Mig-25 vs SR-71, page 14
Pages: <<  11    12    13    14    15  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 10-11-2005 @ 04:20 PM by trodas
First - thanks guys for many interesting posts into this thread, give me hours of reading and now Im a bit more educated about these nice beautifull planes
Actually, I was spoted this thread when looking back for the Valkyrie site I once read and started to love such plane

And yea, I like it much more that the Blackbird, even it is faster and unlike the Valkyrie, it could maintain a little over Mach 3 speed - but still it did not look as great, as Valkyrie do
The plane is purrrfect
www.unrealaircraft.com...

About the Mach 6 - this is IMHO does belong to the sci-fi, since AFAIK the rockets have hard time to beat Mach 4 - for example the Russian Sunburns, that threat the US carriers (in fact, they are designed to take them out) have normal fly speed around 2,2 - 2,8 Mach (depending on type, configuration and warhead used - the atomic ones are lighter = slightly faster speed is possible) and closing to the ship at 3 to 3,3 Mach - and even doing "violent close-up manouvers" to prevent being shoot-down before reaching the impact area

Threfore Im very suspicious that anything could travel at Mach 6 at all - at least not close to Earth IMHO.

More informations about top speeds of rockets are welcome anyway




/me like to fly this bejby


reply posted on 11-11-2005 @ 10:50 AM by Wembley
- Nothing can get through the phalanx. Why change it. -

This is a very dangerous attitude!
Nothing is invincible, and believe that our weapons are always the best is the prelude to disaster.

As regards the effectiveness of Phalanx/Aegis, look at the disaster with the USS Stark -
eightiesclub.tripod.com...

That was a while ago. These days, missiles are smarter, faster and stealthier and several can be fired off in succession and programmed to arrive from different angles at literally the same second. Phalanx was not designed to deal with the modern threat, and upgrades are always going to be needed.


reply posted on 14-1-2007 @ 12:58 AM by Nygdan
Wow, fascinating input over on the anonymous section:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

it isn't possible for the sr-71 to move along at over m3.44 becuase the jp-7's flashpoint which is used to cool the leading edges would be reached causing the entire aircraft to ignite. I know this aircraft like the back of my hand and the top speed isn't as high as many think. [...]
The discovery of these tactics at the arrival of the mig-31 warrented the shut-down of the SR-71 program as it was now useless.



Makes some interesting statements that you guys might like to respond to.


reply posted on 14-1-2007 @ 11:54 AM by toreishi

trodas said:
About the Mach 6 - this is IMHO does belong to the sci-fi, since AFAIK the rockets have hard time to beat Mach 4 - for example the Russian Sunburns.


The
X-15 was able to reach M6.7 way back in 1967.

October 3, 1967
Pete Knight nearly incinerates tail at Mach 6.7

The airplane first set speed records in the Mach 4-6 range with Mach 4.43 on March 7, 1961; Mach 5.27 on June 23, 1961; Mach 6.04 on November 9, 1961; and Mach 6.7 on October 3, 1967.


Granted, the X-15 was not an airbreather; but if they were able to create something capable of moving at those velocities at the time as well as withstand the temperature generated by the airframe moving at such high speeds -- then I wonder what they have now (perhaps as substitute to the SR-71).
Pages: <<  11    12    13    14    15  >>    ^^TOP^^



In Case Of Videos Of Flying People
  Posted 9 days ago with 9 member flags
Lockheed and Boeing may have seen my design
  Posted 19 days ago with 9 member flags
First flight for \'flapless\' plane - the Evolution of Aviation
  Posted 12 days ago with 4 member flags
Boeing X-37 and X-40 - the ultimate history
  Posted 5 days ago with 3 member flags
F22 mishap or more that meeets the eye?
  Posted 1 days ago with 3 member flags
Its a bird, its a plane, no its a ....
  Posted 14 days ago with 0 member flags