Holy Moly! sr-71 top speed is Mach 14 (leaked document)

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   


We have maglev trains which can go to 600mph and soon break the sound barrier then why not having a sr71 plane breaking mach 14.


This is the first I've heard of near-supersonic maglev trains.....


And with reference to the last post, the X-15 was a 'zoomer.' B-52's or the like would drop the X-15 from around 35,000 feet and it would 'zoom' to its target altitude. I'd never heard of it breaking Mach 6, though, thats interesting.

[edit on 4-2-2006 by BlackThorn311]




posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
The SR-71 never made leg specs for range. It was originally supposed to do something like 1,700nm between tankings. It never even got close to 1,200.

If you can't make distances, you can't penetrate. Because sure as hell, there are NO tankers over central Russia, even in post SIOP rollback scenario.

As such, the Blackbird was crap because what it did was little more than what any other _standoff_ platform could achieve with /much/ longer dwell and on station time (in this, you are looking at 400-600km sensor suites as much as anything else) in much tighter confines of international airspace.

That said, if you want to determine the aircraft's top speed, draw a line from it's pitot to it's outboard engine inlet edges and compare it to a generic (tunnel)Mach chart for a wedge based airfoil. Ignoring the 'compression front' effect ahead of the jet, if that center shock ever breaks over the airframe, it's gravetime for gonzo.

Which is why the aircraft 'cruised' as low as Mach 2.68 and /averaged/ around 2.9. Because an unstart (which were common events prior to the 'digital spike' controls) will whip the aircraft through forty degrees of yaw in a heartbeat and if that doesn't disrupt the shock...

As I recall, the form topout on the SR's profile was on the order of 3.8, altitude dependent. Given that almost every 'high altitude' capable missile the Russians made had a nuclear option and particularly the SA-5 and SA-12 are themselves Mach-5-7 systems here, I doubt /seriously/ if there was ever any point in the design of Oxcart, from that day in May 1960 when F G Powers 'forgot to take his pill' and Open Skies died on the conference table.

If you want an impressive aircraft, look at this one-

aeroweb.lucia.it...
www.aeronautics.ru...
www.aeronautics.ru...

Because, in the Tu-123/DBR-1, you had a drone which could sustain Mach 2.68 at 74,000ft for almost 2,000nm. It _operationally_ flew from Western Russia down the Bothnia/Baltic corridor, across to England and as far south as Spain. And _we could not touch it_.

Using mid-50's design technology with a service debut in 1964.

Indeed, 'we' being NATO, at a time long before Direct Line 'Red Phones' went so far as to publish an article in a known leftist rag publically 'complaining' about these flights destabilizing effects and how the likely response would be Nike Hercules in Europe (i.e. nuclear warheads of our own, exploding over our own populace, at altitude).

Whenever you hear about the 'mighty MiG-25' and all it's fantastical range@Mach figures as a justification for the F-teen 'Super Fighters', what you are really hearing about is the Jastreb.

A reusable (ten times, which is all you need in a nuclear tripwire Euro warplan) supercruise drone that weighed half what the SR-71 did, Jastreb (Hawk) achieved ALL the flight performance variables which the Blackbird /never came close to/ being 'operationally suitable' on.

Furthermore, it was made from fairly cheap materials.

First flew three years before the A-12/Oxcart and out lasted it by almost 12, in service (1968 vs. 1979). If they had rigged it with atomic laydown options like they originally planned, the Russians would have had absolute nuclear dominance over all of Europe, not unlike Regulus II if not Navajo.

CONCLUSION:
I swear, people look at aircraft with the same anatomy as responds when a Super Model walks into the room. "Where's the cockpit and can I get in it?"

Never realizing that leading with their organ DECREASES the available military utility, let alone 'wow factor' performance by whole orders of magnitude.

And Still, A Compass Points North. Snort.


KPl.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   
This is funny. My relative in the Navy says he knows a little more about some aircraft then we do. He basicaly told me, "If it has + in altitude, add hundreds to it. If it has + in speed, double the speed. If it has a high cost, cut it in half. If it's been in testing for years, double that amount. And if they say we've developed it ourselves, don't believe it." That's as much as I could get out of him, besides he says that the SR-71 does have a replacement in testing and it can leave Earth's atmosphere at its highest altitude. But he sadly never heard of Aurora... He can be trusted. Nnever lied to anyone that I know of.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466

If you want an impressive aircraft, look at this one-

aeroweb.lucia.it...
www.aeronautics.ru...
www.aeronautics.ru...

KPl.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT A JOKE MAN!!!!

That was a good one.

Train



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
BT,

>>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT A JOKE MAN!!!!

That was a good one.
>>

Never commit to battle that which is so valuable but that you may send it in it's hundreds.

For he who has the most to lose, usually can afford to win.

Such is NOT the SR-71. It never has been. Too few, too hard to stand more than a 4 ship to mission ready status _at Beale_. Too much hassle maintaining the FOL dets. Too specialized a fuel to exploit the existing tanker fleet.

_NO_ residual strike.

And none of the penetrating performance needed to do even just one job, reliably.


KPl.

[edit on 5-2-2006 by ch1466]



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Please use the quote button to the top left.

SR-71 blackbird remains the greatest high speed aircraft ever built. You care to debunk this fact? Nobody on this board will agree with that point of view you brought forth. You might as well have said that the sopwith camel was better because of its fuel efficiency.

Train

Edit for spelling

[edit on 5-2-2006 by BigTrain]



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
Please use the quote button to the top left.
SR-71 blackbird remains the greatest high speed aircraft ever built. You care to debunk this fact? Nobody on this board will agree with that point of view you brought forth.


The quote button is to the right actually and yes, please use it, it makes reading posts much easier.

I would have to agree. The SR-71 is one of the greatest air breathing aircraft ever in serial production. The XB-70 and F-108 Rapier had been put into production would also fit this bill as well.

There were many aircraft that got to mockup stage and had this potnetial but were scrapped for a variety of resons.

Think about this. mcNamara, was personal responsable for the cancelation of some of the greatest airborn platforms the world had ever seen.: The XB-70, the F-108, the YF-12, a follow on bomber version of the A-12 etc etc etc. What did we get from "Mack the Knife"? The F-111A



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Anyone who believes that SR-71 went Mach 14 deserves a medal.

Because that would defy the very laws of nature and science.

Taking Aerospace engineering gives one a perspective on these things. Keep up the good work though I enjoy laughing at your posts.

Here are some quick reasons why the SR-71 would never attain mach 14, first of all engines.

Do you know why there hasn't been any major, major advancement in propulsion by turbojet engines in the last 30 years?

well because we're operating them at 90% of their melting temperature. IE, if the temp goes up 10% more the engine would melt off the side of the aircraft.

So, if the engine on an f-16 is 10% away from melting why would the SR - 71 be able to exceed mach 14 and come back unmelted.

So until some new materials are invented that are stronger and melt at higher temps then titanium, Turbojet propulled aircraft will never acheive those speeds claimed.

You guys always scream for proof. Well, take a look at any introductory materials engineering text books. I'll give you the name of one

"William D. Callister, Jr., Materials Science and Engineering an Introduction, 6th ed. United States; John Wiley & Songs, 2003."

This is added from the edit:

Right forgot to mention that mach 2.5 to 3.2 would make sense.

Plus those were astounding speeds in terms of atomspheric aircraft and still are.

The new ramjets and scramjets headed by NASA's JPL will be the new engine technology once it has advanced enough.





[edit on 5-2-2006 by ericb007]



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Hey we use Callisters book too

It gives you good basics on Material science.

And Thrust of SR-71s engines, even if they wouldn't melt, wouldn't be enough to get to mach 7..



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Ba ha!!!
i knew it was a croc of poo.
Mach 14... bwah hah hah hah hah mwah aha hah hah!
fools

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/2/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
Please use the quote button to the top left.

SR-71 blackbird remains the greatest high speed aircraft ever built. You care to debunk this fact? Nobody on this board will agree with that point of view you brought forth. You might as well have said that the sopwith camel was better because of its fuel efficiency.

Train

Edit for spelling

[edit on 5-2-2006 by BigTrain]


The bit about "nobody on this board..." is definitely wrong..



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain

SR-71 blackbird remains the greatest high speed aircraft ever built. You care to debunk this fact? Nobody on this board will agree with that point of view


The SR-71 was certainly impressive, but arguably a dead end - only about 30 built, and a third of them were lost. It was retired for a variety of reasons and never developed into anything else operational, as far as we know.

Compare with the MiG-25 - built in the hundreds, used by many countries, and evolved into the MiG-31 Foxhound, and still very much around.

But perhaps we need to agree an objective criterion for 'greatest'



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   
There were only 30 SRs built because Macnamara, in his infinite wisdom [/sarcasm], killed off the production line and destroyed the tools used to build them.

Here's a bit of good reading on the losses.

29 SR-71As built 11 lost
2 SR-71Bs built 1 lost
1 SR-71C built 0 lost

www.voodoo.cz...



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
Please use the quote button to the top left.

SR-71 blackbird remains the greatest high speed aircraft ever built. You care to debunk this fact? Nobody on this board will agree with that point of view you brought forth. You might as well have said that the sopwith camel was better because of its fuel efficiency.

Train

Edit for spelling

[edit on 5-2-2006 by BigTrain]

Nah, if you'd have said that about the Sopwith Camel, we'd have attacked you for it's maintenance and reliability issues.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley

Originally posted by BigTrain

SR-71 blackbird remains the greatest high speed aircraft ever built. You care to debunk this fact? Nobody on this board will agree with that point of view


The SR-71 was certainly impressive, but arguably a dead end - only about 30 built, and a third of them were lost. It was retired for a variety of reasons and never developed into anything else operational, as far as we know.

Compare with the MiG-25 - built in the hundreds, used by many countries, and evolved into the MiG-31 Foxhound, and still very much around.

But perhaps we need to agree an objective criterion for 'greatest'


Here is what a Russian pilot said:

Soviet Mig Pilot Belinko Recalls:
Chasing the SR-71 along the Siberian Coast in a Mig-25, I could not match it's speed. One flight in the Mig-25 and we had to change our engines. I could not believe that such technologies existed.

Source



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
The SR-71 is the only aircraft that I am aware of that has fired missiles at faster than mach 3 speed.

Train



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Has an SR-71 ever fired any missiles at any speed? I didn't think it had



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Mach 3.2 at 75,000 feet YF-12A #60-6934 LAC#1001 fired an AIM-47.


YF12A #60-6934 LAC#1001

This Prototype was the 1st YF-12A and performed it's maiden flight on 7 August 1963. On 28 September 1965 flying at Mach 3.2 and 75,000 feet, #934 fired an AIM-47 missile at a target Q-2C Drone destroying the Drone at 20,000 feet. YF12A #934 aircraft was seriously damaged during a landing at Edwards AFB. It was placed in storage in Palmdale, California. The rear half of #934 was later used to build the SR-71C #64-17981 trainer which flew for the first time on March 14, 1969.

www.wvi.com...

Although technically Waynos is right. The SR-71 HASN"T fired a single missile at any speed. The YF-12 has fired them at over Mach 3. They WERE different aircraft, just used the same basic body.

[edit on 2/7/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Has an SR-71 ever fired any missiles at any speed? I didn't think it had


I was always under that impression as well. That being that the SR-71 was strictly a spylane/information gathering vehicle.

In those days, spy satellite technology was in it's infancy and this before the ability to just send out digital info in real time..... the SR71 was the closest thing to real time above ground survellance. (Back in those days, the plane had to bring back the recon film to be developed, so speed was of great importance then)

Everything I every read about the SR71 has said that since nothing on earth could catch it in flight, it did not need weapons. The SR71's speed and alttitude capabilities were it's greatest defence. (hence the alleged quote from the Soviet Mig-25 pilot)



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Spearhead,



for this plane to travel at mach 14 its doing that speed.
nothing we know of but light and energy can travel at those sort of speed

Wrong, as stated the shuttle travels at mach 23-24.
The voyager probes travel at over 100,000 mile per hour, which I'm sure is alot higher in the mach scale, don't know exactly.

Light, which is made up of Photons travels at the speed of light, which is 669,600,000 MPH. Photons have 0 mass, which allows them to travel at the speed they do.
Energy, if it has even 0.000000001% mass, will not travel at the speed of light but very close to it, though I don't know if energy has mass.

Ok, particle physics lesson is over, in case anyones wondering why I added that, well it's useful to know.




that's different... one is traveling through space where there is no gravity there for no g-forces so friction does not opppose the acceleration. the other falling from space where speed has already been gained and gravity assists in acceleration.

Actually it's Micro Gravity, not No Gravity.

There are G-forces in space, you can't take the shuttle for instance, travelling at say 5MPH and in a few seconds accelerate it to 50,000MPH, not unless you want to break all the equipment and make an astronaut smoothy.

I'm pretty sure, not totaly though, that the shuttle ascends (that is go's up from the ground) at mach 23-24.


Warthog911,




I know its hard to believe that the sr 71 can go mach 14 but remember this" truth is always stranger than fiction" and open your minds.

It's not only hard to believe, it's virtually impossible, and that's coming from an open minded person.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join