madrat wrote:1. You continue insisting on a lie. I mentioned electric motors in one paragraph.
There is this thing called "context". Once again, here's the conversation:
"
I don't see a tri or quad jet fighter serving in anyone's air force anytime soon.madrat wrote:No, but its not ridiculous to believe it couldn't happen with electric drives. Unlike fuel-based engines, electric motors have an extreme high thrust to weight.
Obviously the conversation was about MAIN engines, not lift engines, and now rather than admit you were wrong, or that you misunderstood, you're trying to convince everybody that yes, indeed, you MEANT to face-plant in the mud.
madrat wrote:History long since proved J57 was not suitable for the designs that operated in the speeds.
It proved no such thing. You continuing to repeat nonsense does not turn nonsense into fact.
madrat wrote:Theoretically a J57 could hit Mach 2 with improved intakes.
Proving it wasn't the engine that was the week link. Hell it almost hit Mach 2
without the variable intakes and revised external intake shape.
"The fixed C/D nozzle design of the J57-P-55 engines used in prodcution F-101B aircraft were sufficient to raise the thrust from 16,000 lbs. with the P-53 to 16,900 pounds. Taking some measurements from an F-101B, the exhaust velocity for the P-55 engine works out to about Mach 1.3 assuming ideal gas flow. (For reference, the throat diameter is about 32 inches, the exhaust diameter 34 inches to give an Ae/At ratio of about 1.13.) The same basic afterburner nozzle was used in the later versions of the F-8, equipped with J57-P-16 and J57-P-20 engines. The design was relatively heavy and could only be optimized for one set of conditions, but it was robust, effective,
and sufficient to get both the F-101 and F-8 out to very close to Mach 2, and this with non-adjustable inlets."
Ron Easley
Aerospace Museum of California
Sacramento, CA
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/ ... ic=13929.0madrat wrote:You insisted the nose needed reshaping, which was not supported. The nose needed to be revised and more than likely it had to do with strengthening, not because it had a poor shape. The link mentioned a revision, not redesign.
Semantics, which does not prove your speculation.