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 Blackbird / Aurora

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
It wouldn't be too hard for the Black Bird to do that its engines are so powerful it might feel like a rocket to the pilot but wouldn't there be some heavy G's involved with taking off like that?


Having done alot of reading on the Oxcart program, the planes were extreemly fast, but did not have the structure to pull really high G-loads thats why the plane took up alot of space to turn. It did go up pretty fast on take off though. The plane that you guys may be thinking about shooting straight up after takeoff is the U-2. It just shot up at an incredible angle right after rotation.




posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   
anyone know how many G's the pilot would experience taking off the runway straight up 9-10 G's or higher?



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
anyone know how many G's the pilot would experience taking off the runway straight up 9-10 G's or higher?


It would have to depend on the airframe. and speed, thrust to weight ration etc. Just off the runway it can't be that much but I don't know for sure.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 03:15 PM
link   
"The plane that you guys may be thinking about shooting straight up after takeoff is the U-2. It just shot up at an incredible angle right after rotation.

"

No, the U-2 simply doesn't have the thrust to weight ratio to make this possible, the SR-71 and Lightning did. Also in a vertical climb from just off ground level those big long wings would be nothing more than an encumberance, though they are certainly efficient enough to allow the aircraft to quickly go vertical the U-2 wouldn't be able to maintain a climb at this attitude. The max speed of the U-2 also counts against it reaching the required velocity for a sustained vertical climb. It certainly reached great heights but it took a while to get there.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
No, the U-2 simply doesn't have the thrust to weight ratio to make this possible, the SR-71 and Lightning did. Also in a vertical climb from just off ground level those big long wings would be nothing more than an encumberance, though they are certainly efficient enough to allow the aircraft to quickly go vertical the U-2 wouldn't be able to maintain a climb at this attitude. The max speed of the U-2 also counts against it reaching the required velocity for a sustained vertical climb. It certainly reached great heights but it took a while to get there.

The power to weight ratio of the U2C had a power to weight ratio of 15,800 / 22900lbs not great by fighter standards but fairly good. Add into that the huge wing and the plane is capable of reaching 50,000 feet in 10 minutes, that makes for a pretty steep climb

9Taken from Spyplane, The U2 history Unclassified By Normal Polgar, and Lockheed Black World Skunk Works by paul Crickmore. I have also seen them take off from NAS Moffet as part of NASA flights (The small wing variant) and they are out of sight in no time. Not vertical and not as fast as a f-15, but pretty darn quick



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Don't X- planes take off vertically or after takeoff? I saw something on the X-33 or something like that and it went straight up.

Edit: Just something I would like to add about the Aurora, if it does exists and has the engines you think it has could it make the donuts-in-a-rope contrail? I have never seen it [the contrails] but it sounds like some expiremental plane to me.

[edit on 16-7-2004 by MooMix3]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   
The time to 50,000ft by the Lightning (which did use a vertical climb to achieve it) was 2 mins (after take-off) so you see the difference. I merely offered this as an interpretation of a post that mentioned Blackbirds going vertical immediately after take off and someone else apparently interpreting that as meaning 'like a Harrier' rather than just straight up. I'm not knocking the U-2 but as you said yourself 'not vertical but pretty damn close' this would be because in a pure vertical climb the wings are of no benefit (but obviously pretty useful once you are up there
) as it is all about the aircrafts thrust versus its weight and drag so something with a big afterburning engine (like say the F-15 which was the first fighter to climb to 50,000 ft quicker than a Lightning) can do it while an efficient flyer like the U-2 cannot.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   
moo mix, I think thats where the confusion might be coming in. The X-33 is designed to lift straight up off the ground into orbit, I'm talking about normal aircraft that take off conventionally and are then able to climb vertically to a great height on engine power alone. There are surprisingly few that can do this superficially simple feat.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   
How fast can a black bird reach 50.000 or is that classified? I would think it is since it is retired but you never know. And if an F-15 can do it in 2 min I am willing to bet the Raptor cab do it faster



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Its an intersting question Westpoint because although the Blackbird is a lot bigger and heavier than a Lightning or F-15 its engines were bloody huge!!


Also, even though the Raptor is a far superior fighter when compared to the F-15, is it actually any faster? Especially in the climb? I know you are a big fan of the Raptor so you would know this better than me I think.

[edit on 16-7-2004 by waynos]



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
How fast can a black bird reach 50.000 or is that classified? I would think it is since it is retired but you never know. And if an F-15 can do it in 2 min I am willing to bet the Raptor cab do it faster


I did a search and the F-22 Raptor's max speed is mach 1.8 and the F-15 can go mach 2.5+
What!?!

[edit on 17-7-2004 by MooMix3]

[edit on 17-7-2004 by MooMix3]



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Thats what I was wondering, as speed is no longer the driving factor in fighter design maybe it doesn't have to be faster than an F-15?

Once again Britain was there first as we replaced the Lighning with the Slower Tornado F.3 years ago!


[edit on 17-7-2004 by waynos]



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Is there a point on making slower planes? Mach 2.5+ down to mach 1.8? I guess the Raptor does have better handling and control though, even when it flies at an angle of 110!



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 08:06 AM
link   
The raptor speed is at least mach two the air force just doesn't want to share the info with us I mean think about it, it can cruise at mach 1.6 without afterburner and it only goes up to mach 1.8 with after burner yeah right not to mention that the raptor produces more thrust to weight ratio than the F-15 and more thrust than any US fighter ever produced so trust me the raptor can go past mach 1.8 so I think the raptor would reach 50.000 feet faster cuz it has more thrust and it has thrust vectoring allowing for a steeper climb.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 08:08 AM
link   
But why would they keep that a secret, the plane is so popular that everyone knows it.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
it has thrust vectoring allowing for a steeper climb.


Umm, the steeper the climb the longer it takes to get to altittude since you will loose speed more quickly.

In order to get to your altittude quickly you would want something like a 45 degree angle. That way you can keep climbing at a fast rate and keep a good amount of speed with you.

Has anyone done any thrust/weight ratio research for the F/A-22? That would be helpful if we are to theorize how fast she can go, or what her climb rate is.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 08:20 AM
link   
You also have to consider that the aerodynamics of the Raptor are compromised in order to be stealthy which includes the internal weapons by which makes it more bulky than Mach 2 aircraft tend to be and in order to carry enough systems and fuel to carry out its mission. It obviously does what it is designed to do very very well but is it designed to accelerate to Mach 2+? It is clearly a very sophisticated piece of design but is it just too draggy for Mach 2?

Its all a question of priority and in the area of a stealthy agile BVR air dominance fighter the ability to go hurtling round at speeds which totally defeat all stealth characteristics is probably a low one.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
You also have to consider that the aerodynamics of the Raptor are compromised in order to be stealthy which includes the internal weapons by which makes it more bulky than Mach 2


Wouldnt internal weapons be much better for aerodynamics as external weapons are be a source of drag? I understand your point of having to make a more bulkly aircraft but this might be compinsated or even made more aerodynamic by using a internal weapons system.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by waynos
You also have to consider that the aerodynamics of the Raptor are compromised in order to be stealthy which includes the internal weapons by which makes it more bulky than Mach 2


Wouldnt internal weapons be much better for aerodynamics as external weapons are be a source of drag? I understand your point of having to make a more bulkly aircraft but this might be compinsated or even made more aerodynamic by using a internal weapons system.


I Would Agree. Once you make something stealth theres alot of extra bonuses.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MooMix3
But why would they keep that a secret, the plane is so popular that everyone knows it.


Please. Your obliviously not using your military mind. The Blackbird is retired and its ceiling is still classified, some sites say 80,000ft others say 100,000ft i've read thing that say it can go over 105,000ft.

And also, once the Raptor gets off the ground it can go straight up and still be gaining speed.

It's top speed is reported at mach 2 but I would garuntee you she can go over that.

US military doesn't want to report an aircraft's maximum ability they want to say like, its top is 1.8 so then Russia or China say ok then our will go a little over mach 2, then they get a suprise when the raptor shoots em down at mach 2.2



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join