact that military radar or sonar,
>hopefully the best in the world, could not pick them up, even at close
>range. The Navy ship in Destruction is a prime example of this. Even at
>point blank range, they seemed to be blind as to where the attacks were
>coming from. Of course, it has been some time since I saw that show and I
>may be wrong about this.


Yes but could the UFOes be made of some sort of material which allows even
military radar to pass through without detecting it? Part of Lake's
"Utronic" system might involve a more focused frequency that reflects off
the particular skin of UFOes.


>[iii] A Navy design that actually landed on the water using skis rather
>then a flying boat design. Its usefulness was problematical at best. I do
>not believe that it ever became operational.


See http://www.nasm.si.edu/nasm/aero/aircraft/convair_seadart.htm for
information on the Convair XF2Y-1 Sea Dart, which actually could've been an
effective fighter plane had more funding and development been provided. If
you're ever in San Diego, and go to their Aerospace Museum in Balboa Park
where a Sea Dart is on display.

Michael

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Thomas" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 7:41 PM
Subject: [SHADO] SkyDiver Design Overboard? Enjoy


> combat capabilities by range. Judging from the information provided, I
would say that Sky has a Cruising Range of one thousand Nautical Miles (1850
KM) that is without any combat and throttles set at fifty eight percent
power. Combat range would more then likely be half of that, or less,
considering the fact that using full military power would burn fuel at much
higher rates.
>
> Skys Service Ceiling is 50,000 feet (15,240 meters). Its Operational Speed
is 900 Knots (1,668 KM/H), which is 1,042 miles per hour, not exactly
supersonic but then it was never meant to be.[i]
>


It would be interesting to see how you arrived at these numbers...

Dave H.

CONTENTS DELETED

I had heard of the Annual, but I have never had the opertunity to read it. I shall study the information given. As I noted in my original article, most of my speculation was based on extrapolating available military equipment, and then giving it a SHADO twist.
I still find it hard to believe that Sky is capable of multiple Mach flight. It is one hell of a dirty bird.
You are correct in saying that Cannon is only what is up on the screen or is from another "Official" source. Still, as noted, UFO left so many things unsaid but implied, otherwise SHADO wouldn't be able to work at all.
Part of the fun is seeing if we can diesect these things in a logical manner and come up with plasible explanations.

"Hemmings, R.K." <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dave H wrote:

> > Skys Service Ceiling is 50,000 feet (15,240 meters). Its
> Operational Speed
> is 900 Knots (1,668 KM/H), which is 1,042 miles per hour, not exactly
> supersonic but then it was never meant to be.[i]
> >
>
>
> It would be interesting to see how you arrived at these numbers...

Same here, as the official 1970 UFO annual:
http://www.darkstar2.demon.co.uk/annual/p0.htm
mentions rather different figures. This puts the SKY1
ceiling at something approaching 250,000 feet (see the
story SEASCOPE, which starts on page 53).
Interestingly, it also mentions DIVER cruising at 40 knots,
and that many SHADO craft are "atomic powered".
To me, the only true canon is what we see and hear in the
episodes, but this *is* as good a source as any other, and
it *is* sci-fi, after all, so...

SKY1 is powered by "atomic" engines. Prove me wrong.

TTFN!
--
Rob







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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).

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

These figures were cribed from what I would consider to be an modren equal to Sky. I took most of the proformance data from the Harrier, as far as range, speed and ceiling go.
It is my opinion that Sky wouldn't be anywhere near as fast as an F-18 or an F-14, based on the fact that it is such an jumble of design flaws. Even the ultimate Brick, the F-4 was only able to do Mach 2.
As far as the rest goes, it is based on weapons and other equipment of the day, as well as current technology backdated to Prototype status.
Some things were based on my own experiences as a pilot as well as those of other pilots that I know.

davrecon <[hidden email]> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Thomas"
To:
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 7:41 PM
Subject: [SHADO] SkyDiver Design Overboard? Enjoy


> combat capabilities by range. Judging from the information provided, I
would say that Sky has a Cruising Range of one thousand Nautical Miles (1850
KM) that is without any combat and throttles set at fifty eight percent
power. Combat range would more then likely be half of that, or less,
considering the fact that using full military power would burn fuel at much
higher rates.
>
> Skys Service Ceiling is 50,000 feet (15,240 meters). Its Operational Speed
is 900 Knots (1,668 KM/H), which is 1,042 miles per hour, not exactly
supersonic but then it was never meant to be.[i]
>

It would be interesting to see how you arrived at these numbers...

Dave H.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).

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

From: "Robert Thomas" <[hidden email]>
> These figures were cribed from what I would consider to be an modren equal
to Sky. I took most of the proformance data from the Harrier, as far as
range, speed and ceiling go.


A credible choice, the Harrier. Certainly a fuel hog. I don't think there is
anything close enough to the Sky plane in profile though, even the Harrier
much too sleek even for Sky. A brick would probably work just as well....

Just assuming you could coax it to fly, certainly Sky couldn't be multi mach
like the canon claims. I'd say you're right on with the speed estimates
given any reasonable powerplants. I would probably guess only subsonic at
lower levels though, as much for stability and control issues given MAC
shift and all, as well as for outrageous drag.

My guess of ceiling would be Sky was more of a hybrid type space plane,
given the show is sci fi, so we could throw conventional considerations out
the window here, and go with the cannon 250,000 ft. Maybe the engines are
some kind of jet-rocket hybrid? Up in those rarified flight regimes
aerodynamics become secondary and the top speed might then be supersonic.
Steering would then be assisted by thruster units.

My image of Sky is like that of a waddling duck - it goes everywhere, but
not too at home in any of it's elements.

Thanks for the input Robert!
Dave H.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Thomas" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 7:41 PM
Subject: [SHADO] SkyDiver Design Overboard? Enjoy



A few ideas just ambling through the letter -



>> Since the Sub is nuclear powered, they do not have to worry about large
fuel bunkers or other storage of quantities of fuel. However, there are some
fuel bunkers since the Sub employs some kind of hydrofoil like act called
"Sea Skimming" which requires a noisy start from the amidships turbine
section, as well as a puff of smoke as if from a starter cartridge of some
kind. If this ability was powered by the reactor, then you would not need
the cartridge to get the turbine or what ever it was, up to speed. You could
use the reactor to spin it up to speed, and then engage it with a clutch
type device. In SubSmash you can hear what is apparently a secondary
propulsion system kicking in before the sub begins to pick up speed. Either
that or it is the impellors way of saying that they do not work well half
out of the water.[vi]
>


Actually, I rather doubt this....
You'd need fuel storage for the Sky plane certainly, but why waste size,
weight, and complication on a dual source power system to power the sea
skimmer? It would be best powered symply by using superheated steam from the
surrounding sea water heated by the nuke plant and run through the turbines.
My guess is that "poof" was just something the producers put in there to be
cool without explanation.
The sea skimmer thing was something that always bothered me anyway. Here
they have this big heavy submarine floating stationary on top of the water
like it was made out of cork or styrofoam!



> Somewhere on board are fuel cells for Sky, since it runs on JP 5 (Or its
equivalent) as well as some spare parts and armaments. Since Sky would be
extremely hard to service while in the water, only minor maintaince and
arming is provided for while under sea conditions.[vii]
>
> 2: The reactor is located all the way in the stern of the boat, behind the
Captains and Crew Cabin. Thanks to the use of space age technology and the
fact that the reactor is only big enough to power the boat at ninety four
percent of the boats projected possible total need, the reactor chamber only
takes up forty three square feet. It comes in at just under three tons total
weight. One of the main reasons the reactor is in the rear of the boat is to
counter act the weight of Sky. When ever launch stations is called, the
computer begins to flood certain ballast tanks in a specific plan to counter
act the weight loss. Although they can't be seen because of the turbulence
caused by the launch of Sky, there are small impellors that provide a
counter thrust to keep Diver from pitching up onto its tail during a launch,
due to the sudden loss of Skys weight.
>


Reguardless of where the reactor core is located, I doubt it has to
counterballance anything, as the whole boat is probably ballanced for
neutral bouyancy in any configuration. Sky 1 would ideally be neutrally
bouyant, thus it's separation would cause no effect to the remaining
submarine. You could probably use ballast air from the submarine vented into
simple chambers in the shell of Sky 1 for this.


Yeah, a little too much spare time today...waiting on resin from the car to
dry.
Dave H.

davrecon <[hidden email]> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Thomas"
To:
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 7:41 PM
Subject: [SHADO] SkyDiver Design Overboard? Enjoy



A few ideas just ambling through the letter -




Actually, I rather doubt this....
You'd need fuel storage for the Sky plane certainly, but why waste size,
weight, and complication on a dual source power system to power the sea
skimmer? It would be best powered symply by using superheated steam from the
surrounding sea water heated by the nuke plant and run through the turbines.
My guess is that "poof" was just something the producers put in there to be
cool without explanation.
The sea skimmer thing was something that always bothered me anyway. Here
they have this big heavy submarine floating stationary on top of the water
like it was made out of cork or styrofoam!


Funny I thought that that was my point exactly, but we have to go with what they give us on the show.


> 2: The reactor is located all the way in the stern of the boat, behind the
Captains and Crew Cabin. Thanks to the use of space age technology and the
fact that the reactor is only big enough to power the boat at ninety four
percent of the boats projected possible total need, the reactor chamber only
takes up forty three square feet. It comes in at just under three tons total
weight. One of the main reasons the reactor is in the rear of the boat is to
counter act the weight of Sky. When ever launch stations is called, the
computer begins to flood certain ballast tanks in a specific plan to counter
act the weight loss. Although they can't be seen because of the turbulence
caused by the launch of Sky, there are small impellors that provide a
counter thrust to keep Diver from pitching up onto its tail during a launch,
due to the sudden loss of Skys weight.
>


Reguardless of where the reactor core is located, I doubt it has to counterballance anything, as the whole boat is probably ballanced for neutral bouyancy in any configuration. Sky 1 would ideally be neutrally bouyant, thus it's separation would cause no effect to the remaining submarine. You could probably use ballast air from the submarine vented into simple chambers in the shell of Sky 1 for this.


Yeah, a little too much spare time today...waiting on resin from the car to dry.
Dave H.


One of my friends is currently at sea aboard a boomer operating God only knows where. He once told me that they had to account for the weight of everything on the boat and how it changed when they were balancing the ballast tanks, because any shifting of weight would lead to the Center of Gravity changing, and thus rearranging the mass needed to balance the boat.

It is the same when I go flying, I have to calculate the weight of my fuel, passengers and everything else that goes in the plane, then figgure out what my "Safe" weight and performance is at that weight.

There have been a number of crashes because people didn't do this right before they tried to take off, and I can't see SkyDiver being any diffrent. The computers would have to begin shifting ballast before Sky launched, and there would still be a minute or two before the pumps could catch up with the new Weight Distribution.







---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

--- In [hidden email], Robert Thomas wrote:
> A few ideas just ambling through the letter ...

To be light enough to fly, a jet fighter must be much more fragile
than a submarine. As I have written before, sticking a jet fighter on
a submarine's nose and expecting (it and its connection with the sub)
to withstand all the knocks and strains of cutting the water and
whatever the sub may bump its nose against, is totally impracticable.
In the real world Sky 1 would have to be in an onboard hanger, and
also would have to be much more aerodynamic in shape, more like a
missile in shape. A fast manned aircraft with a missile-type tail is
possible: compare some of the experimental rocket planes such as the
X-100: see http://www.ais.org/~schnars/aero/x-planes.htm

Indeed, when I sketched out some UFO '99 craft a few years back, I
re-designed SkyDiver as an underwater aircraft carrier with a STOVL deck on
the back and a hanger for Sky 1 at the tail section. Can't lay my hands on
the drawings now though......
Grant.


-----Original Message-----
From: anthonyappleyard [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 19 June 2003 06:37
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [SHADO] Re: SkyDiver Design Overboard? Enjoy


--- In [hidden email], Robert Thomas wrote:
> A few ideas just ambling through the letter ...

To be light enough to fly, a jet fighter must be much more fragile
than a submarine. As I have written before, sticking a jet fighter on
a submarine's nose and expecting (it and its connection with the sub)
to withstand all the knocks and strains of cutting the water and
whatever the sub may bump its nose against, is totally impracticable.
In the real world Sky 1 would have to be in an onboard hanger, and
also would have to be much more aerodynamic in shape, more like a
missile in shape. A fast manned aircraft with a missile-type tail is
possible: compare some of the experimental rocket planes such as the
X-100: see http://www.ais.org/~schnars/aero/x-planes.htm





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



****************************************************************************
*******
Legally privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this
message.
If you are not the addressee(s) legally indicated in this
message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person),
you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you
should destroy this message, and notify us immediately. If you or your
employer does not consent to Internet e-mail messages of this kind,
please advise us immediately. Opinions, conclusions and other
information expressed in this message are not given or endorsed by West
Herts College unless otherwise indicated by an authorised
representative independent of this message. Please note that neither
West Herts College nor I accept any responsibility for viruses and it
is your responsibility to scan attachments (if any).




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

Remember though that an aircraft moving at supersonic speed is actually
under forces somewhat similar to a submarine. Air in the shock cones is
compressed to a state where it behaves much like a viscous fluid and the
forces involved in supersonic flight are enormous though applied somewhat
differently.

For a loose analogy of the comparison for skydiver hull forces that you can
wrap your imagination around, you might think of supersonic flight; a
little like pressing a red-hot poker straight into a block of soft wax,
(not considering the flame of burning wax, just the force). Compared to
subsonic flight; which would be like the same poker, unheated, swishing
through water. Submarine motion on this comparison would be like the
unheated poker mushing through light honey or thick oil (SAE 90).

S


>Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:01:52 +0100
>From: Grant Wray <[hidden email]>
>Subject: RE: Re: SkyDiver Design Overboard? Enjoy
>Indeed, when I sketched out some UFO '99 craft a few years back, I
>re-designed SkyDiver as an underwater aircraft carrier with a STOVL deck
on

The image of pushing a red hot heated poker through a block of wax and
say that this is like a plane in supersonic flight is far from correct. I
don't know anything about making planes or the dynamic of getting them to fly
faster than sound but I do know something of ballistics and the what happens with
bullets going faster and slower than the speed of sound and one going fast
than sound is not like a hot poker.
Air causes resistance. The resistance of the air in front of a moving
projectile or plane causes the air to form what is called a Precursor Wave.
This is the air that is in front of the projectile being pushed ahead of it
by that resistance. The closer to the speed of sound (1087.3 feet per second a
0 degrees )it gets the greater this mass of air gets because it is pushing
more air because the resistance becomes greater. This is what led to the term
the sound barrier. While planes did not break it for years bullets were doing
it long before them. When the speed of sound is exceeded the resistance does
not go away. It is still there on it is now being pushed faster. That is
why is easier to make a streamlinered shape be it bullet or aircraft past the
sound barrier than it is to less aerodymanic one. However you can make a very
unstreamlined projectile go faster than sound. The .38 Special wadcutter is a
bullet that is flat on the nose. It's like a cookie cutter to make neat
round holes in paper targets. This very unaerodymanic shape can be fired from a
a magnum at at over 1100 feet per second. Not much over the speed of sound
but still faster. The standard hollow point pistol bullet has a profile very
like the nose of Sky One and I have been able to fire one at 2000 feet per
second which is just short of Mach 2.


James K.


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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Thomas" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: [SHADO] SkyDiver Design Overboard? Enjoy


>
> One of my friends is currently at sea aboard a boomer operating God only
knows where. He once told me that they had to account for the weight of
everything on the boat and how it changed when they were balancing the
ballast tanks, because any shifting of weight would lead to the Center of
Gravity changing, and thus rearranging the mass needed to balance the boat.
>

.........

and I can't see SkyDiver being any diffrent. The computers would have to
begin shifting ballast before Sky launched, and there would still be a
minute or two before the pumps could catch up with the new Weight
Distribution.
>
>

--------------------------------------------------------

Agreed about the crew and stuff moving about the interior of the boat,
that would have to be compensated for by an active system, as it would be
quite random. Indeed, every time somebody flushed a toilet, a few pounds
would move from here to there. However, compared to the overall weight of
the submarine, these weight shifts would be relatively "unsevere" you might
say, and easily compensated for. The reactor core, however, is fixed in
position, and the rest of the boat could be built in balance around it.

Also, the Sky plane at the front of the boat is fixed in position, and
of constant weight. Proactive balancing could be accomplished during fueling
to keep it neutral. Refueling could be done immediatly after termination of
the previous flight, or any time at their discression. This would keep the
plane neutral at all times, totally independent of the boat, mind you.
Possibly the weight transfer of the pilot upon his moving from the sub to
the cockpit (that's very small) could effect trim, but I'd suspect that to
be trivial.

The launch of the plane could be effected AFTER the computerised weight
balancing took place for the fueling operation. Thus the plane is
effectively weightless, and has no ill effect upon separation.

The boat & plane would both be trimmed during fueling and completed
before the launch. Trim them both, independently, to be neutral. Fueling
would most likely be a slower process, requiring less powerful ballast
pumping.
It would just make good engineering sense to ballast the plane for neutral
bouyancy at all times on the cruise. Simpicity makes for better design. Less
severe demands on the pumps. Less chance for foul ups.

You would have to constantly monitor and fine trim the boat for crew
activities during cruise as you said, but it removes the need for that
"slam balance" at plane launch! You also eliminate the need for those nose
thrusters on the sub....

Ask your friends how the missiles are arranged around the sub. I'll bet
you they tell you they're arranged around the CG for good ballance. I'll
even bet their launch sequence is planned to maintain it that way, to
minimize reballasting in case they have to let a lot fly....
In that case, they can't ballast each individual missile for neutral
bouyancy, because they are INSIDE the sub.
or.....
Is the weight of a missile the same as the weight of the water that floods
into it's silo on launch? How about a torpedo? What's your boomer friend say
about that?

Dave H

It will be some time befor I can contact him as he has gone to sea and wont be back for another four and a half months!!!
I rather doubt they will let him check E-mail when they do asnything on the surface. It isn't like a carrier or other surface ship where in they are in constat radio contact with land.

davrecon <[hidden email]> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Thomas"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: [SHADO] SkyDiver Design Overboard? Enjoy


In that case, they can't ballast each individual missile for neutral
bouyancy, because they are INSIDE the sub.
or.....
Is the weight of a missile the same as the weight of the water that floods
into it's silo on launch? How about a torpedo? What's your boomer friend say
about that?

Dave H





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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

It has many years since I last worked on a missile sub (I was a
designer on the Tridents) but my fading memory is that the missiles
weighed less than the flooded tube. Basically, the missiles are in a
dry tube, with a styrofoam cap under the pressure door. When they are
ejected out the cap breaks, missile leaves and water floods in. The
diving oficer has to compensate for the additional weight, so to help
they would ripple fire - one from the left, one from the right, then
the left, etc. You can still feel the boat changing attitude, though,
when the missile leaves the tube.

Hope that helps.

Bill


--- In [hidden email], Robert Thomas
<screwedmorethenonce@y...> wrote:
> It will be some time befor I can contact him as he has gone to sea
and wont be back for another four and a half months!!!
> I rather doubt they will let him check E-mail when they do
asnything on the surface. It isn't like a carrier or other surface
ship where in they are in constat radio contact with land. floods
> into it's silo on launch? How about a torpedo? What's your boomer
friend say
> about that?
>
> Dave H
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]