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

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Yet more of this "black projects are star trek" stupidity on this thread.


Please, simply look at the wing planform of the SR-71, and as pointed out by others calculate the shock cone angle and from that work out the aerodynamic design mach number.

M = 1/[sin(alpha)]


where alpha is the angle from the absolute nose cone to the outer wing.

For the SR-71, the design mach number is around 3 to 3.2.


Denying ignorance is one thing, but blatantly disregarding the rules of aerodynamic design is just stupid.




posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 04:53 AM
link   
This is a bit unrelated, but might be related to this thread.

I heard that use of Plasma would potentionally cancel gravity inside the plasma bubble, completely remove the effects of gravity and some other outlandish claims, it would be fairly interesting if it was true, but doubtful since the Russians have been experimenting with Plasma stealth and so has the united states on the B-2(?)

if such technology DOES exist, it is possible that the SR-71 (even back then) empolyed it, that is the only way it could be true, so that makes the entire story doubtful, sorry Warthhog...

Don't believe everything you read...


d1k

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

For the SR-71, the design mach number is around 3 to 3.2.


Denying ignorance is one thing, but blatantly disregarding the rules of aerodynamic design is just stupid.


Well most people do not know the rules of aerodynamics
We can now deny ignorance thanks to your information



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Ground zero, I understand you are not saying you believe this mach 14 rubbish so I'm not having a go at you, but just to play with your theory a little; assuming that was correct and a plasma bubble was formed around the aircraft to cancel gravity (or however its supposed to work) I have a question.

How does the air enter the engines at mach 14 and not shred them into tiny particles? If the bubble is holding this air at bay what are the engines breathing?

This isn't aimed at you GZ, its for any of the mach 14 fantasists who might like to answer


[edit on 8-2-2006 by waynos]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 06:51 AM
link   
That's actually a really good question Waynos. For the plasma stealth crowd as well. How DOES the air get to the engines if you're surrounded by a cloud of plasma?



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Well, they have small air-tubes under the wings... That's my only explanation...



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I believe it's worth mentioning that it is not impossible to exceed the mach cone of an aircraft, just very inefficient. Each point at which the sound barrier is 'penetrated' requires a certain amount of energy. If your wings spread out beyond this point, than you must break the sound barrier at all points along the wing beyond the mach cone. Thus, if the tips of the J-58 inlet cones were assumed to protrude just beyond the mach cone of the nose, there would be three points, and the aircraft would require three times the thrust.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Travellar
I believe it's worth mentioning that it is not impossible to exceed the mach cone of an aircraft, just very inefficient. Each point at which the sound barrier is 'penetrated' requires a certain amount of energy. If your wings spread out beyond this point, than you must break the sound barrier at all points along the wing beyond the mach cone. Thus, if the tips of the J-58 inlet cones were assumed to protrude just beyond the mach cone of the nose, there would be three points, and the aircraft would require three times the thrust.


And the interaction of the shock cones over either the air intakes or the wings would play havoc with either the shock structure into the engines or the wing loading and/or the aileron/elevator controls.

CFD was not at the stage of allowing such interactions to be modelled, and wind tunnels can only do so much (considering Re effects)... I also dunno if they had high pressured wind tunnels with enough performance to do the job back then.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
how can you give any credibiity to a story that starts like this

I was recently contacted by an older gentleman around the age of 70 years old that had contacted me by my personal cell phone, which not a soul knows the number to except immediate family and friends. This gentleman told me he had information regarding secret technologies and Alien cooperation with various governments of the world.


He then informed me that he had been a reader of my site and was impressed by some of the material he'd seen there.



then he revealed the tooth fairy uses space age anti-gravity suit to get around



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Yet more of this "black projects are star trek" stupidity on this thread.


Please, simply look at the wing planform of the SR-71, and as pointed out by others calculate the shock cone angle and from that work out the aerodynamic design mach number.

M = 1/[sin(alpha)]


where alpha is the angle from the absolute nose cone to the outer wing.

For the SR-71, the design mach number is around 3 to 3.2.


Denying ignorance is one thing, but blatantly disregarding the rules of aerodynamic design is just stupid.


What about the rules of mathematics?
1/sin(alpha) = ....?



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

What about the rules of mathematics?
1/sin(alpha) = ....?




A square bracket doesn't make a difference - just makes it slightly clearer IMO. If your using something like MATLAB, an array of 1 is still a singular number irregardless of whether its in an array or not.



For the SR-71, alpha is approx 18 or so:

M = 1/[sin(18)] or 1/sin(18) - there is no difference

M = 3.2 approx



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
mmm Mach 14 I don't think so. Sounds great but just because this guy recalls a conversation with some retired Dude, it does not make it so.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
How does the air enter the engines at mach 14 and not shred them into tiny particles? If the bubble is holding this air at bay what are the engines breathing?

This isn't aimed at you GZ, its for any of the mach 14 fantasists who might like to answer


[edit on 8-2-2006 by waynos]


Thank you for your input, I was just relaying what I heard, i haven't thought much about it my self, I think that if there were some holes in the bubbles, some air could be let in the intake, that's just my personal theory.

I personally don't say one way or the other since i'm not in possesion of any information on this, i'm just keeping a very open minded about this, VERY open minded, I personally don't believe any aircraft from that time period would have such exceptional performance.

I'm just theorizing what COULD have been possible



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   
MACH 14?!
You can't be serious! There has never been an operational jet aircraft that fast.

Mach 14 is about 10'640 mph, if we use 760 as Mach 1. The heat that speed would generate would Melt titanium. At that speed, the aircaft would litterly Melt like a popcicle in the desert sun. I doubt that any sane pilot would want to sit in a plane that is melting around them.

When in doubt, use common sense! If it doesn't sound right, it probably isn't!

Tim



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 06:51 AM
link   
What is this common sense thing you speak of?

I will stand by my claim that Mach 4+ is the top speed. Unless all pilots lie just to make themselves and their planes look better of course.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What is this common sense thing you speak of?

I will stand by my claim that Mach 4+ is the top speed.


Mach 4+ is a lot different then Mach 14! I beleve the Mach 4, it is the idea of going 14 times the speed of sound that I don't buy. Consider the difference!

Tim



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   
at my museum of flight here in seattle we have a m-21 a variant of the sr-71 the only difference is that it has a spy pod it's the only one still in existience the only other one was destroyed in a pod launching accident and then the project was cancelled the funny thing is look at these army specs:Max. Speed: still classified
Service Ceiling: still classified
Range: still classified
that speaks for itself i've sat in a sr-71 cockpit also at the museum those are CRAMPED.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   


museum of flight here in seattle we have a m-21 a variant of the sr-71 the only difference is that it has a spy pod

Really?
I did'nt klnow the museum of flight had that as an exibit (shows how uncultured I've become, lol) I think I'm gonna have to take some time off to go visit the museum to see that.

Thanks for the info.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What is this common sense thing you speak of?

I will stand by my claim that Mach 4+ is the top speed. Unless all pilots lie just to make themselves and their planes look better of course.



So thats why NASA looked at extending the max speed to Mach 3.6 (or something around that) and concluded it was too expensive a modification for the returns it would give?



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
So I guess that means you're firmly in the "Pilots are liars to make the plane look better" camp.
Explain to me why someone who flew the plane for YEARS would lie about flying it over Mach 4.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join