What's the PCC-method (Regarding the water-methanol pipe)? The F-4 can do Mach 3.2? Or was that a special model?
do we have a SR-71 intercept thread?did not engage "lock" light until there was a firing solution with viable PK... and it was quite common to get "silent kill" on SR-71...
F-4 never went Mach 3.2. There was an F-4X concept with water/methanol injection that would have been able to- in theory. Not be be confused with the Skyburner runs. (There's info on the F-4X on this site somewhere.)
avatar said:do we have a SR-71 intercept thread?
If we don't I guess you can start one , starting by posting your sources, we can discuss the validity of what those sources say.
what do you think?
KJ_Lesnick said:What's AB1 and AB2? Afterburner stages?
r16 said:sorry to bring this topic up but ı have mentioned that the F-15 had F-16 like wing-fuselage blending at the initial design , but it was not taken .
R-15 is simmilar to ramjet, and unlike other engines, with growth of speed also grows thrust (up to the certain limits, of course). If memory serves me well, at the ground thrust is12-14tonnes, but on Н=20, М=2.35 is around 20tonnes (from „technical description“, part 2) There were restrictions on switching off the afterburners, therefore it was necessary to wait for while until speed drops below М=2.2 . While accelerating to M2.6-2.7 or more, speed grows much more quickly and at that point it is important not to overspeed. Getting at higher altitude does not solve a problem, because Mach number grows and it seems, psychologically, that it will never drop.
The airframe fatigue does not depend on speed, unless it caused twisting(???) (I am not an engineer).