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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: boomer135

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...


I thought so to considering I was actually going for some pics of an F-111 doing a dump and burn maneuver. Its Bing that's doing it, google still lets me decide.




posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

Yes, the A-12 had a "design ceiling" of 97,000 feet but it never actually flew that high. It was never really intended do; that was a bit of over-engineering. During testing the A-12 maxed out at 90,000 feet according to now declassified CIA documents. The SR-71 supposedly came close to 90,000 during one test flight, but that anecdote is not yet supported with documentation.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: StargateSG7
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.





Did i miss the link somewhere or is the link the page above me here? Also, did i miss the excel sheet too?



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

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.



Sorry shadowhawk but i gotta say the irony here is to die for!!!



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: StratosFear

As Zaph said, it was still flying in the beginning of the 2014 year. Personally, I don't think that its base is Tonopah.
I remember that there was uploaded audio file on the web sometime ago that presented conversation between AWACS pilots and our "companion" friend during Gulf War. Unfortunately, the file was deleted from the net.

I think(gauging by the fact that the plane was still operational in the previous year) that there is no chance that it will be declassified soon. If you look in the past, projects or aircraft are usually declassified few years or few decades after its retirement.
edit on 13-1-2015 by SpeedFanatic because: New sentence



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpeedFanatic
a reply to: StratosFear


I think(gauging by the fact that the plane was still operational in the previous year) that there is no chance that it will be declassified soon. If you look in the past, projects or aircraft are usually declassified few years or few decades after its retirement.


I would tend to agree. We may never see it, to be cut into pieces and buried in the desert. What a tragedy that would be, to be lost to time and the US tax payer that payed for it like that.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

I think that such program like "F-117 Companion" wouldn't be buried. I think that there was produced more than one copy of this type of aircraft and if it took part in some Wars it can't be demonstrator. I never heard of any demonstrator that took part in any conflict.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

StargateSG7, I just had to laugh when I went back and looked at your earlier post.

Design and Development of the Blackbird:
Challenges and Lessons Learned

"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! "


There was nothing inadvertent about it. I included that performance graph in my paper (and the book from which the paper was derived) to illustrate the maximum design parameters of the aircraft. A zoom climb to 97,000 feet would be at the extreme corner of the flight envelope. It's not a good place to be and would have had no operational benefit worth justifying the risk of attempting such a maneuver. A former SR-71 test pilot claimed to have made a low-res-weight, optimum climb flight to 89,650 feet in an SR-71A. The lighter A-12, according to CIA records, attained a maximum altitude of 90,000 feet on at least one occasion during the test program. In order to carry a useful fuel/payload combination, operational missions usually cruised at around 70,000 to 80,000 feet at speeds between Mach 3.0 and 3.2.

If you enjoyed my paper, you should track down a copy of the book, "From Archangel to Senior Crown: Design and Development of the Blackbird." It's worthwhile if you can find a copy with the accompanying CD-ROM containing all the A-12, YF-12, and SR-71 flight manuals, design studies, specifications, and user handbooks.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Autographed Copy





posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shadowhawk
a reply to: StargateSG7

StargateSG7, I just had to laugh when I went back and looked at your earlier post.

Design and Development of the Blackbird:
Challenges and Lessons Learned

"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! "


There was nothing inadvertent about it. I included that performance graph in my paper (and the book from which the paper was derived) to illustrate the maximum design parameters of the aircraft. A zoom climb to 97,000 feet would be at the extreme corner of the flight envelope. It's not a good place to be and would have had no operational benefit worth justifying the risk of attempting such a maneuver. A former SR-71 test pilot claimed to have made a low-res-weight, optimum climb flight to 89,650 feet in an SR-71A. The lighter A-12, according to CIA records, attained a maximum altitude of 90,000 feet on at least one occasion during the test program. In order to carry a useful fuel/payload combination, operational missions usually cruised at around 70,000 to 80,000 feet at speeds between Mach 3.0 and 3.2.

If you enjoyed my paper, you should track down a copy of the book, "From Archangel to Senior Crown: Design and Development of the Blackbird." It's worthwhile if you can find a copy with the accompanying CD-ROM containing all the A-12, YF-12, and SR-71 flight manuals, design studies, specifications, and user handbooks.




Who Knew I was Talking to the Author Himself!?

Thanks for the info!

You're right about the 97,000 DESIGN maximum ceiling, it would be
on the very edge of the flight performance envelope with pitch-up
issues and Window Frame overheating causing buckling and eventual
cockpit window failure.

One issue I have is that there seems to be a few discrepencies
in the flight ceiling info within the NASA report where it says
97,000 feet in the text description but below the chart in the
shading-descriptors its says 95,000 feet and elsewhere it says
max ceiling is 93,000 feet...WHICH IS IT?

---
Design and Development of the Blackbird:
Challenges and Lessons Learned

Weblink (cut and paste please):

Just as an aside to a previous post the links to the paper
I cite is as follows:

ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090007797.pdf

...the spreadsheet regarding my OWN calculations regarding
a 132,000 foot ceiling are based upon total wing area,
nitrous oxide injection, and advanced ceramic-metal
alloys in engine components BUT keeping the SAME DESIGN!

The math for calculating performance is well known such as
taking into account body Cx (co-efficient of Friction),
inlet cross-section, compressor blade speed, surface area
and angle-of-attack, combustion chamber size and rated
temperature, aircraft weight, outside air density, fuel flow
and vaporization estimates, exhaust outlet cross-section
and configuration, wing area and other technical factors.
There's enough data from outside sources AND add-in
the fact I got to SQUEEEEEEEZE my rather large and
weighty frame (I don't fit!) into the cockpit of an
SR-71 and take PLENTY of pictures inside and out at
fixed focal lengths and KNOWN distances, allows
me to make more than just an educated guess
about the SR-71's dimensions and body configuration!

ERGO, this baby when re-built using MODERN metals and
ceramics, can do up to 132,000 feet at MACH 2.6 to 3.0 !!!!!!!
That is a testament to the original Lockheed engineers
design and manufacturing skills that STILL hold up after
60 years or more !!!!!!!!

I've built a spreadsheet/database system that takes those
factors into account and am using the results of those
equations to build my own ultra high performance RC-type
drones for geo-physics applications where I get to have
some fun and get PAID for it too!!!!!

Sorry, but the spreadsheet is proprietary information.
It's not my call to give it out to the free world!


P.S. Let me take an Educated Guess:

Shadowhawks: Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 141 And Growler Electromate CVN 71 or CVN 73

or anywhere in Holland 2002
edit on 2015/1/13 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Have an autographed copy in my A-12/SR-71 /U-2 Book collection as well. Thanks P.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

The main issue with regard to A-12/SR-71 altitude performance had little to do with the materials. It was all about weight. As you pointed out, the lighter A-12 had better altitude performance than the SR-71 from the start. Some amount of altitude was sacrificed for every extra pound of fuel or equipment (cameras/sensors) on board. Today, you could probably built a lighter airframe (the Blackbird's radar absorbent chines and tails were heavy!), but altitude performance would still be dependent on overall gross weight (airframe/fuel/payload/crew).

Some of Kelly Johnson's earlier design studies were intended to fly higher, but the customer wisely insisted on emphasizing the need for a lower radar cross-section (RCS). Johnson struggled to design an airplane that met all of the necessary requirements. He actually gave up on stealth at one point, offering the A-11 which had an unacceptably large RCS. When he was forced to go back to the drawing board, he came up with the A-12 (one of my all-time favorite designs).

There was no operational advantage to flying the SR-71 above 80,000 feet on any given mission profile, which would have required carrying less fuel or equipment and put the airplane in a less optimal portion of the flight envelope. Between 70 and 80K the Blackbirds were still out of range of most surface-to-air missiles of the time. Couple that with the airplane's speed, anti-radar characteristics (stealth), and electronic countermeasures, and they were essentially untouchable. Only one A-12 was ever hit by fragments of an SA-2 missile (I've seen the shrapnel and the hole it made), and that was just a lucky shot.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Shadowhawk

I agree that weight is the PRIMARY factor in the SR-71's
performance envelope but I do find it interesting that
the chart text I reference EVEN HAS the 97,000 max ceiling.

I do understand that over-design was one aspect of engineering
during the 1960's where there simply wasn't any computer horsepower
available to do aerodynamic and component simulations like we do
today using such software as CATIA. This brings up the question
of JUST HOW FAR was the over-design INTENDED to be so that
specific mission flight envelopes would be supported?
Is the 97,000 feet REALLY the 1960's era upper ceiling
limit or is that just the PUBLICLY DISCLOSED limit?

CATIA weblink:
www.3ds.com...

All Lockheed would have had access to was
the 60's era DAC-1 computer aided design system.

See link on DAC-1:
en.wikipedia.org...

Today's engineers have access to things that Lockheed would have DROOLED OVER:

Freeware CAD/CAM/SIMULATION software:
www.grc.nasa.gov...

So I am wondering on a purely academic basis that
GOING BEYOND simplistic estimations of possible
flight performance using spreadsheets, if someone
had a bit of cash to do a ground up build of an SR-71,
just how far could that airframe design REALLY BE PUSHED
using modern weight-reducing materials and superior
engine components? It sound like this would be an
absolutely FUN project to do since plans are available,
photos are available and even the real plane can be
seen in a flight museum. With a decent 3D Metal
Powder Sintering printer for the titanium engine
components and modern titanium sheet and bracing,
it would probably be possibly 3 Million Dollars cost
just for the titanium itself and if it was like a
10-person volunteer build team my guess is
about 8000 man-hours of build time over
four years for 4 hours a week per person.
It would be a fun thing to do.

Just buy a few of these machines to start:

EOS M-400 Metal Sintering Machine for building
engine components and specialty metal parts in Titanium:

www.eos.info...

Wish I had the cash to start.... :-) :-)

Anyways...it's kinda hard to make an argument
against the very person who knows WAAAAAY more
than a bit about the subject at hand. I'm just a
video production wonkie and graphics programmer,
not a true engineer so I can't argue against your
statements.

P.S. Was I right about my Educated Guess?
edit on 2015/1/14 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

I don't find anything remarkable about the performance chart. All of that information has been declassified now. And yes, I do believe that 97,000 was the upper limit, though not very realistic in terms of actual performance. It was based on absolutely ideal conditions.

I couldn't make heads or tails of your "Educated Guess." If you were trying to figure out where "Shadowhawk" comes from, it was the handle I used when I registered with ATS. It was sort of an inside joke that would take too long to explain and would probably not seem nearly as funny as it did at the time. In retrospect, I suppose I could have come up with something better.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Shadowhawk

Thank you for your insight.

Regarding the ShadowHawk reference, I thought that MAYBE
you served with the Electronic Counter Measures squadron
aboard CVN-71 or CVN-73 aircraft carriers because they
call themselves SHADOWHAWKS and I thought since you
know so much about the SR-71 I thought you were originally
in the Flight Crew or the Electronic Countermeasures design
or maintenance area for the EA-6B Prowler or EA-18G Growler
aircraft and sub-systems or the special carrier units that helped
the SR-71 survive it's flights over secretive areas.

---

What a hoot to read your report

Here is WHY I am so interested in the SR-71 flight performance envelope,
I want to BUILD what this guy has done but of course make it more REAL
than what was in the video and quite a bit larger and faster!

Roger Knobel ( A-12) SR-71 Blackbird Giant RC (Remote Controlled) Turbine Jet:
(NOTE: engine is single jet turbine with some LED's to SIMULATE the twin engine look)

www.youtube.com...

...AND...


Jet World Masters 2011 SR 71 - Full Twin Engine RC Turbine Jet

www.youtube.com...

...and for some almost ridiculous fun....

Sukhoi SU-47 Berkhut RC Twin Jet:

www.youtube.com...

AND

Jumbo 13 foot long R/C Carrier Launches Model Airplanes of flight Deck:

www.youtube.com...

AND

Large-scale RC Antonov 225 JET with a Russian Buran Space Shuttle on Top
that can separate off of main aircraft during flight:

www.youtube.com...

...and...

RC Rocket with Space Shuttle that separates from main booster:
www.youtube.com...

AND FINALLY

Seriously Wicked Saturn-5 Home Built RC-style ROCKET: (4000 ft capable!)
www.youtube.com...

---

So the key issue if THESE people can build such high performance
craft, imagine if we apply scale-up using more high end equipment!

I am absolutely fascinated with how the SR-71 looks and flies
and I am very curious as to just how far I could SCALE UP an
SR-71 RC model jet to get supersonic flight and 50,000+ feet
of ceiling :-) :-)
edit on 2015/1/14 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: SpeedFanatic
a reply to: StratosFear

I think(gauging by the fact that the plane was still operational in the previous year) that there is no chance that it will be declassified soon. If you look in the past, projects or aircraft are usually declassified few years or few decades after its retirement.


Is that true? Sure, technology demonstrators tend to be declassified once they've finished flying (Polecat, Have Blue), but all the examples of active combat aircraft were declassified during the operational lifetime. Certainly true for the F-117 and B-2. At least I think that's true, I'd be happy for someone to prove me wrong :-P



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:24 AM
link   
a reply to: gfad

There were several tech demonstrators that have remained classified after the programs ended. As well as several active platforms that are still classified many years later.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaphod, do you know if it ever happened that a demonstrator got (partly) de-classified while the actual platform derived from it remained in the black world?



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: CiTrus90

I think probably the best example of that (or at least the most recent) is the Lockheed Polecat / RQ-170.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Are there **any** aircraft that are currently declassified, that were black whilst operational? Not tech demonstrators but actual active aircraft. The A-12 I guess? But any others?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join