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.

 

SR-71 or XB-70

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Ok, so the two fastest manned jets ever made. Which one do you think is a more radical design.

XB-70
upload.wikimedia.org...

SR-71
upload.wikimedia.org...

I believe it is the SR-71 because it just looks so different from any other aircraft.




posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Well aside from looks, looking at the designs as well as the technical merits of both, I would have to say each was a radical design that tackled the problem of sustained mach 3 flight from slightly differnt approaches.

The compression lift in the XB-70 was very radical in such a large aircraft and the SR-71 had just as many technical merits as well.

BTW, the YF-12 was far more radical IMHO than the SR-71



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   


BTW, the YF-12 was far more radical IMHO than the SR-71


How so?

In terms of mission?
Because otherwise it wasn't all that different from the SR-71.

I hate to admit though, I would have loved to see the F-12B have gone into service.
Just another reason to hate Macnamara....



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
IMHO the XB-70 is one of the most genious aircraft ever devised...one of the most genious pieces of fantastic engineering ever concieved....

That type of power would still be in service to this day with plenty of upgrades. Its too bad it was cancelled.

Compression lift gives that aircraft an unbelievable L/D ratio. That coupled with Mach 3 speed and nuclear weapons...I'd personally take it over the B-2 any day.

In fact I think it should never have been cancelled. It was only cancelled because some stupid hotdogging fighter pilot flew too close to it...got sucked in and blew up. It wasnt the XB-70s fault that the F-104 was being stupid...

The concept will probably be back in action around 2030 when the USAF's new bomber comes out.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I wonder how many MiG-25's and MiG-31's would have had a picnic if the XB-70 went into service.

Both aircraft in deed were very radical in their own respects. It's hard to chose a specific one because both are very different and both were designed and built for different missions all together.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
How so?

In terms of mission?
Because otherwise it wasn't all that different from the SR-71.


Yes Mac the Knife was responsable for killing some of the most increadible aircraft evr built.

The YF-12 had some differences that made it even more radical. The chine modification that included in IRST and its huge radar to the huge A2A missiles that could be launched from Mach 3 at 70K feet and hit sea level targets etc.

The YF-12 (of the three that were built) took an already radical airframe and upped the ante so to speak. This takes nothing away from the SR-71 but it still was more radical.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
I wonder how many MiG-25's and MiG-31's would have had a picnic if the XB-70 went into service.

Shattered OUT...


Yeah. They would have a field day wasting gas and trying to catch up with the XB-70. The XB-70 cruised at Mach 3 with intercontinental range. The Mig-25/31 made short dashes to Mach 2.83. The real reason the XB-70 was canceled was that SAM's were getting much better and it would be too risky to overfly USSR airspace.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I'm assuming the XB-70 at the time of intercept will have some magical defense against missiles?

The MiG's don't need endurance, all they need is that one shot dash.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Yes, those defenses would be an interceptor squadron escort probaby consisting on XF-108s or F-12s.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Granted if both had gone into full production, which neither was close to when the XB-70 was in prototype stage.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Wow, BlackWidow23, your ignorance is astounding. Production of the B-70 was cancelled in 1961, before it made its maiden flight and five years before the mid-air collision that destroyed the second protoype. The 1962 studies of an RS-70 variant were also quickly killed.

Also, the accident was most certainly not the result of "some stupid hotdogging fighter pilot flying too close." There were many proximal causes including poor administrative decisions, weather issues, and a variety of human factors. A chain of unfortunate events led to the loss of a unique research aircraft and two outstanding test pilots. The F-104 was flown by the highly qualified research pilot/astronaut Joe Walker. It's unfortunate that his life had to be sacrificed for a photographic publicity stunt to benefit General Electric Corporation.

For more detailed information about the XB-70 accident, you might wish to read Donald Mallick's account in "The Smell of Kerosene: A Test Pilot's Odyssey." (Chapter 7, pages 132 through 143). You can read it online at:

www.nasa.gov...

Also check out:

thexhunters.com...



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Who can tell me is that GE J-91 used on Valkyrie a variable cycled engine or not? Why there is no detailed information about this engine was introduced in wiki?



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Wow, BlackWidow23, your ignorance is astounding.

Your rudeness is astounding.


Compression lift gives that aircraft an unbelievable L/D ratio. That coupled with Mach 3 speed and nuclear weapons...I'd personally take it over the B-2 any day.



Concordes L/D ratio was better.



Anyway, I would say the Sr-71 was more futuristic. I mean... A whole aircraft made of titanium? That leaks on the ground? With special fuel? Mach 3.2 cruise at 85000feet? Turboram jets? Chines? No question about it. Sr-71.

[edit on 6/7/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Oh boy, another one.

Do you even know why it crashed into it? The specific aerodynamics of the downard facing tips at the end of the wings generated large air vorticies. The F-104s had been told specifically not to fly too close. If you are so (self edited out)ing smart than you should know that flight test arent flown during bad weather. And how does administrative decisions effect a pilot getting too close to the aircraft? Are you trying to say that the unofficial status of the photoshoot somehow contributed to the crash? I doubt you knew that or you wouldnt stoop to condecending attacks.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Hey, BlackWidow23, maybe you should try reading the source material I referred you to. It is the most detailed available on the Internet.

Have you ever read the accident investigation report? I have, as well as interviewing people who were directly involved with the incident. I'm betting I know a little more about it than you do.

Read the source material I gave you. It will give ytou some idea of the chain of contributory causes. Maybe if you have a little bit more knowledge, you won't fire off insulting attacks at professional research pilots who aren't around to defend themselves. Have a little respect.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Man, cool down people, we're not even discussing politics here, no reason for everyone to get bent out of shape


As I understand it, it does appear to be correct that it was a matter of the unusual vortices created by the XB-70's wings that caused Joe Walker's tiny F104 to get tossed into the Valkyrie, not a case of "hot dogging" - Joe Walker was a highly respected test pilot with a very remarkable career.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Personally, in my opinion the SR-71 is the more radical of the two. The Blackbird was the first of the two to fly( as far as I know). It was also the one to set the speed and altitude records. The Blackbird was also almost all made from an exotic titanium alloy, while the XB-70 used a heavier and more common steel alloy. Lastly, the blackbird combined it astounding speed with early stealth technology to reduce it's RCS.

Tim

[edit on 7/6/2007 by Ghost01]



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Shadowhawk knows his stuff. If he tells someone that what they are saying is in error, thats a good clue for that person to go do some reading and research.
He is the most knowledgable and credible person I know of, who researches and writes about that genre of aviation history.

If he says he saw a large pink elephant floating over Groom Lake, I would be inclined to believe him.








[edit on 6-7-2007 by firepilot]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
Shadowhawk knows his stuff.


He is the most knowledgable and credible person I know of, who researches and writes about that genre of aviation history.


That is certinally the truth! For the Record, Shadowhawk is Peter Merlin, the famous X-Hunter. Most of the planes we discuss here, Pete has actually seen and even touched. He also has written a book on the Blackbird.

Odds are he probably has first hand knowlege of the planes in question that didn't come from a book. If I were you, I put more weight on what this guy is telling you. If anyone's got an "Expert" Oppinion, it would be Shadowhawk!

Tim



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I read the sources you gave me and I dont do this often, but here I fully stand corrected. What I had heard from some people who run an aviation program down in alabama was that the F-104 pilot was trying to do an inverted roll over the top of the XB-70, trying to get a good photo, and than descending on the other side...and he got sucked in. So I did some research and I came up with what really happened...sry to shadowhawk, and other I might have offended



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join