W/RB57F

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Actually *I* didn't say let's look at the glide ratio, just correcting the one engine comment. But I think the -57 would have a hard time gliding that far. I can see a U-2 gliding that distance, but it was basically designed as a glider with an engine. The -57 had a lot of extra weight on it which would give it a worse glide ratio.


I can understand that last statment for sure in comparision to the U-2 it does look quite large. sorry if it sounded like I was trying to jump on the glide ratio subject I guess as a glider pilot things like that jump out to me and it would be interesting to take a look at if I get the time. Anyways on the weight issue was that due to construction (being orginaly a canberra) or equipment or a combination of the 2 which seems likely to me.




posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   
I used to fly gliders too, which is why I don't think the -57 could glide nearly as far as the U-2. I know when I talked to the NASA guys about their WB-57 they said it had a better than expected glide ratio, but nowhere near as good as a U-2 was. It was a long time ago when I talked to them though and I can't remember what they said it was.



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Actually *I* didn't say let's look at the glide ratio, just correcting the one engine comment. But I think the -57 would have a hard time gliding that far. I can see a U-2 gliding that distance, but it was basically designed as a glider with an engine. The -57 had a lot of extra weight on it which would give it a worse glide ratio.


You can see a U-2 gliding 4000+ miles?



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 12:34 AM
link   
The U-2 has a 28-1 glide ratio. Do the math, from 80,000 feet to figure out how far it can glide. In descents it would usually travel 37nm for every 1,000 feet it came down.



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The U-2 has a 28-1 glide ratio. Do the math, from 80,000 feet to figure out how far it can glide. In descents it would usually travel 37nm for every 1,000 feet it came down.


I just did. You say a 28-1 glide ratio, then you say 37NM per thousand feet. 37 NM, which comes out to a 1-217 glide ratio.

Sorry, nothing is gliding from Moscow to South Korea. If I go with your 28-1, that comes out to 437 miles till sea level in that configuration

I think you probably need to check your math.



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   
If I had actually DONE the math and said "I know that a U-2 can glide that far" then yeah, I'd have to recheck it. However, I said that I can see a U-2 doing that, which is simply saying that from looking at a U-2 and what I know about it, it's a great glider and the only thing I can think of that could possibly do it.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   
"The -57 had a lot of extra weight on it which would give it a worse glide ratio."

Glide ratio is based on aerodynamics (Lift over drag ratio) not weight. Take two aircraft exactly the same but at different weights and they will glide the same distance. The heavier one will get there sooner because it flys a higher speed to maintain the optimum L/D ratio. Glider pilots who fly competition with water ballast understand this but many power pilots do not.

The U-2 and RB-57F have comparable (but not the same) glide ratios.

RB57FPILOT

[edit on 29-10-2007 by RB57FPILOT]



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
And the RB-57 DID have extra drag on it as well. It carried two extra underwing mounted engines, it had a thicker wing, and other drag creating things that the U-2 doesn't.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   
With respect to the absurd Moscow-Korea glide argument:

1) Note that the statement of 14-12-05 by unnamed-1 simply said, in part, "we had one shut down engines over Moscow...".
2) Also note that the WB57F is a 4-engine aircraft. (two TF33 and two JT60).

Unnamed-1 never alleged all (or which) engines were shut down. Therefore it is entirely possible to shut down two (even three at much reduced altitude) engines over Moscow and continue flight until fuel exhaustion. The whole argument is moot until unnamed-1 clarifies his statement.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Two extra engines? are you sure?



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
The RB-57F carried two TF-33-P-11 turbofan engines, rated at 18,000lbs thrust, as well as two 3,300lb thrust J-60-P-9 engines mounted under the wings. The J-60s were airstarted and idled until they reached 32,000 feet, and full throttle applied above 42,000 feet.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Yes, the RB-57F did, but majority of those made were the D model.

Still, an interesting aircraft though. The WB-57 recently was used in Afghanistan



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by RB57FPILOT
 


My uncle was Major Lester Lackey and he was lost over the Black Sea in an RB57F on December 14, 1965. Is it possible that you knew him? A long shot, but thought I would ask. He was stationed at Wiesbaden, West Germany, but was stationed temporarily at an AFB in Turkey at the time of his disappearance.



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


Yes, and we're discussing the F model. NASA still flies the WB-57F all over the world doing various missions. They mostly use it for shuttle launches though.



posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



NASA 926 is currently at Nellis AFB

NASA 926



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


That's my uncle. Who is this? email me at russ.lackey@yahoo.com



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Its the EB-57E model but I could not resist.




This was taken last month at the Wings over the Rockies museum






[edit on 9/26/08 by FredT]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The U-2 has a 28-1 glide ratio. Do the math, from 80,000 feet to figure out how far it can glide. In descents it would usually travel 37nm for every 1,000 feet it came down.



U-2C DEAD ENGINE GLIDE DISTANCE
Under Zero wind conitions, the airplane will glide about 34 nautical miles per 10,000 feet of altitude in the clean configuration with the engine inoperative.(windmilling or frozen)
Optimum glide distance is obtained by descending at speeds which provide the maximum lift-to-drag ratio(LTDR).

The speed for maximum LTDR(and therefor optimum glide speed) is a function of gross weight.

Glide distances will be reduced if any of these are selected
Gear is down
Speed brakes out
15 degrees of flap
gus postion
slipper tanks fitted.







new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join