X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:07:41 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mailrelay.embarq.synacor.com ([208.47.184.3] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c1) with ESMTP id 2609129 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:12:05 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=208.47.184.3; envelope-from=liegner@embarqmail.com X-Original-Return-Path: X_CMAE_Category: 0,0 Undefined,Undefined X-CNFS-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=APhM2DlhDeQA:10 a=Ax17U89bAAAA:8 a=HAk5FNWuXW4uGgJNpHMA:9 a=-jwNqP4-tZDgB-P0S3-d1tNVdHYA:4 a=cvn8laQl214A:10 a=hAtYgxQ_VPQA:10 a=ymjN_MFwZm7DyOjt0yIA:9 a=wHPF16cDErclfECYiiwA:7 a=9G4Y837jJvFudU6wEgK8GR_7yskA:4 a=AfD3MYMu9mQA:10 X-CM-Score: 0 X-Scanned-by: Cloudmark Authority Engine Authentication-Results: smtp09.embarq.synacor.com smtp.mail=liegner@embarqmail.com; spf=neutral Authentication-Results: smtp09.embarq.synacor.com smtp.user=liegner@embarqmail.com; auth=pass (LOGIN) Received-SPF: neutral (smtp09.embarq.synacor.com: 69.69.79.118 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of embarqmail.com) Received: from [69.69.79.118] ([69.69.79.118:16434] helo=[172.16.1.2]) by mailrelay.embarq.synacor.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.1.21 r(19176)) with ESMTPA id F4/32-26857-E346C674; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:11:26 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: liegner@embarqmail.com@pop.embarqmail.com X-Original-Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:09:12 -0500 X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net From: "Jeffrey Liegner, MD" Subject: Re: '07 San Francisco Fleetweek Photo Gallery Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1013836611==_ma============" --============_-1013836611==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Blue Angel # 5 low pass http://jumpcut.com/view?id=C009AF72755211DC9F89000423CF037A "This year, I finally got the shot I've been trying to get for 5 years. Blue Angel #5 in a high-speed low pass, no more than 25 feet off the water." Looks like the aft section of the plane is supersonic based on the conical expansion fan distortion. Jeff L > > >Listers, > >I didn't think the FAA allowed such high speeds in air shows. > >I ran this scenario by my brother who has a post doc designing hypersonic >ballistic control systems for armaments for the US government agencies that >bomb other persons who have demonstrated a dislike for the US by bombing us >first. > >His comments are: > >Well.... not really "shock wave"... If you notice, there is no optical >distortion or aberration at the tip of the nose cone, and no aberrations are >seen if you carry the inspection aft from the leading edge, which suggests >that the plane is firmly subsonic, not even transonic, as even at Mach 0.7 or >0.8 I would expect to see some conical expansion fan distortion. The water >disturbance below the craft is most likely secondary to the displacement >boundary layer (again, incompressible arguments apply here). > >I hope this helps. > >Michael Smith > -- New email address: liegner@embarqmail.com --============_-1013836611==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Re: '07 San Francisco Fleetweek Photo Gallery
Blue Angel # 5 low pass
http://jumpcut.com/view?id=C009AF72755211DC9F89000423CF037A
"This year, I finally got the shot I've been trying to get for 5 years. Blue Angel #5 in a high-speed low pass, no more than 25 feet off the water."

Looks like the aft section of the plane is supersonic based on the conical expansion fan distortion.

Jeff L




Listers,

I didn't think the FAA allowed such high speeds in air shows.

I ran this scenario by my brother who has a post doc designing hypersonic
ballistic control systems for armaments for the US government agencies that
bomb other persons who have demonstrated a dislike for the US by bombing us
first.

His comments are:

Well.... not really "shock wave"... If you notice, there is no optical
distortion or aberration at the tip of the nose cone, and no aberrations are
seen if you carry the inspection aft from the leading edge, which suggests
that the plane is firmly subsonic, not even transonic, as even at Mach 0.7 or
0.8 I would expect to see some conical expansion fan distortion. The water
disturbance below the craft is most likely secondary to the displacement
boundary layer (again, incompressible arguments apply here).

I hope this helps.

Michael Smith
 

--
New email address: liegner@embarqmail.com
--============_-1013836611==_ma============--