|
Author
|
Topic: Photo of the week 644 (February 25, 2017)
|
heng44
Member Posts: 3387
From: Netherlands
Registered: Nov 2001
|
posted 02-25-2017 02:51 AM
   
 Space Shuttle Enterprise rides piggy-back on its Boeing 747 shuttle carrier aircraft over Edwards AFB during the third captive flight in the Approach and Landing Test Program on February 25, 1977. Note the main concrete Edwards runway 04/22 at lower right. |
Buel
Member Posts: 649
From: UK
Registered: Mar 2012
|
posted 02-25-2017 03:31 AM
I'm no aeronautical student so that probably explains why I just can't get my head around how that manages to fly!!
|
Philip
Member Posts: 5952
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 02-25-2017 04:04 AM
It was just an empty lightweight glider (Enterprise was an empty shell without engines) on top of a perfect Boeing 747. Just curious to know what the "finesse" was of the Enterprise. Finesse equals glide ratio or the capability to glide without engine power... Modern sailplanes have a "finesse" up to 60! |
Panther494
Member Posts: 402
From: London UK
Registered: Jan 2013
|
posted 02-25-2017 08:49 AM
Excellent image. Great sense of scale with the two T-38's. Remember seeing this for the first time and thinking the same thing. How is that flying? Sparked my interest in learning to fly. |
nasamad
Member Posts: 2121
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 02-25-2017 08:58 AM
Still (and will now always be) the only space shuttle I have seen in the air.  |
Philip
Member Posts: 5952
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 02-25-2017 09:47 AM
Enterprise's tailcone suggests that the shuttle body surface area might be as aerodynamical important as the wings but the tailcone was especially designed when used on top of the Boeing 747.I believe two tailcones were built and could be transported in USAF cargo planes? |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-25-2017 10:04 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Panther494:
Excellent image. Great sense of scale with the two T-38's.
There's probably a third T-38 (who took the photo) but aside from documentation, what are their purpose(s)?
|
astro-nut
Member Posts: 946
From: Washington, IL
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 02-25-2017 10:33 AM
Another awesome photo from the SCA/ALT section! Thanks for sharing!! |
astro-nut
Member Posts: 946
From: Washington, IL
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 02-25-2017 10:36 AM
If I remember correctly?, I think February 18, 1977 was the first time the SCA and Enterprise flew for the first time? |
heng44
Member Posts: 3387
From: Netherlands
Registered: Nov 2001
|
posted 02-25-2017 01:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
Just curious to know what the "finesse" was of the Enterprise.
If you are referring to the lift/drag ratio, then the answer is: 1. |
OV-105
Member Posts: 816
From: Ridgecrest, CA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 02-25-2017 11:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
Enterprise's tailcone suggests that the shuttle body surface area might be as aerodynamical important...
The tailcone helped lower the drag when flying. The last two free flights did not have the tailcone and I think it took 2 minutes off of the flight time. The second tailcone was built and first used with Endeavour's delivery, also the first time NASA 911 was used to ferry shuttle. The new tailcone had to be used once orbiters had the drag chute installed and later the first tailcone was modified so it would work with the orbiters after they all had the chute. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 02-26-2017 12:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by heng44:
If you are referring to the lift/drag ratio, then the answer is: 1.
Depends where on the speed curve. 1:1 at hypersonic; 1:4.5 on approach. Compared to 1:46.5 for my glider! |
Philip
Member Posts: 5952
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 02-27-2017 01:18 AM
Really a "flying brick" compared to modern gliders. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1234
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 02-27-2017 09:16 AM
From that angle, the right wingtip of the 747 almost makes it appear that the shuttle has twin V-tail vertical stabilizers! |
Jonnyed
Member Posts: 396
From: Dumfries, VA, USA
Registered: Aug 2014
|
posted 03-04-2017 09:47 AM
Anyone know what "cruising altitude" was for this arrangement? |
Jonnyed
Member Posts: 396
From: Dumfries, VA, USA
Registered: Aug 2014
|
posted 03-10-2017 07:37 AM
Okay, here is some interesting in-flight performance information posted to Wikipedia, including an answer related to the question I just asked: (In the piggyback arrangement, the altitude ceiling was 15,000 feet) — Flying with the additional drag and weight of the Orbiter imposed significant fuel and altitude penalties. The range was reduced to 1,000 nautical miles (1,850 km), compared to an unladen range of 5500 nautical miles (10,100 km), requiring an SCA to stop several times to refuel on a transcontinental flight. Without the Orbiter, the SCA needed to carry ballast to balance out its center of gravity. The SCA had an altitude ceiling of 15,000 feet and a maximum cruise speed of Mach 0.6 with the orbiter attached. A crew of 170 took a week to prepare the shuttle and SCA for flight. |
advertisement