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.
Originally posted by SwordDancer
Already while accelerating the pilots and the entire plane would be crushed to the size of a pizza ( and i know this is an unrealistic example but it shows what i mean). They would have to get the crew out of the plane looking like mud (litteraly)
Originally posted by Travellar
I did once hear that one of the blackbird pilots commented that if anyone ever broke thier speed record, they'd have to go back up and take it again. That boast aside though, Mach 4-5 is a much more believeable number.
(oh, and that's an A-12 in that picture, Fighter Master, not an SR-71)
Originally posted by Darthorious
First of all at take off they have to re-fuel as soon as it's airborne because it uses all the fuel just to take off and they have an air re-fuel'er in air waiting when it takes off.
Secondly at higher altitudes with the air being less dense could it increase the speed or would it cause it to actually slow down depending on what type of engine they used in it.
Just asking I was never privy to the actual engines they used as I didn't have a need to know. Most I ever got out of anyone was a crew chief saying it had 4 fighter jet engines but wouldn't elaborate past that assuming he was being serious.
Originally posted by Darthorious
First of all at take off they have to re-fuel as soon as it's airborne because it uses all the fuel just to take off and they have an air re-fuel'er in air waiting when it takes off.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Your first point about fuel was done because the plane leaked so badly on the ground. It leaked like a sieve when it wasn't flying, so that when it flew it could expand from heat. Once it was at speed, it expanded a few inches and locked all that off. So instead of filling it all the way up on the ground, they put enough onboard to get airborne and to a tanker. That way it didn't dump tons of fuel overboard.
In April 1986, following an attack on American soldiers in a Berlin disco, President Reagan ordered the bombing of Muammar Qaddafi's terrorist camps in Libya. My duty was to fly over Libya and take photos recording the damage our F-111's had inflicted. Qaddafi had established a 'line of death,' a territorial marking across the Gulf of Sidra, swearing to shoot down any intruder that crossed the boundary. On the morning of April 15, I rocketed past the line at 2,125 mph.
I was piloting the SR-71 spy plane, the world's fastest jet, accompanied by Maj Walter Watson, the aircraft's reconnaissance systems officer (RSO). We had crossed into Libya and were approaching our final turn over the bleak desert landscape when Walter informed me that he was receiving missile launch signals. I quickly increased our speed, calculating the time it would take for the weapons-most likely SA-2 and SA-4 surface-to-air missiles capable of Mach 5 - to reach our altitude. I estimated that we could beat the rocket-powered missiles to the turn and stayed our course, betting our lives on the plane's performance.
After several agonizingly long seconds, we made the turn and blasted toward the Mediterranean. 'You might want to pull it back,' Walter suggested. It was then that I noticed I still had the throttles full forward. The plane was flying a mile every 1.6 seconds, well above our Mach 3.2 limit. It was the fastest we would ever fly. I pulled the throttles to idle just south of Sicily, but we still overran the refueling tanker awaiting us over Gibraltar.
Originally posted by _Del_
I just read the entire article.
A mile every 1.6 seconds is 2250mph.
He mentions they reached Mach 3.5 at 80,000' which is a touch over 2300mph. Then he says they went even faster (enough to be concerning) without giving any particulars.
Still way short of Mach 14, at anyrate
Calibration Error
An airspeed sensor features a static vent to maintain its internal pressure equal to atmospheric pressure. Position and placement of the static vent with respect to the angle of attack and velocity of the aircraft determines the pressure inside the airspeed sensor and therefore the calibration error. Thus, a calibration error is specific to an aircraft's design.
An airspeed calibration table, which is usually included in the pilot operating handbook or other aircraft documentation, helps pilots convert the indicated airspeed to the calibrated airspeed.
Compressibility Error
The density of air is not constant, and the compressibility of air increases with altitude and airspeed, or when contained in a restricted volume. A pitot-static airspeed sensor contains a restricted volume of air. At high altitudes and high airspeeds, calibrated airspeed is always higher than equivalent airspeed. Equivalent airspeed can be derived by adjusting the calibrated airspeed for compressibility error.
Density Error
At high altitudes, airspeed indicators read lower than true airspeed because the air density is lower. True airspeed represents the compensation of equivalent airspeed for the density error, the difference in air density at altitude from the air density at sea level, in a standard atmosphere.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
And air speed indicator doesn't read the pressure going into it, just how fast the air is flowing through it.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
A lot of people believe that Mach 3.5 has been exceeded because AN SR-71 PILOT talks about being faster than Mach 3.5. I think that's a pretty good reason to believe it.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Or are you of the "all pilots are full of BS to make their planes and themselves look better" crowd.