It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by C0bzz
What if an Airforce pilot has a degree in Aerospace Engineering?
Like I said, you fly boys crack me up.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
NASA wanted to modify them to do it EVERY FLIGHT and to be able to SUSTAIN that speed.
The maximum performance of the Blackbird is only now becoming well understood. The SR-71 was intended for flight at altitudes approaching 85,000 feet, with sustained cruise speeds approaching Mach 3.2. The smaller and lighter A-12 could better each of these by a small margin. During its operational career, the SR-71 rarely exceeded these design speed or altitude limits. Studies have been conducted by Lockheed and NASA that show speeds in excess of Mach 3.5 could be achieved for 10 to 15 minutes. The studies indicated that increasing the maximum speed to Mach 3.4 would not require any additional modifications to the aircraft, but for sustained flight between Mach 3.4 and Mach 3.5, the inlet hydraulic lines and actuators would need to be better insulated to protect them from the additional heat. NASA had planned to conduct an envelope expansion program for the SR-71, but ever tightening budgets led to these plans being canceled in the early 1990s. The only structural limitation related to speed above Mach 3.5 is an absolute limit of 420 knots equivalent airspeed (KEAS), set by inlet duct temperatures and pressures which exceed acceptable values. Other factors that limit speed above Mach 3.5 are inlet capture area and excessive engine compressor inlet temperatures (CIT).
One of the NASA studies also addressed achieving higher altitude flight. The results indicated that a "zoom climb" profile would allow reaching 95,000 feet for a short time with an aircraft gross weight of approximately 85,000 pounds. The aircraft would be accelerated from Mach 3.2 to Mach 3.5 at an altitude of 80,000 feet, then zoomed to 95,000 feet, with speed decaying back to approximately Mach 3.2. The aircraft would subsequently settle back to an altitude of 84,000 feet. Factors which limit sustained flight at altitudes above 85,000 feet are wing area and total thrust. It would be possible to replace the outer wing panels with larger ones to provide additional wing surface area and allow sustained flight above 85,000 feet.
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by BigTrain
You have to keep in mind that you're talking about technology 30 years old. Do you believe the stealth bomber was concieved and created in a weekend? OF course not. Its been in development 30 years prior to it's arrival on scene.
What technology we see 30 years from today, will not be created 30 years from now. It is being created and developed today.
Originally posted by chris89
Now think about the YF-22 and YF-23 both having two new radical thrust vectoring engines putting out 30,000 lb ft of thrust per engine. The YF-22 can reach speeds of mach 2.2 because of the fixed geometry air intakes. The YF-23 can reach speeds of 2.2+ or 1,650mph+ because of it's variable geometry air intakes. The geometry of the air intakes has an effect on radar signature. The YF-23 had a further combat radius than the YF-22, had a further range than the YF-22 and could go faster than the YF-22. So I don't exactly get why they chose the YF-22 when the YF-23 on paper is clearly a better aircraft. When a YF-22 gets beat by a damn F-15 Eagle traveling at 1,700mph and the little YF-22 only pulling off 1,500mph. Even know the YF-22 has huge power output the fixed geometry intakes are limiting it's top end speed. Quite sad. However the YF-22 will out accelerate any jet plane damn up to 1,450mph or so because of the fixed geometry intakes it has better back pressure for increased burst acceleration. I think the YF-23 should accelerate just as fast but even know it has variable geometry intakes it weighs more than the YF-22 so it won't accelerate as fast.edit on 19-12-2012 by chris89 because: (no reason given)edit on 19-12-2012 by chris89 because: (no reason given)
my question to all would be, does anybody know why the F-22 was picked over the YF-23 when the latter had far better performance and such? I'm willing to bet that the F-22 went into production in the white world while the FB-23 or some R variant stayed black world. Sure would explain alot of sighting of triangle shaped aircraft with it's delta wing design. Just food for thought.