FS2004: New SR71 - very, very stunning.

[chris]

http://www.fsclips.com/commercial.html

See the video on that page. It shows a new SR71 Blackbird available for FS2004. It's a payware one, but I don't know about the website for the developers.

But the plane looks truly stunning.

Wonder if any will find their way into online flight. Could be interesting to have more high-altitude air-traffic, although some routes are already reportedly very hazardous with heavy SST traffic.

Hopefully this SR71 would have a semi-decent autopilot systems.. 3 hour flights done manually would be daunting to say the least. I'm not normally a fan of military aircraft in FS2004, I prefer airliners (enjoyable F18 excepted for short flights only!), but this one looks like it might be worth getting.

From what I read on Avsim IIRC this thing takes a long time to slow down. So any virtual Concorde pilots (particularly SSTSim users) would likely feel well at home with this SR71. Planning would be much the same, except to cater for higher speeds and higher altitudes.

[Frank N. O.]

That's the second video I've seen of a FS9 payware Blackbird, the first is allegedly made with Sony and connected to the movie Stealth, even though to my knowledge there is no Blackbird in the movie but I've only seen the trailers and probably won't see the movie until I'm bored one day and find it in the half-price DVD section in the supermarket.

This brings up a slight lack in FS, for these kinds of planes anyway. At least the two former versions of FS had keys for tailhook, wing-fold and concorde visor and afterburner switch, but FS doesn't simulate carrier landings with arrestor cables and they didn't have a Concorde after FS2000Pro (or maybe also the std. version I can't remember I only had the pro version) and most jets in FS just turn off the burner animation when you put on full throttle and it doesn't need, nor aknowledge the FS button for afterburner.

I'm sure most here know it already but I'll recap, becuase of the extreme heat generated at Mach 3 the plane expands and after tests they found out it couldn't fly unless it was made loose when it was cold and therefore the fuel tanks leak, therefore the Blackbird takes off with nearly empty tanks and refuels in the air before accelerating up to mission-speed to minimize fuel-loss. Sidenote: The story goes that the specially developed jet-fuel, JP5? Will not ignite with normal fire but not all people believe it. The story in a tv-show years ago called Reaching For The Skies the person interviewed said that they were told if you poured a bucket of the fuel on a fire, the fire would go out but he wouldn't try it.

On another similar point: The classic story went that the Air Force came with a scheme they wanted to get the plane painted in and the engineers laughed and said it would be a waste of money since when it returned it would be scourched black from friction, but the Blackbirds still have painted letters and stripes on them (in red to minimize visibility allegedely) and the other Mach-3 superplane of the time, the North American XB-70 Valkyrie was pure white.

And to corner off the high-level supersonic plane-coloumn then I read that one reason the Boeing Concorde competitor failed because their goal of mach 2.7 was too extreme since just over mach 2.0 the heat is on a level that normal materials can't stand so the costs would be much higher than the Concorde, Chris can you confirm or deny this?

Nice to have RP back, I missed it, great work :wave:
Frank

[chris]

Indeed nice to have RP back. Don't know what happened, but we are back. :)

The SR71's fuel was indeed extremely stable. It apparently required a special chemical mixture to be added in order to make the fuel ignite. I did know what the chemical was but I've forgotten. :rolleyes:

Sadly in FS, most jets don't simulate afterburners properly. Some do, some use the SHIFT+F4 key. Others also use the other less known features like tail-hooks, folding wings, etc.

The Boeing swing-wing planes failed for a number of reasons I believe, and I'll list them:

- Politics
- Swing-wing design problems (like F111)
- Excessive weight
- Over-ambitious design

The excessive weight apparently put the plane at MTOW before any fuel or passengers were theoretically added. (big oops!). Politics of course was too many companies doing too many designs in competition with each other, when MD, Boeing, Lockheed should really have got together from the start to undertake such a complex project.

Swing-wing designs are great, allowing high speed efficiency, and excellent low speed handling dynamics. But at those times, I don't think we had the same exotic light materials we have had in recent times, so it means the plane would be very heavy. And that follows on to the 3rd problem, of weight.

Concorde in many respects was a less-ambitious but realistic design. It was achievable and flew exactly as it was intended. The developers of it (one of them) had plans for a Mach 3 SST, but instead went with the Mach 2 design.

The proposed Concorde B-model was highly interesting, and if they'd gone with it as Aerospatiale boss at the time Jaques Mitterand suggested would likely have been a huge commercial success.

It ditched the SNECMA reheat equipment (a bit sad because a Concorde with reheat on at night looks wild), and instead added a 3rd turbine stage to the engine. This reportedly would give huge power increases at all altitudes, and the engine would reportedly have allowed the newer plane design to fly for what was conservatively estimated to be 7000km. Given that the existing reheated version ended up achieving 7340km range, the non-reheated one surely would have exceeded that easily.

Other changes including "droops" to the front edges of the wings also would have reduced the Angle of Attack on approach and take-off phases of flight, and that would have reduced noise levels by not requiring the engines to be throttled as much.

If they are thinking of a new SST design (which JAXA and Airbus are), then the Concorde B is the one they need to look at carefully, and apply current engine technology to it.

Look at the following page carefully to see what had been proposed in the early 80's:

http://www.concordesst.com/concordeb.html

The most important gains would obviously have been improved journey times, (through faster acceleration to Mach 2.02), reduced noise and improved fuel economy. Though I believe the new design is aimed at flying at Mach 2.4 at altitudes in excess of 140,000ft, meaning it could fly pretty much anywhere without speed restrictions.

It would need to use particular airways for acceleration and decelleration, but once up to speed and altitude, it'd be pretty much free fly over land with little or no disruptions to anyone on the ground.

[chris]

The chemical used to make the JP7 fuel in the SR71 ignite was a substance called tetraethyl borane. It is an extremely volatile substance.

[Frank N. O.]

Aha, so that's how it ignited, like the two chemicals for the little rocket-bullitt used in the last years of WWII by the Nazis? The one without undercarriage Me-163 Comet I think it was.

But where was this chemical stored in the Blackbird? And why couldn't they "just" have the main fuel stored in the same way? And I just thought of something else, the Valkyrie could also hit Mach-3 but I've never heard of it leaking fuel, of course I don't know if the Valkyrie could sustain Mach-3 that long but still even a short time would heat up the fuselage right?

I actually have some other questions of flying and flightsims that I haven't seen answered any other place but does anyone here know what FS9 can simulate and what it can't? I've tried looking a little at Simviation forums but I can't find much info there when I look, although I seem to be bad at figuring out the correctly working search keywords.

Frank

[chris]

The SR71 could do over Mach 3. The XB-70 IIRC wasn't quite so swift.

FS9 does appear to have a few limitations, one I think is with the way drag is applied. But to be honest, you could probably get around any FS9 limitations by simply programming your own modules that take over. Various planes are around with entirely new autopilot systems totally unrelated to the standard internal FS9 autopilot. :)

[Frank N. O.]

According to a quick google then AV/2 hit mach-3+, the general data lists 3310 kph, that's good enough for me, and temperatures of 450 C was also listed. It also said the Valkyrie had the best lift to drag ratio of any plane except the D-21 drone, that was never designed to land and was unmanned.

I hope you don't mind me turning the topic on a parrallel runway but I read in the FS2000Pro manual that Anti-Lock brakes were constructed first for the Concorde, is that true? I know it was invented for airplanes first before the Jensen Interceptor FF introduced it in ground vehicles (and it was also the first AWD sportscar ever) but was it specifically for the Concorde? I belive for the Jensen it was said it was a Dunlop design.

Chris do you know how tires are simulated in FS9? I always think they act so strange, both with planes and the few cars made for it (Enzo, Corvette C3, 993 GT2, VW Type-1, XK120).

Now you mentioned modules, is it possible to program an add-on that realistically simulates a turbo-electric hybrid propulsion system with electric motor driving double counter-rotating ducted fans?

Frank

[chris]

Yeah, Concorde used Dunlop Maxaret anti-skid braking system. This appeared in civilian use first on the Aerospatiale Caravelle jet airliner. (IIRC).

Some might say it was Boeing who had the idea first, but, in fact Boeing merely contracted another company called Hydro-Aire to develop the Hytrol Mark I antiskid system for the USAF B47.

In any case, Maxaret is highly useful for any plane making very speedy landings.

I don't know about tyre simulation in FS9 so I'll refrain from commenting on that if you don't mind. :)

[Frank N. O.]

Thanks for the info about the ABS :)

I fully understand that you won't comment on a subject you don't know enough about, but can you answer on if FS only simulates spoilers (aka spoilerons?) or also speed brakes? And if it's possible to make a plane with seperate L/R rudder like the Rutan LongEZ? Since there's only one rudder-axis then I doubt it, but maybe a module can be made to simulate it, specifically the double-function of speed-brakes by pressing down both pedals at the same time, like the LongEZ can also do. One was actually built near where I grew up south of Copenhagen, it was shown on tv in the late 80's I think and I'm sure I saw it fly near over our house once, the shape is quite easy to recognize, and I think I also saw a Starship too! A danish answer to Trump owned the only one in DK so it was plausible since it seemed to turn towards Roskilde Airport (EKRK).

Frank

[chris]

One of the dramas of plane development seems to be the more realistic and accurate you make something, the more computer intensive it becomes.


On specific rudder axis things, I'd imagine in that case you are limited to what you are given. Although you can find some planes with the rudder moving in the wind appropriately. ;)

FS has its flip up spoiler function. I don't know about other particular things like speed-brakes (like on fighter-planes). Most suitable addons visually simulate them, but I suppose they use the flip-up spoiler function instead to physically offer the same effect.. Or maybe they don't... I'm not sure. :confused:

[Frank N. O.]

That's good enough for me Chris, thanks.

Now for a question you might know a little more about, or someone else (Venom) might: In all our talks about supersonic long-range planes I forgot one, the Lancer (I think is the name), the cancelled B-1 and the production B-1B. Did they fly at supersonic speed for extended periods or just for attack?

Frank

[chris]

IIRC, B1B cruised at 725kts ground speed.

That equals about Mach 1.25. That is supersonic, but not wildly fast. At 200ft, it could do 520kts (scary fast at such low altitudes!)

That's not bad performance for a 216t (MTOW) plane with only 64.9kN (without reheat) or 136.9KN total (with reheat). The cruising range is also not bad.

The 181t (MTOW) Concorde fitted with Olympus 593-610-14-28 production engines had in comparison 142 kN (without reheat) and 169 kN (with reheat). Much more potent and faster, but less long ranged - only able to go normally around 7200km versus 12,000km for the B1B.

[Frank N. O.]

I just looked at the manual for my old Amiga-game Birds of Prey and saw that the figures say the Blackbird can carry 15868 kg of fuel but due to the leaking below mach-1 it takes off nearly empty, if someone was to make a simulation of a Blackbird like with the SSTSim Concorde, wouldn't that be a major problem since to my knowledge there is no way of simulating mid-air refueling in FS9 (as it actually was in the previously mentioned game using a KC-10A Extender, that to my knowledge also exists for FS with animated fuel-boom etc.). I assume that taking off with a full fuel-load would be different than taking off with empty tanks isn't it?

Greetings and thanks for at least replying to my answers even though you don't know the answer, it's at least nice to know someone has read it. Btw do you visit any other FS forums than the SSTSim forum?
Frank

[chris]

Actually, you take off empty, then just use the refuel short-cut. ;)

[Frank N. O.]

You can do that? Oh, I didn't know that :blush:
Still, refueling mid-air would be cool, heck even the line-up would be a challenge in itself if I remember correctly from Birds of Prey. I should get the Amiga 1200 hooked up to my old but trusty 21" Philips Stereo-tv, and remember to see the 3D intro too :cool:

Frank