Posted by tchbnk on Jun 11, 2003; 12:03am
URL: https://www.shado-forum.com/Re-Skydiver-Design-insights-tp1500977.html

Hi Shawn,

Thank you very much for your detailed technical comments!

Shawn Kelly wrote:
> ALSO, as for the Sky launching rocket motors, you get a far better
thrust to weight ratio for solid rocket motors rather than liquid
propelled ones.
> I firmly vote for solid fuel boosters.
> Solids are also very much more reliable than liquid fueled motors,
they can be waterproofed easily and would be easy to auto-reload by
diver with cartridges, (just like overgrown Estes model rocket engine
cartridges).
> Liquid fuel rockets often require overhaul between firings, all
large ones that I know of do, only the small ones seem to tolerate
multiple firings.
> Multiple firings of a liquid fuel booster would also be complicated
by being submerged between flights.
> I see nothing in Sky1's launch characteristics (as shown to us)
that indicate other than SRBs and SRBs just make a lot more sense.
> A pilot could easily nose down and fly level without throttling up
the main engine if he wished to stop climbing after launch,
throttling up the main engine only after the SRBs burn out.
> If he wished to go straight to max ceiling then he would throttle
up the mains as soon as he left the water and maintain his climb
using both until the SRBs burnt out.

Hurrah, I've got an encouraging supporter on the solid fuel booster
theory!
On the other hand, I have stumbled on an idea...
I suppose that the SHADO's fighter aircraft named Sky was developed
step by step.
In the first place, there should have been some prototypes, which
were used for test flights and accumutated many data.
Then, the first production type, Sky 1, was manufactured and sent
into battle in 1980.
Nest, the second one, the Sky 2 which was slightly improved would
follow.
Therefore, we may be able to think that one of the variants of Skys
has solid rocket boosters and another one has liquid fuel rocket
engines.

For reference, please remember the Interceptors.
In the early episode 'Computer Affair', the Interceptor could not fly
in space independently without the instructions from the Moonbase
control, and it had a collision with a Ufo.
But in the later episodes, Interceptors fly just like fighter
aircraft and purchase Ufos.
Probably, the advanced version of the Interceptors were equipped with
the autonomous navigation system something like INS and GPS.

> LASTLY, Those doors on the bottom of Sky1...

Which one, sir? (The one in the best position?)

> I would venture that they are actually exit doors for water.
> First off, a large portion of sky will have to be filled with water
and pressurized to prevent sky from simply being crushed by the
water.
> Not so much by the static pressure of just being submerged but more
by the hydrodynamic forces of plowing through the water at 40 knots.

Yes, indeed, it is quite difficult to let Sky 1, which is basically a
light and fragile aircraft, withstand the water pressure.
In the episode 'Destruction', the Skydiver went underwater, the depth
900 feet?
When the Skydiver submerges, the Sky is unmanned except its launch
sequence.
Therefore it is a very good idea to pressurize the inside of the Sky,
and probably it is the only practical way to prevent being crushed by
the water pressure.
I, however, am afraid that it is not very good to fill the inside of
the Sky with water, especially the cockpit!
So how about filling it with pressurized air just like ballast tanks?


Kaoru