"The Best Hard Science Fiction Books by Women" by Dan Livingston
https://best-sci-fi-books.com/the-best-hard-science-fiction-books-by-women/
I have read:
7. Downbelow Station by C.J. Cherryh – 1981
6. Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie – 2013
2. All Systems Red by Martha Wells – 2017
He is missing Connie Willis, Lois McMaster Bujold, Joan D. Vinge, Andre Norton, Nancy Kress, and Elizabeth Moon.
Dan says "I’m considering hard SF to mean a few different things: the
story could be technology-focused rather than emotion-focused, or be
based on known physics as opposed to technology so futuristic that it
feels magical. As with all my lists, I play pretty loose with the rules because I think it’s more important to get people reading good books
than sticking to some arbitrary sub-genre definitions."
Lynn
On 6/25/2023 7:51 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
"The Best Hard Science Fiction Books by Women" by Dan Livingston
https://best-sci-fi-books.com/the-best-hard-science-fiction-books-by-women/
I have read:
7. Downbelow Station by C.J. Cherryh – 1981
6. Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie – 2013
2. All Systems Red by Martha Wells – 2017
He is missing Connie Willis, Lois McMaster Bujold, Joan D. Vinge, Andre Norton, Nancy Kress, and Elizabeth Moon.
Dan says "I’m considering hard SF to mean a few different things: the story could be technology-focused rather than emotion-focused, or be
based on known physics as opposed to technology so futuristic that it feels magical. As with all my lists, I play pretty loose with the rules because I think it’s more important to get people reading good books than sticking to some arbitrary sub-genre definitions."
LynnI would also add Jo Walton to this list but, she is a fantasy writer. I would also consider Sarah A. Hoyt and Seanan McGuire for the list.
On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 10:58:10 AM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 6/25/2023 7:51 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:Dunno that Hoyt makes it to hard science fiction
"The Best Hard Science Fiction Books by Women" by Dan LivingstonI would also add Jo Walton to this list but, she is a fantasy writer. I
https://best-sci-fi-books.com/the-best-hard-science-fiction-books-by-women/ >>>
I have read:
7. Downbelow Station by C.J. Cherryh – 1981
6. Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie – 2013
2. All Systems Red by Martha Wells – 2017
He is missing Connie Willis, Lois McMaster Bujold, Joan D. Vinge, Andre
Norton, Nancy Kress, and Elizabeth Moon.
Dan says "I’m considering hard SF to mean a few different things: the
story could be technology-focused rather than emotion-focused, or be
based on known physics as opposed to technology so futuristic that it
feels magical. As with all my lists, I play pretty loose with the rules
because I think it’s more important to get people reading good books
than sticking to some arbitrary sub-genre definitions."
Lynn
would also consider Sarah A. Hoyt and Seanan McGuire for the list.
McGuire's parasitology books could (published as Mira Grant)
On 6/25/2023 9:00 PM, Hamish Laws wrote:
On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 10:58:10 AM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:"Darkship Thieves" is very hard science fiction set about the year 2500
On 6/25/2023 7:51 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:Dunno that Hoyt makes it to hard science fiction
"The Best Hard Science Fiction Books by Women" by Dan LivingstonI would also add Jo Walton to this list but, she is a fantasy writer. I >> would also consider Sarah A. Hoyt and Seanan McGuire for the list.
https://best-sci-fi-books.com/the-best-hard-science-fiction-books-by-women/
I have read:
7. Downbelow Station by C.J. Cherryh – 1981
6. Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie – 2013
2. All Systems Red by Martha Wells – 2017
He is missing Connie Willis, Lois McMaster Bujold, Joan D. Vinge, Andre >>> Norton, Nancy Kress, and Elizabeth Moon.
Dan says "I’m considering hard SF to mean a few different things: the >>> story could be technology-focused rather than emotion-focused, or be
based on known physics as opposed to technology so futuristic that it >>> feels magical. As with all my lists, I play pretty loose with the rules >>> because I think it’s more important to get people reading good books >>> than sticking to some arbitrary sub-genre definitions."
Lynn
McGuire's parasitology books could (published as Mira Grant)
or so.
https://www.amazon.com/Darkship-Thieves-Sarah-Hoyt/dp/1630110280/
I am not sure if "Feed" is science fiction or fantasy, kinda straddles
the middle ground. https://www.amazon.com/Feed-Newsflesh-Book-Mira-Grant/dp/0316081051/
"The Best Hard Science Fiction Books by Women" by Dan Livingston
https://best-sci-fi-books.com/the-best-hard-science-fiction-books-by-women/
He is missing Connie Willis, Lois McMaster Bujold, Joan D. Vinge, Andre Norton, Nancy Kress, and Elizabeth Moon.
In article <40cfc762-29d3-445f-bfc0-db4c71213f1dn@googlegroups.com>,
Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:
Lynn McGuire wrote:
"The Best Hard Science Fiction Books by Women" by Dan Livingston
https://best-sci-fi-books.com/the-best-hard-science-fiction-books-by-women/
He is missing Connie Willis, Lois McMaster Bujold, Joan D. Vinge, Andre
Norton, Nancy Kress, and Elizabeth Moon.
What is the hardest science fiction Willis has written? (Unless our
stance is that "best" or "hard" or "core" is not important, it's just
that a woman wrote it at all.) Her novels are mostly time travel,
arent they? Still, the subject says "Books", which allows collections,
so maybe a short story. ...None from a list of titles pops out at me; >"Dilemma", a Positronic-Robot tribute story may be a puzzle, but I have
no memory of it, and she hasn't collected it, so I don't have a copy.
"With Friends Like These", a Berserker tribute story I may also be a
puzzle story, I may have another appearance of it, I'll report if I can >find it.
Time Travel can't be hard SF?
Lynn McGuire wrote:
"The Best Hard Science Fiction Books by Women" by Dan Livingston
https://best-sci-fi-books.com/the-best-hard-science-fiction-books-by-women/ >>
He is missing Connie Willis, Lois McMaster Bujold, Joan D. Vinge, Andre
Norton, Nancy Kress, and Elizabeth Moon.
What is the hardest science fiction Willis has written? (Unless our
stance is that "best" or "hard" or "core" is not important, it's just
that a woman wrote it at all.) Her novels are mostly time travel,
arent they? Still, the subject says "Books", which allows collections,
so maybe a short story. ...None from a list of titles pops out at me; >"Dilemma", a Positronic-Robot tribute story may be a puzzle, but I have
no memory of it, and she hasn't collected it, so I don't have a copy.
"With Friends Like These", a Berserker tribute story I may also be a
puzzle story, I may have another appearance of it, I'll report if I can
find it.
In article <u7cerf$ems$1@reader2.panix.com>,
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
In article <40cfc762-29d3-445f-bfc0-db4c71213f1dn@googlegroups.com>,
Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:
Lynn McGuire wrote:
"The Best Hard Science Fiction Books by Women" by Dan Livingston
https://best-sci-fi-books.com/the-best-hard-science-fiction-books-by-women/
He is missing Connie Willis, Lois McMaster Bujold, Joan D. Vinge, Andre >> >> Norton, Nancy Kress, and Elizabeth Moon.
What is the hardest science fiction Willis has written? (Unless our
stance is that "best" or "hard" or "core" is not important, it's just
that a woman wrote it at all.) Her novels are mostly time travel,
arent they? Still, the subject says "Books", which allows collections,
so maybe a short story. ...None from a list of titles pops out at me;
"Dilemma", a Positronic-Robot tribute story may be a puzzle, but I have
no memory of it, and she hasn't collected it, so I don't have a copy.
"With Friends Like These", a Berserker tribute story I may also be a
puzzle story, I may have another appearance of it, I'll report if I can
find it.
Time Travel can't be hard SF?
If Robert L. Forward wrote it, probably. Otherwise, everybody ignores >relativity (so much so, they don't even use a hand wave).
"The Best Hard Science Fiction Books by Women" by Dan Livingston
https://best-sci-fi-books.com/the-best-hard-science-fiction-books-by-women/
I have read:
7. Downbelow Station by C.J. Cherryh – 1981
6. Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie – 2013
2. All Systems Red by Martha Wells – 2017
In article <40cfc762-29d3-445f...@googlegroups.com>,
Jack Bohn <jack....@gmail.com> wrote:
What is the hardest science fiction Willis has written? (Unless our
stance is that "best" or "hard" or "core" is not important, it's just
that a woman wrote it at all.) Her novels are mostly time travel,
arent they?
Time Travel can't be hard SF?
I think Daisy in the Sun is about a nova. A Letter from the Clearies
is a post-WWIII piece (although any definition of hard SF that includes
it probably includes a huge amount of material).
"The Best Hard Science Fiction Books by Women" by Dan Livingston
https://best-sci-fi-books.com/the-best-hard-science-fiction-books-by-women/
I have read:
7. Downbelow Station by C.J. Cherryh – 1981
6. Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie – 2013
2. All Systems Red by Martha Wells – 2017
He is missing Connie Willis, Lois McMaster Bujold, Joan D. Vinge, Andre Norton, Nancy Kress, and Elizabeth Moon.
Dan says "I’m considering hard SF to mean a few different things: the story could be technology-focused rather than emotion-focused, or be
based on known physics as opposed to technology so futuristic that it
feels magical. As with all my lists, I play pretty loose with the rules because I think it’s more important to get people reading good books
than sticking to some arbitrary sub-genre definitions."
I read it in hardback when it was released, my recollection is that
there's a lot of actually scientifically impossible stuff in the series
A simple example is the idea of a stealth ship in space. It doesn't work.
In article <1598c45c-d412-43ee-a132-8dd8e5091e3bn@googlegroups.com>,
Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:
I read it in hardback when it was released, my recollection is that
there's a lot of actually scientifically impossible stuff in the series
A simple example is the idea of a stealth ship in space. It doesn't work.
(Hal Heydt)
Take it up with E. E. "Doc" Smith. Lensman universe doesn't seem
to have developed IR detection systems.
On 7/3/2023 6:22 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <1598c45c-d412-43ee-a132-8dd8e5091e3bn@googlegroups.com>,
Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:
I read it in hardback when it was released, my recollection is that(Hal Heydt)
there's a lot of actually scientifically impossible stuff in the series
A simple example is the idea of a stealth ship in space. It doesn't work. >>
Take it up with E. E. "Doc" Smith. Lensman universe doesn't seem
to have developed IR detection systems.
We do visual detection prevention on some military equipment using paint >schemes and a few other tricks. I doubt that we have anything that uses >image reprojection from one side to the other side but, that is the
nirvana of the technology.
Thermal detection prevention is much harder but still doable. I think
that the F-22 and F-35 have *some* thermal detection prevention on them
but I doubt that the afterburners use it.
Radar detection prevention is also used on the F-117A, F-22, and F-35 by >absorption of the radar waves and very low radar image.
There are many authors using stealth technology on space ships. John
Varley, Robert Heinlein, John Ringo, etc.
In article <1598c45c-d412-43ee...@googlegroups.com>,
Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
I read it in hardback when it was released, my recollection is that >there's a lot of actually scientifically impossible stuff in the seriesTake it up with E. E. "Doc" Smith. Lensman universe doesn't seem
A simple example is the idea of a stealth ship in space. It doesn't work. (Hal Heydt)
to have developed IR detection systems.
On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 9:32:08=E2=80=AFAM UTC+10, Dorothy J Heydt wrot= >e:
In article <1598c45c-d412-43ee...@googlegroups.com>,
Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:=20
I read it in hardback when it was released, my recollection is that=20(Hal Heydt)=20
there's a lot of actually scientifically impossible stuff in the series= >=20
A simple example is the idea of a stealth ship in space. It doesn't work= >.
Take it up with E. E. "Doc" Smith. Lensman universe doesn't seem=20
to have developed IR detection systems.
Would anybody ever have described Lensmen as hard science fiction?
I've read several of the Darkship series and I enjoyed them but I don't thi= >nk they qualify as hard science fiction, admittedly I'm not sure how many o= >f the ones Livingston lists would either
Modern designs for thermal detection prevention focus on placing
the heat producing elements on the top of the fuselage, to shield the thermal emissions from ground-based detectors. They also pump fuel through
the leading edge surfaces to cool them.
Scott Lurndal wrote:
Modern designs for thermal detection prevention focus on placing
the heat producing elements on the top of the fuselage, to shield the thermal
emissions from ground-based detectors. They also pump fuel through
the leading edge surfaces to cool them.
Stupid question: Aren't you trailing a plume of hot exhaust?
On 2023-07-04, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Modern designs for thermal detection prevention focus on placing
the heat producing elements on the top of the fuselage, to shield the thermal
emissions from ground-based detectors. They also pump fuel through
the leading edge surfaces to cool them.
Stupid question: Aren't you trailing a plume of hot exhaust?
On 7/3/2023 6:22 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <1598c45c-d412-43ee...@googlegroups.com>,
Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
I read it in hardback when it was released, my recollection is that
there's a lot of actually scientifically impossible stuff in the series >> A simple example is the idea of a stealth ship in space. It doesn't work.
(Hal Heydt)We do visual detection prevention on some military equipment using paint schemes and a few other tricks. I doubt that we have anything that uses image reprojection from one side to the other side but, that is the
Take it up with E. E. "Doc" Smith. Lensman universe doesn't seem
to have developed IR detection systems.
nirvana of the technology.
Thermal detection prevention is much harder but still doable. I think
that the F-22 and F-35 have *some* thermal detection prevention on them
but I doubt that the afterburners use it.
Radar detection prevention is also used on the F-117A, F-22, and F-35 by absorption of the radar waves and very low radar image.
What did I miss ?
Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 9:32:08=E2=80=AFAM UTC+10, Dorothy J Heydt wrot= >e:
In article <1598c45c-d412-43ee...@googlegroups.com>,
Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:=20
I read it in hardback when it was released, my recollection is that=20(Hal Heydt)=20
there's a lot of actually scientifically impossible stuff in the series= >=20
A simple example is the idea of a stealth ship in space. It doesn't work= >.
Take it up with E. E. "Doc" Smith. Lensman universe doesn't seem=20
to have developed IR detection systems.
Would anybody ever have described Lensmen as hard science fiction?Even Doc Smith didn't think of Skylark or Lensman as "hard science fiction".
I've read several of the Darkship series and I enjoyed them but I don't thi= >nk they qualify as hard science fiction, admittedly I'm not sure how many o= >f the ones Livingston lists would either
_Spacehounds of the IPC_, however, was written with scientific accuracy
in mind - yet the science fantasy of Skylark and Lensman was much more salable.
On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 9:32:08 AM UTC+10, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <1598c45c-d412-43ee...@googlegroups.com>,
Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
I read it in hardback when it was released, my recollection is thatTake it up with E. E. "Doc" Smith. Lensman universe doesn't seem
there's a lot of actually scientifically impossible stuff in the series
A simple example is the idea of a stealth ship in space. It doesn't work. >> (Hal Heydt)
to have developed IR detection systems.
Would anybody ever have described Lensmen as hard science fiction?
I've read several of the Darkship series and I enjoyed them but I don't think they qualify as hard science fiction, admittedly I'm not sure how many of the ones Livingston lists would either
On 7/4/2023 8:50 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 9:32:08 AM UTC+10, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <1598c45c-d412-43ee...@googlegroups.com>,
Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
I read it in hardback when it was released, my recollection is that(Hal Heydt)
there's a lot of actually scientifically impossible stuff in the series >>> A simple example is the idea of a stealth ship in space. It doesn't work.
Take it up with E. E. "Doc" Smith. Lensman universe doesn't seem
to have developed IR detection systems.
Would anybody ever have described Lensmen as hard science fiction?The Darkship books are 300+ years in the future. Things can and will radically change by then. Unless, we end up radiating the entire planet.
I've read several of the Darkship series and I enjoyed them but I don't think they qualify as hard science fiction, admittedly I'm not sure how many of the ones Livingston lists would either
First, we had the stone age. Then we had the bronze age. Then we had
the iron age. Then we had the steel age. Now we are in the carbon
fiber age. Who knows what magic materials will be created next in these
fast moving times ?
An alien politics novel where nobody has a pronoun
you saw outside this book, or any vowels, or one with
its own unique and necessary vocabulary, is quite a
challenge to read. Maybe start with James Thurber's
_The Story of O_.
Dan says "I’m considering hard SF to mean a few different things:
As with all my lists, I play pretty loose with the rules
because I think it’s more important to get people reading good books
than sticking to some arbitrary sub-genre definitions."
I think Time Travel is on the list of impossible things that are proverbially limited to one per story, like FTL
On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 3:45:23 PM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 7/4/2023 8:50 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 9:32:08 AM UTC+10, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <1598c45c-d412-43ee...@googlegroups.com>,
Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
I read it in hardback when it was released, my recollection is that >>> there's a lot of actually scientifically impossible stuff in the series(Hal Heydt)
A simple example is the idea of a stealth ship in space. It doesn't work.
Take it up with E. E. "Doc" Smith. Lensman universe doesn't seem
to have developed IR detection systems.
Would anybody ever have described Lensmen as hard science fiction?The Darkship books are 300+ years in the future. Things can and will radically change by then. Unless, we end up radiating the entire planet.
I've read several of the Darkship series and I enjoyed them but I don't think they qualify as hard science fiction, admittedly I'm not sure how many of the ones Livingston lists would either
First, we had the stone age. Then we had the bronze age. Then we had
the iron age. Then we had the steel age. Now we are in the carbon
fiber age. Who knows what magic materials will be created next in these fast moving times ?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/12/22/the-expanse-and-the-physics-of-stealth-in-space/?sh=6af1cc7c6482
has a bit of a breakdown on the problems of stealth in space
On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 6:51:33?PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Dan says "Im considering hard SF to mean a few different things:
As with all my lists, I play pretty loose with the rules
because I think its more important to get people reading good books
than sticking to some arbitrary sub-genre definitions."
I do *not* approve.
It's certainly good to get people reading good books. If you can't
put those books on one list, put them on another list.
But if you don't use the generally-accepted definition of "Hard SF"
for the works on a list of "the best Hard SF books", then
a) the list is less useful, and
b) you're getting people to read the books under false pretenses.
On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 3:45:23 PM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 7/4/2023 8:50 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/12/22/the-expanse-and-the-physics-of-stealth-in-space/?sh=6af1cc7c6482
On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 9:32:08 AM UTC+10, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >>>> In article <1598c45c-d412-43ee...@googlegroups.com>,The Darkship books are 300+ years in the future. Things can and will
Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
I read it in hardback when it was released, my recollection is thatTake it up with E. E. "Doc" Smith. Lensman universe doesn't seem
there's a lot of actually scientifically impossible stuff in the series >>>>> A simple example is the idea of a stealth ship in space. It doesn't work. >>>> (Hal Heydt)
to have developed IR detection systems.
Would anybody ever have described Lensmen as hard science fiction?
I've read several of the Darkship series and I enjoyed them but I don't think they qualify as hard science fiction, admittedly I'm not sure how many of the ones Livingston lists would either
radically change by then. Unless, we end up radiating the entire planet.
First, we had the stone age. Then we had the bronze age. Then we had
the iron age. Then we had the steel age. Now we are in the carbon
fiber age. Who knows what magic materials will be created next in these
fast moving times ?
has a bit of a breakdown on the problems of stealth in space
On 2023-07-04, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Modern designs for thermal detection prevention focus on placing
the heat producing elements on the top of the fuselage, to shield the thermal
emissions from ground-based detectors. They also pump fuel through
the leading edge surfaces to cool them.
Stupid question: Aren't you trailing a plume of hot exhaust?
On 7/4/2023 10:06 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:Can't find the bypass ratio, but the F-35B in STOVL mode is hot enough to damage the ground (or deck) under it (which curiously was not such a problem with the Harrier/AV8-B) https://theaviationist.com/2010/11/24/the-f-35b-heating-problems/
On 2023-07-04, Scott Lurndal <sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Modern designs for thermal detection prevention focus on placing
the heat producing elements on the top of the fuselage, to shield the thermal
emissions from ground-based detectors. They also pump fuel through
the leading edge surfaces to cool them.
Stupid question: Aren't you trailing a plume of hot exhaust?If the plume is very hot, you are not running very efficiently on modern
jet engines. The latest ultra lean fire engines on the Boeing 737 MAX
are running 11:1 on the combustion air versus the fanned air. The old
days of 900 F exhaust are gone except for old planes like the B-52s and
the old 737s with the cigar tube Pratt & Whitneys. Today's ultra high
bypass jet engines are probably running 200 F exhaust (SWAG) assuming
good mixing between the combustion air and the fanned air.
I do not have a clue what the bypass ratio on the F-35, F-22, and B-2
is. Probably at least 5:1 though since they have an afterburner also
that probably complicates bypassing.
Lynn
On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 11:59:57=E2=80=AFPM UTC+1, Lynn McGuire wrote= >:
On 7/4/2023 10:06 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:=20Can't find the bypass ratio, but the F-35B in STOVL mode is hot enough to d= >amage the ground (or deck) under it (which curiously was not such a problem=
On 2023-07-04, Scott Lurndal <sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote:=20If the plume is very hot, you are not running very efficiently on modern= >=20
=20
Modern designs for thermal detection prevention focus on placing=20=20
the heat producing elements on the top of the fuselage, to shield the = >thermal=20
emissions from ground-based detectors. They also pump fuel through=20
the leading edge surfaces to cool them.=20
Stupid question: Aren't you trailing a plume of hot exhaust?
jet engines. The latest ultra lean fire engines on the Boeing 737 MAX=20
are running 11:1 on the combustion air versus the fanned air. The old=20
days of 900 F exhaust are gone except for old planes like the B-52s and= >=20
the old 737s with the cigar tube Pratt & Whitneys. Today's ultra high=20
bypass jet engines are probably running 200 F exhaust (SWAG) assuming=20
good mixing between the combustion air and the fanned air.=20
=20
I do not have a clue what the bypass ratio on the F-35, F-22, and B-2=20
is. Probably at least 5:1 though since they have an afterburner also=20
that probably complicates bypassing.=20
=20
Lynn
with the Harrier/AV8-B) https://theaviationist.com/2010/11/24/the-f-35b-he=
ating-problems/
The newly released document,
On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 11:59:57 PM UTC+1, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 7/4/2023 10:06 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:Can't find the bypass ratio, but the F-35B in STOVL mode is hot enough to damage the ground (or deck) under it (which curiously was not such a problem with the Harrier/AV8-B) https://theaviationist.com/2010/11/24/the-f-35b-heating-problems/
On 2023-07-04, Scott Lurndal <sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote:If the plume is very hot, you are not running very efficiently on modern
Modern designs for thermal detection prevention focus on placing
the heat producing elements on the top of the fuselage, to shield the thermal
emissions from ground-based detectors. They also pump fuel through
the leading edge surfaces to cool them.
Stupid question: Aren't you trailing a plume of hot exhaust?
jet engines. The latest ultra lean fire engines on the Boeing 737 MAX
are running 11:1 on the combustion air versus the fanned air. The old
days of 900 F exhaust are gone except for old planes like the B-52s and
the old 737s with the cigar tube Pratt & Whitneys. Today's ultra high
bypass jet engines are probably running 200 F exhaust (SWAG) assuming
good mixing between the combustion air and the fanned air.
I do not have a clue what the bypass ratio on the F-35, F-22, and B-2
is. Probably at least 5:1 though since they have an afterburner also
that probably complicates bypassing.
Lynn
The newly released document, hosted on a government building-design resource site, outlines what base-construction engineers need to do to ensure that
the F-35B’s exhaust does not turn the surface it lands on into an area-denial weapon. And it’s not trivial. Vertical-landing “pads will be exposed to 1700 deg. F and high velocity (Mach 1) exhaust,” the report says.
The exhaust will melt asphalt and “is likely to spall the surface of standard airfield concrete pavements on the first VL.” (The report leaves to
the imagination what jagged chunks of spalled concrete will do in a supersonic blast field.)
On 7/5/2023 11:41 PM, Andrew McDowell wrote:Well spotted. I have the impression that military requirements for supersonic speed and stealth (not letting radars see the fan blades) make high bypass ratios tricky, although https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Versatile_Engine_Technology might
On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 11:59:57 PM UTC+1, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 7/4/2023 10:06 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:Can't find the bypass ratio, but the F-35B in STOVL mode is hot enough to damage the ground (or deck) under it (which curiously was not such a problem with the Harrier/AV8-B) https://theaviationist.com/2010/11/24/the-f-35b-heating-problems/
On 2023-07-04, Scott Lurndal <sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote:If the plume is very hot, you are not running very efficiently on modern >> jet engines. The latest ultra lean fire engines on the Boeing 737 MAX
Modern designs for thermal detection prevention focus on placing
the heat producing elements on the top of the fuselage, to shield the thermal
emissions from ground-based detectors. They also pump fuel through
the leading edge surfaces to cool them.
Stupid question: Aren't you trailing a plume of hot exhaust?
are running 11:1 on the combustion air versus the fanned air. The old
days of 900 F exhaust are gone except for old planes like the B-52s and >> the old 737s with the cigar tube Pratt & Whitneys. Today's ultra high
bypass jet engines are probably running 200 F exhaust (SWAG) assuming
good mixing between the combustion air and the fanned air.
I do not have a clue what the bypass ratio on the F-35, F-22, and B-2
is. Probably at least 5:1 though since they have an afterburner also
that probably complicates bypassing.
Lynn
The newly released document, hosted on a government building-design resourceI found it. I was hopelessly optimistic at 5:1. The bypass ratio for
site, outlines what base-construction engineers need to do to ensure that the F-35B’s exhaust does not turn the surface it lands on into an area-denial weapon. And it’s not trivial. Vertical-landing “pads will be
exposed to 1700 deg. F and high velocity (Mach 1) exhaust,” the report says.
The exhaust will melt asphalt and “is likely to spall the surface of standard airfield concrete pavements on the first VL.” (The report leaves to
the imagination what jagged chunks of spalled concrete will do in a supersonic blast field.)
the F-35 engine is 0.57:1. That means the exhaust is probably 500 F to
600 F.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F135
Lynn
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 6:40:21 AM UTC+1, Lynn McGuire wrote:perhaps reach higher bypass ratios at times.
On 7/5/2023 11:41 PM, Andrew McDowell wrote:Well spotted. I have the impression that military requirements for supersonic speed and stealth (not letting radars see the fan blades) make high bypass ratios tricky, although https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Versatile_Engine_Technology might
On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 11:59:57 PM UTC+1, Lynn McGuire wrote:I found it. I was hopelessly optimistic at 5:1. The bypass ratio for
On 7/4/2023 10:06 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:Can't find the bypass ratio, but the F-35B in STOVL mode is hot enough to damage the ground (or deck) under it (which curiously was not such a problem with the Harrier/AV8-B) https://theaviationist.com/2010/11/24/the-f-35b-heating-problems/
On 2023-07-04, Scott Lurndal <sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote:If the plume is very hot, you are not running very efficiently on modern >>>> jet engines. The latest ultra lean fire engines on the Boeing 737 MAX
Modern designs for thermal detection prevention focus on placing
the heat producing elements on the top of the fuselage, to shield the thermal
emissions from ground-based detectors. They also pump fuel through >>>>>> the leading edge surfaces to cool them.
Stupid question: Aren't you trailing a plume of hot exhaust?
are running 11:1 on the combustion air versus the fanned air. The old
days of 900 F exhaust are gone except for old planes like the B-52s and >>>> the old 737s with the cigar tube Pratt & Whitneys. Today's ultra high
bypass jet engines are probably running 200 F exhaust (SWAG) assuming
good mixing between the combustion air and the fanned air.
I do not have a clue what the bypass ratio on the F-35, F-22, and B-2
is. Probably at least 5:1 though since they have an afterburner also
that probably complicates bypassing.
Lynn
The newly released document, hosted on a government building-design resource
site, outlines what base-construction engineers need to do to ensure that >>> the F-35B’s exhaust does not turn the surface it lands on into an
area-denial weapon. And it’s not trivial. Vertical-landing “pads will be
exposed to 1700 deg. F and high velocity (Mach 1) exhaust,” the report says.
The exhaust will melt asphalt and “is likely to spall the surface of
standard airfield concrete pavements on the first VL.” (The report leaves to
the imagination what jagged chunks of spalled concrete will do in a
supersonic blast field.)
the F-35 engine is 0.57:1. That means the exhaust is probably 500 F to
600 F.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F135
Lynn
On 7/7/2023 11:31 AM, Andrew McDowell wrote:perhaps reach higher bypass ratios at times.
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 6:40:21 AM UTC+1, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 7/5/2023 11:41 PM, Andrew McDowell wrote:Well spotted. I have the impression that military requirements for supersonic speed and stealth (not letting radars see the fan blades) make high bypass ratios tricky, although https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Versatile_Engine_Technology might
On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 11:59:57 PM UTC+1, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>>>> On 7/4/2023 10:06 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:I found it. I was hopelessly optimistic at 5:1. The bypass ratio for
Can't find the bypass ratio, but the F-35B in STOVL mode is hot enough to damage the ground (or deck) under it (which curiously was not such a problem with the Harrier/AV8-B) https://theaviationist.com/2010/11/24/the-f-35b-heating-problems/On 2023-07-04, Scott Lurndal <sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote:If the plume is very hot, you are not running very efficiently on modern >>>>> jet engines. The latest ultra lean fire engines on the Boeing 737 MAX >>>>> are running 11:1 on the combustion air versus the fanned air. The old >>>>> days of 900 F exhaust are gone except for old planes like the B-52s and >>>>> the old 737s with the cigar tube Pratt & Whitneys. Today's ultra high >>>>> bypass jet engines are probably running 200 F exhaust (SWAG) assuming >>>>> good mixing between the combustion air and the fanned air.
Modern designs for thermal detection prevention focus on placing >>>>>>> the heat producing elements on the top of the fuselage, to shield the thermal
emissions from ground-based detectors. They also pump fuel through >>>>>>> the leading edge surfaces to cool them.
Stupid question: Aren't you trailing a plume of hot exhaust?
I do not have a clue what the bypass ratio on the F-35, F-22, and B-2 >>>>> is. Probably at least 5:1 though since they have an afterburner also >>>>> that probably complicates bypassing.
Lynn
The newly released document, hosted on a government building-design resource
site, outlines what base-construction engineers need to do to ensure that >>>> the F-35B’s exhaust does not turn the surface it lands on into an
area-denial weapon. And it’s not trivial. Vertical-landing “pads will be
exposed to 1700 deg. F and high velocity (Mach 1) exhaust,” the report says.
The exhaust will melt asphalt and “is likely to spall the surface of >>>> standard airfield concrete pavements on the first VL.” (The report leaves to
the imagination what jagged chunks of spalled concrete will do in a
supersonic blast field.)
the F-35 engine is 0.57:1. That means the exhaust is probably 500 F to
600 F.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F135
Lynn
Modern high bypass jet engines have huge first stage blades. That does
seem to be a limit for stealthiness. Plus the afterburners might
require a high inlet temperature.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 81:10:46 |
| Calls: | 6,762 |
| Files: | 12,289 |
| Messages: | 5,378,181 |