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

page: 8
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
learn something new every day
thank you




posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by kilcoo316
 


I've talked to hundreds of pilots. I spent 25 years working on their planes. And almost none of them were as arrogant as you claim they are. Not even the fighter pilots.

Funny thing is that the most arrogant person I talked to out there was an engineer who thought he knew everything.

And I realize that pitot tubes measure pressure. I'm not the most coherent in typing responses at 3am after being up all day.


[edit on 12/21/2008 by Zaphod58]



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   



Funny thing is that the most arrogant person I talked to out there was an engineer who thought he knew everything.

LMFAO.

Was he in the Navy and a member of ATS?




posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I've talked to hundreds of pilots. I spent 25 years working on their planes. And almost none of them were as arrogant as you claim they are. Not even the fighter pilots.


Not in my experience, but hey - completely different people no doubt.




(Oh, and the SR-71 simply will not do Mach 3.5 - regardless of what any pilot claims - as I said, NASA looked at upgrading the thing to get to Mach 3.5ish, but decided it wasn't worth it)



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Of course it can't. The great engineers say that one specific plane, under fairly unique circumstances can NEVER do Mach 3.5 and exceed what people thought she could do. Just like the great engineers said that an F-15 can NEVER fly with one wing. Oh wait...... Just like the great engineers say that bumble bees can't fly. Oh wait.......

Believe it or not engineers aren't perfect.


For the SR-71 to fly Mach 3.5 or faster on EVERY SINGLE MISSION it WOULD have been cost prohibitive to do. But on THIS particular mission, THIS particular plane found just the right circumstances, and was able to exceed it's design somewhat, and go Mach 3.5+.

[edit on 12/21/2008 by Zaphod58]



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Excellent point, Zaphod......Besides, the secrecy agreements prevented any disclosure beyond 3.0......It was drummed into the head, "Public maximum speed is Mach 3.0"....



posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Of course it can't.



Look - local speed of sound is a function of temperature...

Air density is a function of temperature and pressure.


Pressure will fluctuate a bit with weather, but not significantly in the grand scheme of things.

Operating in a low pressure area (weatherwise) might drop the local density by 0.01 kg/m^3, while keeping the same sound speed.

That is not going to give you 0.3 on your airframe OK.


Melted engines are melted engines. If they cannot go above M3.2something*, they cannot go above M3.2something, regardless of what a pilot's ego wishes.


*which is due to local air temperatures.



posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by kilcoo316
 


You really can't accept that sometimes an aircraft can do things that engineers claim it can't do can you? Engineers HAVE to be right all the damn time. I know all about local speed of sound. And who said that the engines would melt over 3.2? And engineer? Oh then he MUST be right, because engineers are infallible.


And you talk about pilots being arrogant.

[edit on 12/22/2008 by Zaphod58]



posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Speaking on behalf of engineers....bash one, your bashing them all.

What exactly is your beef with engineers? Keep in mind, it is US engineers who design and build your planes and know exactly what their capabilities are and what their maximum tolorances are.

Ive seen many pilots and aircraft mechanics push their planes byond tolorance and end up bailing out and destroying 20 million dollars worth of hardware just because.."they thought they knew all about it".

We also build and design stuff all around you, including the systems that go into the planes, and it is us engineers you all turn to when folks like you break something because you thought you knew everything and took it byond tolorance. Us engineers are the ones who design and make the components of that computer your using to bash us with.

So dont be lashing at engineers so much unless you can sit there and design something better from the ground up begining with a piece of paper and a pencil and an idea. We are not perfect, and neither are you. And neither is anything built by man perfect in any sense of the word.

Us engineers could be bashing you mechanic tool pushers who skip procedures on overhauling an engine or flight control system or bypass sensors and critical components to prevent single point failures just because you or your pilot are in a hurry. But we dont, but perhaps we should. Na not worth wasting the time over, we got stuff to design and build.

Now that we have covered the basic knowledge of nothing is perfect nor is anyone perfect, how about we discuss the topic instead. Im all for it.




Cheers!!!!



posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   
What if an Airforce pilot has a degree in Aerospace Engineering?



Like I said, you fly boys crack me up.



posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Just out of interest sake Burns you elude to the fact that no one is perfect and in that imperfection is it not possible that the SR-71 could do more (not saying how much, but not 14 mach) then 3.2 mach? I'm sure the danger goes up exponentially after crossing that point but the fact is that sometimes engineers are so good (ego boost for yeah
) that they over design planes better then they imagined or calculated.

On a side note I enjoy that fact we are all arguing over 0.3 mach lol. As long as all my friends on here realize we still are on the same page and the 90% of the time we agree I think this thread could be interesting.


[edit on 22-12-2008 by Canada_EH]



posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
What if an Airforce pilot has a degree in Aerospace Engineering?



Like I said, you fly boys crack me up.


And if one did, they wouldnt be pushing the envelope so far past the point where they know the aircraft wont be able to handle it.

Not all mishaps are pilot error or pilot arrogance. It is often a mechanical or system failure. That doesnt mean its always a design flaw or all planes of the type would have the same error. Usually it ends up being a maitenance error, oversight, or what I said in the previous post...procedures bypassed and "oh it doesnt need this or that" and gets put aside and jepordizes not just the highly trained pilot, but the 20 million bucks investment in the hardware as well.

The only pilots that I am aware of, and know quite a few, that push byond design tolorance are the test pilots who purposely go byond those design limits so as to verify the exact data on a design and to test improvements based on prior test results. Some know when to pull back from pushing the limit, some end up going a bit too far and end up either ejecting, or dying.

Remember the F-117 that had its wing ripped apart during an airshow some years ago? That was a maitenance blunder all because someone in maitenance did not follow procedure and either forgot or just left out a critical locking pin the size of a 2 inch rod held in place by a cotter pin type retainer. There went a huge chunk of taxpayer money all because of someone thought they knew better and bypassed procedures.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH

Just out of interest sake Burns you elude to the fact that no one is perfect and in that imperfection is it not possible that the SR-71 could do more (not saying how much, but not 14 mach) then 3.2 mach? I'm sure the danger goes up exponentially after crossing that point but the fact is that sometimes engineers are so good (ego boost for yeah
) that they over design planes better then they imagined or calculated.


Of course it can do alot more than publicized, even tho it is retired. There is still data on certian weapon systems used during WWII that is still classified, tho the weapon itself may be known to the general public, it is those details that are not needed to be known, such as the SR-71's true speed and altitude maximums. Oh yes there are guesses and assumptioins, but thats all they are. Until the DOD de-classifies those specifics, which wont happen for quite some time because alot of those specifics are base technologies for other aircraft such as the F-117, the B-2 and some of these Aurora types, dont expect any document from some offbeat website to be valid. The real data will be released through official DOD channels.


Originally posted by Canada_EH
On a side note I enjoy that fact we are all arguing over 0.3 mach lol. As long as all my friends on here realize we still are on the same page and the 90% of the time we agree I think this thread could be interesting.
[edit on 22-12-2008 by Canada_EH]


Its fun sometimes to guess what those specs could be and imagine what they are. It does make for intriquing conversation and forum discussions. Nothing wrong with that at all.




Cheers!!!!



posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Agree and disagree at the same time. I have been exposed to lots of good factual aviation information on this site as well as BS as well. The filter we all have and the facts to back-up information allows me to be able to get information here that many joe smoe civilian never will hear. Most of the information is news related and also pulling together information to come to conclusions to the Aurora myth etc.

All of this to say the 3.2 while the advised and norm operating speed may not be the fastest it was ever flown.



posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


And I've seen you engineers sit there and say "It can't be done." and a pilot and plane go out and do it. I've seen more engineers insist that something can't be done by a plane, only to have the plane do it, than to have pilots brag about doing something they didn't do. Engineers DO NOT know exactly what a plane can and can't do. Too many times a plane has exceeded what an engineer said it can do, and brought a crew home when it SHOULDN'T have.



posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Care to share some statistics and documentation to that?

You know, even when taking two identical pieces of hardware, one will slightly outperform the other, even tho both are identical in every way.

Its called "creep tolorance". Differences in the matrials composition and component tolorances will allow for this "creep tolorance" where one piece of hardware will be able to do something another identical one cannot.

And just becasue some hot shot chip on thier shoulder pilot does something byond the max tolorance of their airplane doesnt mean that they are right or wrong. It simply means...they got lucky. Pure and simple.

Guaranteed if that aircraft didnt have ejection systems, that pilot wouldnt be doing those byond tolorance stunts knowing his butt will go down with the plane. But thanks to US engineers, we designed those ejection systems for just such an occurance. Isnt it nice to know that US engineers think of so many things for the safety of the pilot and crew?!

Ya I think you can admit that if it were not for the engineers, you would not be flying in the first place, or knowing in the back of your mind, if you show off your rear and the plane takes a high speed, out of control roll nose dive, that at your fingertips are the ejection levers to save your life.

Then you get to get a nice dressing down by your chain of command and then try to explain the reasons for trashing 20 mil worth of hardware becasue you thought you knew what could be done when in fact..you didnt.

Quite possibly loose your flight status if not have your entire career in jeapordy.

Yep..us engineers are quite a bunch thats for sure. Everything up there, even the shells from your gunfire, missiles, tracking and targeting equipment, countermeasures, comms, navigation, NV and IR sights, fly by wire systems, radar, even the very seat your sorry but is sitting in, all comes from us engineers you love so much.

Perhaps you should be thankful that the engineers look out for every contingency and not just trying to be billy bad arse of the bunch who may one day, go out there and not come back.




Cheers!!!!



posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Here's just a couple for right now, I really don't feel like putting the effort into this tonight. (4 hours sleep last night, and in front of an orientation class today makes for a LONG day).

WWII- Numerous bombers landing missing huge portions of tail sections. One B-17 that landed on one engine.

Israeli F-15 landing on one wing

Castle AFB B-52 landing missing all but 2-3 feet of vertical fin.

Oh wait, let me guess. Those are just showing how great engineers really are.
Despite every engineer saying that there was no way that F-15 could have been flown as far as it was when asked.



posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Boy, Y'all love to eat each other alive, don't you....First, Mach 14? LOL.....the skin could not have handled it, (it is real confidence building to look back at the leading edge and see it cherry red).

did it fly faster than advertised? Yes, of course, most a/c do.......in a wing level descent (not a turn) any a/c can exceed it's design limitations, and often safely.....We rarely (I never say never), at high altitude, encountered turbulence, it was leading edge temp that mattered....It's still fun....
(however would love to experience M 1.4, although my body wouldn't tolerate it as the g forces in the slightest turn, climb or descent would exceed the human design tolerances....

edit to add "at high altitude"

[edit on 22-12-2008 by habu71]



posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
I know that fighter pilots, wearing g-suits, train extensively to handle the g forces. The pull of 4 or 5 g's can present a "very difficult environment' in which to function. What sort of training could possibly be offered to pilots to learn to cope with 14 g's? Do we really train our pilots to fly while unconscious?


What's 14 G's got to do with the price of eggs? We're talking about Mach 14 here.

If you are doing Mach14, that doesn't mean you are exposed to 14 G's. You could fly at Mach50 in a straight line, and only feel the normal 1G. Just don't turn too hard...

So, no. We do not train our pilots to fly unconscious.



posted on Dec, 23 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You really can't accept that sometimes an aircraft can do things that engineers claim it can't do can you?


You keep missing the obvious:


Why did NASA look at making modifications to make the thing go Mach 3.5ish?

No point making any modifications if it can already do it is there?



Based on that, and that alone (and seeing the substantial list of what they had to modify), I know the thing never did M3.5.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join