It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The secret program to hide a secret program, as told by an F-14 RIO.

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

I was sort of thinking the same thing, its probably already happened but still classified. I`ll remember this story every time I see the SR-71 from now on, I've never read that one before.




posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: mikegrouchy

Thanks for that one, I've never read that one before and love firsthand stories from the people who were there.




posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Longtime lurker here and figured that it was time to come outta the woodwork.....
The 'speed check' story from Sled Driver reminded me of another favorite old (probably) apocryphal SR story....


Pilot: "Radar, Good Day, Air Force Blackbird, request FL 600(!)"
Controller (amused): "Sir, if you can reach, you are cleared FL 600"
Pilot: "US Air Force Blackbird, leaving FL 800, descending to FL 600..."


edit on 7-1-2015 by vinomech because: Corrected spelling error



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 01:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: vinomech
Longtime lurker here and figured that it was time to come outta the woodwork.....
The 'speed check' story from Sled Driver reminded me of another favorite old (probably) apocryphal SR story....


Pilot: "Radar, Good Day, Air Force Blackbird, request FL 600(!)"
Controller (amused): "Sir, if you can reach, you are cleared FL 600"
Pilot: "US Air Force Blackbird, leaving FL 800, descending to FL 600..."



FIY...On a technological basis, based upon the
Shape and size of the wing structure and based
Upon the positioning of the nacelle cones which
Help form the shock fronts into the engines, and based upon the cubic metres per second intake at specific air densities and estimated airspeeds, my spreadsheet calculations lead me to believe that the optimal operational ceiling for fuel efficiency vs fastest goto-target location speed is about 88,000 feet. The highest aerodynamic limit for the SR71 based on inlet shape and size should be around 127,000 feet as a max ceiling...MAYBE 129,000 feet if upper atmosphere air density is higher than normal.
The rumours of 132,000 feet ive heard would require exceptional air density conditions to get that high...that's based on some very general spreadsheet modelling of course so accuracy isn't guaranteed but should be close enough for this forum. I'd have to run an aerodynamic body and hydrodynamic fuel combustion simulation to give you exact ceiling numbers for the SR71 but for now my ms-excel spreadsheet numbers are probably close enough!



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

P.s. I understand that Zaphod58 MAY HAVE
LMCO contacts that can probably CONFIRM
those numbers or he may have personal
Knowledge of those ceiling numbers himself
If he worked outside of the usual small rotary
UAV programs and back onto SAP/CAP's.......

---

P.s.2. My calcs are based upon optimum conditions
Using today's titanium material strength and machine finish capabilities for body and engines...in the 1960's...one can reduce the max possible ceiling to between 95,000 to 97,000 feet at max MACH 3.2 during that time period's proposed extended capabilities design exercises.
In those days the true upper limiting factor was wing surface area...and ergo the 97,000 foot max possible ceiling in the 1960's.....NOWADAYS, we could inject N20 and use an active thermo cooler to bring max ceiling to 132,000 feet to compensate for low wing surface area.



edit on 2015/1/12 by StargateSG7 because: Sp

edit on 2015/1/12 by StargateSG7 because: Sp



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

Here's a link to a document indicating the early A-12 aircraft's
(of which the SR-71 design is based upon) maximum design flight
envelope parameters and a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet (my computations!)
for a computed flight envelope differentiation between the 20,000 lbs
heavier SR-71 aircraft if using modern materials and N2O injection
but NO CHANGES TO SR-71 DESIGN.

Note the maximum 97,000 foot max design ceiling of A-12 craft
indicated by the blue line I put in for chart highlight reasons.
The SR-71 being heavier would lose at least 3000 feet of max ceiling
so in the 1960's I suggest to you that the SR-71 PROBABLY cruised
at about 88,000 feet with an upper level max ceiling of 93,000 feet.

The SR-71 design ITSELF has MUCH HIGHER CEILING LIMITS if modern
materials for the body, windows and compressor blades are used.

THOSE WERE FANTASTIC DESIGNERS IN THOSE DAYS !!!!

THE DESIGN STILL HOLDS UP EXTREMELY WELL !!!!!!!

Just be wary of Pitch Up issues and use fast flight computers to compensate!


See diagram below:




posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

Great info!!

What does this say to me? A "SR-72" might look a heck of a lot like a SR-71, because they got the basics right back then. Just as Dragon and Orion capsules still look like the Apollo command module. And a Boeing 787 is generally similar to a Boeing 707.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

The computations I have done on Excel are what they are,
not perfect but probably reasonably accurate for the SR-71
and after finding the chart documents merely CONFIRMED
what I calculated.

As for the SR-72, if I was LMCO, I would go with this design...


3D- profile View:
www.fallingpixel.com...

Upper View:
oi39.tinypic.com...

Under-Body View:
www.fallingpixel.com...

The concept images from the artists Grafikk3D and PolyTron
are near IDEAL and a little bit better than what LMCO approved
as their official 3D renderings --- They just need some tweaking
on the wing's leading edges to make them more curved and not
so hard-cut angular so as to give true high performance at
Mach 5+ !!! Don't put ANY windows on it! It would be
CHEAP to produce if you use SMALL wide-angle
Sapphire Lenses hooked up to high frame rate
cameras to fly the thing. 8 cameras should give
you 360 degree surround-view control!

For the photography gear, use sapphire windows on the
under-body (up to 3800 Degrees F temperature resistance!)
that are hooked up to MULTIPLE 64 megapixel full-frame
and gyro-stabilized Liquid Propane-or-Methane-Cooled CCD sensors
(i.e. a larger inside-of-craft-body version of a WESCAM system)
...AND...why not add a RADARSAT2-like (Synthetic Aperture Radar)
for through-the-clouds 3D Volumetric scanning while we're at it!
edit on 2015/1/12 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

The top speed and altitude capabilities of the Blackbirds have long since been declassified.

They were designed to fly as high as 90,000 feet, but typically operated between 70,000 and 85,000 feet.

Highest known flights:

YF-12A (60-6936) – 80,257 feet, USAF, official record, 1 May 1965
SR-71A (61-7972) – 85,068 feet, USAF, official record, 27 July 1976
SR-71A (61-7953) – 86,700 feet, USAF, unofficial record, circa 1968 during developmental testing
A-12 (60-6932) – 90,000 feet, CIA, unofficial record, 14 August 1965

The Blackbirds had a design cruise speed of Mach 3.2 or approximately 2,100 mph. The A-12/SR-71 would cruise a little faster or slower depending on outside air temperature because it was limited by structural heating factors and compressor inlet temperature (CIT) limitations.

SR-71 pilots and engineers have stated that the aircraft would sometimes slightly exceed Mach 3.2 if the air temperature was cool enough. In higher temperatures, the aircraft was unable to attain design cruise speed due to structural temperature limits.

In 1991, NASA and Lockheed engineers studied the possibility of extending the Mach number capability of the SR-71. They examined the advantages and disadvantages of making the aircraft capable of flying at speeds from Mach 3.3 to as much as Mach 3.8 (the maximum potential of the J58 engine with an extensively modified inlet).

They determined that an enlarged inlet with a water-injection system could provide a large thrust margin increase at Mach 3.5, but there were relatively low benefits and relatively high risks. There were thermal (structural) concerns at speeds of Mach 3.5 and above. Engine compressor inlet temperature was predicted to be marginal at Mach 3.4 and virtually all engine parameters were marginal at Mach 3.5 and unacceptable beyond that speed. Ultimately the Mach extension modifications were not recommended due to the low benefit/cost ratio.

Fastest known Blackbird flights:
YF-12A (60-6936), Mach 3.14 (2,070 mph), 1 May 1965
A-12 (60-6928), Mach 3.29 (2,171 mph), 8 May 1965
SR-71A (61-7972), Mach 3.32 (2,193 mph), 27 July 1976

According to SR-71 pilot Richard Graham: "The design Mach number of the SR-71 is 3.2 Mach. When authorized by the Commander, speeds up to Mach 3.3 may be flown if the CIT limit of 427 degrees C is not exceeded. I have heard of crews reaching 3.5 Mach inadvertently, but that is the absolute maximum I am aware of."



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

Why would one put intakes on lower side vs upper side which is less exposed to ground radar?



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Airflow. Airflow on the top side can get disturbed by various things. Airflow on the underside has less poky bits to disturb it.

Hiding a turbine from radar is fairly easy. A curved intake works well.
edit on 1/12/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shadowhawk
a reply to: StargateSG7

The top speed and altitude capabilities of the Blackbirds have long since been declassified.

They were designed to fly as high as 90,000 feet, but typically operated between 70,000 and 85,000 feet.

Highest known flights:

YF-12A (60-6936) – 80,257 feet, USAF, official record, 1 May 1965
SR-71A (61-7972) – 85,068 feet, USAF, official record, 27 July 1976
SR-71A (61-7953) – 86,700 feet, USAF, unofficial record, circa 1968 during developmental testing
A-12 (60-6932) – 90,000 feet, CIA, unofficial record, 14 August 1965

The Blackbirds had a design cruise speed of Mach 3.2 or approximately 2,100 mph. The A-12/SR-71 would cruise a little faster or slower depending on outside air temperature because it was limited by structural heating factors and compressor inlet temperature (CIT) limitations.

SR-71 pilots and engineers have stated that the aircraft would sometimes slightly exceed Mach 3.2 if the air temperature was cool enough. In higher temperatures, the aircraft was unable to attain design cruise speed due to structural temperature limits.

In 1991, NASA and Lockheed engineers studied the possibility of extending the Mach number capability of the SR-71. They examined the advantages and disadvantages of making the aircraft capable of flying at speeds from Mach 3.3 to as much as Mach 3.8 (the maximum potential of the J58 engine with an extensively modified inlet).

They determined that an enlarged inlet with a water-injection system could provide a large thrust margin increase at Mach 3.5, but there were relatively low benefits and relatively high risks. There were thermal (structural) concerns at speeds of Mach 3.5 and above. Engine compressor inlet temperature was predicted to be marginal at Mach 3.4 and virtually all engine parameters were marginal at Mach 3.5 and unacceptable beyond that speed. Ultimately the Mach extension modifications were not recommended due to the low benefit/cost ratio.

Fastest known Blackbird flights:
YF-12A (60-6936), Mach 3.14 (2,070 mph), 1 May 1965
A-12 (60-6928), Mach 3.29 (2,171 mph), 8 May 1965
SR-71A (61-7972), Mach 3.32 (2,193 mph), 27 July 1976

According to SR-71 pilot Richard Graham: "The design Mach number of the SR-71 is 3.2 Mach. When authorized by the Commander, speeds up to Mach 3.3 may be flown if the CIT limit of 427 degrees C is not exceeded. I have heard of crews reaching 3.5 Mach inadvertently, but that is the absolute maximum I am aware of."


----

I see we've seen the nearly the same documents but I have one extra one
which applies to the SR-71 design predecessor the A-12 Oxcart which IS/WAS
able to reach UP TO 97,000 feet AS IT DIRECTLY SAYS IN THE CHART i have
provided above when in extended capabilities mode.

The SR-71 is 20,000 lbs HEAVIER than the A-12 so you lose about 3000 feet
of ceiling for nearly the same wing area. The A-12 and SR-71 LOOK NEARLY
except for some engine and cabin configuration differences!

AND the document which you outline was ORIGINALLY marked
CONFIDENTIAL rather than TOP SECRET which indicates that is
was part of a low-classification document probably sent to various
senate hearings or GAO (General Accounting Office) venues for
internal accounting purposes. Some parts you specify are different
than the document which I have which is a
NASA performance study called:

Design and Development of the Blackbird:
Challenges and Lessons Learned

which was done after a FEW SR-71's were given
to NASA by the NRO/CIA probably around 1998.

That study INADVERTENTLY left in the design
ceiling data which was part of LMCO's original
A-12 manufacturing, maintenance and flight
manuals documentation which were originally
marked TOP SECRET. This is an OOOPS! on the
part of NASA but good for ME that I found it!

MY OWN COMPUTATIONS for the REALLY
High Ceilings of 132,000 feet are for SR-71
airframes and engine components based upon
using MODERN Grade 6 Titanium, (i.e. Ti-5Al-2.5Sn)
which if coated with a carbide could PROBABLY
allow for continuous 1800 DEGREES CELCIUS (3257F)
as an outer skin temperature during high-speed flight
and much higher temperature resistance
(i.e. get more more power!) in the engine components.

See Titanium Carbide info:
en.wikipedia.org...

This means you could REALLY PUSH the SR-71 airframe design
without changing anything other than airframe materials.
THAT is a testament to the ABSOLUTELY SUPERB aircraft
design capabilities of Lockheed in the 1950's/1960's!

If built today with modern materials and a decent flight
computer to manage pitch-up conditions, it would STILL
outperform almost EVERYTHING flying today in terms
of max speed and max ceiling!

The SR-71 is SUPERB ENGINEERING in my opinion!

P.S. And based upon wing area and other design specs
I am going to say (NOT VERIFIED!) on a balance of probability
that operational ceilings for the SR-71 MAY HAVE been as high
as 88,000 feet during some runs over the Soviet Union during
the 1970's and 1980's. Those numbers would STILL be classified
but based upon inlet size, aero-spike configuration, engine blade
design parameters and likely high-altitude weather conditions
especially during winter months, I am GUESSING 88,000 feet
is the magic number for MANY of the secret recon runs!
edit on 2015/1/12 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Hands down no other aircraft or machine for that matter will match the beauty of a SR-71 on the ground or in the air.

Since its sort of on the subject and I don't remember finding an answer in the SR-72 thread, would any one happen to know if the fuel leaking issue was fixed in the or one of the SR-71 replacements? Weird but that was one of my favorite details about the SR-71.

A question for the topic, could the pilot be referring to the rumored F-117 companion aircraft? If so wouldn't it be retired or getting close to it? It must be really sweet or non-existent to remain a secret for so long, and it seems a lot of informed people believe it does exist. It makes since to me that it would be at Tonopah airbase with the F-117s they flew with. If they exist.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: StratosFear

It wasn't an issue, it was done that way deliberately. Rubber couldn't withstand the temperatures the aircraft operated at so they couldn't put a rubber bladder in like they do with most aircraft. They also had to deal with the fuselage expanding due to the extreme temps, so it wound up being a win/win situation. It leaves room for the skin to expand in flight, and also keeps them from having problems with the fuel system.

As of the start of 2014 it was still flying.
edit on 1/12/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Still flying and still classified, there must have been one hell of E-Nuke set off over some leaked photos. I type in "F-117" and immediately get "f-117 companion aircraft tanker boom photos".

"Issue" may have been the wrong term to use, "design feature" would have done better but it didn't dawn on me at the time. Nice long work day.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: StratosFear

There's never been a single confirmed picture of it that I have seen or heard of, or any confirmation of it other than rumor floating around.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I read somewhere that there was a night vision video of Baghdad at one point. The last reference I've found to the video was from 2000 (if it ever existed).



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The only tanker boom pic I've come across was an artist recreation and obviously not real. I just thought it was funny I didn't even finish typing F-11... before that instantly popped up, and only that popped up.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: StratosFear

Yeah, there have been rumors out there for a long time, but no one has gotten even close that I've seen yet, that doesn't already know about it.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: StratosFear
a reply to: Zaphod58

Still flying and still classified, there must have been one hell of E-Nuke set off over some leaked photos. I type in "F-117" and immediately get "f-117 companion aircraft tanker boom photos".

"Issue" may have been the wrong term to use, "design feature" would have done better but it didn't dawn on me at the time. Nice long work day.


Interesting...



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join