NASA Using Two 1960s Vintage Jets To Chase The Eclipse

R

rgMekanic

[H]ard|News
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
6,943
Nasa will be sending up two WB-57F jets from the 1960s to 50,000 feet to chase the eclipse. At 460 mph they will be in the shadow for four minutes and above any cloud cover. At cruising altitude, the sky will be 20-30 times darker than on the ground, enhancing the details in the sun's atmosphere, and allowing for the best images yet. Data will be recorded onboard the aircraft but also transmitted through ViaSat satellite downlink for live broadcast on NASA’s site.

Pretty amazing stuff, can't wait to see the images that NASA produces from the eclipse. Makes me wonder if they could dust off an SR-71 what kinds of images it would be able to get from that altitude; but the article does mention that the higher speeds causes distortion from airflow around the plane.

The flight's high-resolution video should be able to detect slight wave motion in the corona - the sun’s atmosphere, which is usually overwhelmed by the star’s surface brightness - allowing the scientists to determine the strength and sizes of the waves, along with their potential influence on temperature.
 
Last edited:
The SR-71 Blackbird was an incredibly difficult plane to maintain(due to titanium and space allowances for thermal expansion) so I can understand why they were not used. The SR-71 Blackbird leaked on the ground worse than Chinooks and that is saying something.
 
DaedalusHelios said:
The SR-71 Blackbird was an incredibly difficult plane to maintain(due to titanium and space allowances for thermal expansion) so I can understand why they were not used. The SR-71 Blackbird leaked on the ground worse than Chinooks and that is saying something.
Click to expand...

No, the SR-71 was not more difficult to maintain than the U-2. There is a tremendous amount of literature out there about the political reasons why the SR-71 was retired the first and second time. It's an interesting read on how the chair force is a complete political machines when it comes to projects and how dysfunctional they are. F-35 fiasco should not be a surprise, the A-10 issues now should not be a surprise, the O/V-10 canning should not be a surprise, the scam that is the OA-X project should not be a surprise, etc. It's like the Navy watched the Air Force and was like "hold my beer" see ya Oliver Hazard Perry class, see ya Seawolf class, boom here is a LCS cluster, toss in some Zumwalt shitshow, America class we can fuck that up too, and bam drop a Ford Class bundle of misery on top.
 
Paul_Johnson said:
No, the SR-71 was not more difficult to maintain than the U-2. There is a tremendous amount of literature out there about the political reasons why the SR-71 was retired the first and second time. It's an interesting read on how the chair force is a complete political machines when it comes to projects and how dysfunctional they are. F-35 fiasco should be not surprise, the A-10 issues now should not be a surprise, the O/V-10 canning should not be a surprise, the scam that is the OA-X project should not be a surprise, etc. It's like the Navy watched the Air Force and was like "hold my beer" see ya Oliver Hazard Perry class, see ya Seawolf class, boom here is a LCS cluster, toss in some Zumwalt shitshow, America class we can fuck that up too, and bam drop a Ford Class bundle of misery on top.
Click to expand...

I only know how difficult the SR-71 was to maintain and not the U-2. I have never been through the maintenance literature on the U-2 but I have been through the old SR-71 repair documentation. The required usage of titanium tools on the airframe is a hassle. Leaking fuel immediately after fueling is a safety risk as well. Although, I know very little about the U-2 so maybe that was even worse in other ways. One of my instructors in Aviation school worked on them and had associated literature we were allowed to view. I wish I had the pleasure to look around inside of one. I know nothing of the political side of the selection of these aircraft as well. But I appreciate the information.
 
Last edited:
I just looked up the speed of the dark shadow (the umbra), as it moves across the US.
  • 2410mph in Western Oregon
  • 1747mph in central Nebraska
  • 1462mph in Western Kentucky
  • 1502mph near Charleston SC
Oregon would be difficult for any plane to track.
 
DaedalusHelios said:
Leaking fuel immediately after fueling is a safety risk as well.
Click to expand...

Small correction. It is not nearly the hazard you may assume. JP-7 is hard it ignite which is part of the reason that triethylborane was needed to get the J-58's started (plus the start cart). It was specifically formulated as a blend stock fuel rather than conventional distillate to be stable at very high temperatures (so it could also be a coolant) and still fluid at very low temps. It is a rather interesting fuel.
 
One of the biggest problems with the SR71's is the fact that it uses a special fuel and you have to have multiple tankers for each flight and they can only service that one aircraft.
 
VRT said:
One of the biggest problems with the SR71's is the fact that it uses a special fuel and you have to have multiple tankers for each flight and they can only service that one aircraft.
Click to expand...

That isn't a terribly large problem. Most fast movers need multiple tankers each flight if they are dirty, ferrying, doing CAP, etc. Then the fuel cost difference doesn't really matter once you are tankering as the cost isn't the fuel itself but the tankering. The KC-135Q (later T) were modified to keep their fuel supplies separate but there was nothing to keep the tanks from being reconverted if needed. So, the special status of the tankers was only temporary. All in all, there were no real logisitcal reasons to kill the SR-71. It was political.
 
DaedalusHelios said:
I only know how difficult the SR-71 was to maintain and not the U-2. I have never been through the maintenance literature on the U-2 but I have been through the old SR-71 repair documentation. The required usage of titanium tools on the airframe is a hassle. Leaking fuel immediately after fueling is a safety risk as well. Although, I know very little about the U-2 so maybe that was even worse in other ways. One of my instructors in Aviation school worked on them and had associated literature we were allowed to view. I wish I had the pleasure to look around inside of one. I know nothing of the political side of the selection of these aircraft as well. But I appreciate the information.
Click to expand...

The U-2 is a bitch to maintain because there are zero-tolerance guidance when it comes to leaks on the aircraft. NOTHING can leak.

Paul_Johnson said:
Small correction. It is not nearly the hazard you may assume. JP-7 is hard it ignite which is part of the reason that triethylborane was needed to get the J-58's started (plus the start cart). It was specifically formulated as a blend stock fuel rather than conventional distillate to be stable at very high temperatures (so it could also be a coolant) and still fluid at very low temps. It is a rather interesting fuel.
Click to expand...

The SR-71 used JP-4. They burned the last of it a couple of years ago....using an SR-71 powerplant.
 
HeadRusch said:
*sigh*.....thanks for the correction :)
Click to expand...

NP, 50/50 shot on 60 year old straight wing aircraft still in sporadic use lol.

One of my grandpappies was a sheet metal fabricator for Lockheed and did parts for the U-2 (though he had no idea what the parts were actually going to at the time) so I grew up with a minor fascination of it.
 
Paul_Johnson said:
No, the SR-71 did not use JP-4 (Jet-B). I have no idea where you got that from. It used JP-7.
Click to expand...

I honestly could be remembering it wrong, but I do remember they burned the last of the fuel it used using an engine for the aircraft. JP-8, JP-8+100, and JET-A is pretty much all thats used anymore.

It was an article I had come across a couple of years ago while I was still in the Air Force on one of those military pages. Like I said, I could be remembering it wrong and if I am I apologize.
 
Last edited:
Virtual_Bomber said:
I honestly could be remembering it wrong, but I do remember they burned the last of the fuel it used using an engine for the aircraft. JP-8, JP-8+100, and JET-A is pretty much all thats used anymore.

It was an article I had come across a couple of years ago while I was still in the Air Force on one of those military pages. Like I said, I could be remembering it wrong and if I am I apologize.
Click to expand...

You are. And they did not use the last of the JP-7 that way. Boeing/Darpa still use it for scramjet development. The X-51 is the most high profile user of it in research/development today.
 
Paul_Johnson said:
You are. And they did not use the last of the JP-7 that way. Boeing/Darpa still use it for scramjet development. The X-51 is the most high profile user of it in research/development today.
Click to expand...

Yeah looks like you are right, I found the article (not the exact one but close enough) and it was in 2013. No wonder I couldn't remember it correctly, that was when I was in Korea and I was drunk for the better part of that year lol. It was the last test of the motor, thats what I was remembering.

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/this-is-an-image-of-the-very-last-test-of-the-pratt-w-1484943138
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top