This is the amazing Lockheed Martin SR-72—the space Blackbird

reply to post by Sammamishman


And what is the SR-72 supposed to be an offshoot of?

Sammamishman
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

From the diagram of the engine layout it looked like the ramjet function of the engine intake and exhaust was pretty close to coaxial. It was the turbine engine that was not on the same plane as the ramjet which seams to be pretty much SOP for stealth aircraft now a days.

Coaxial, meaning lying on the same axis... Think about the axle on your car, it uses the same axis as your wheel. The diagram from the SR-72 literature, isn't coaxial.

And with the exception of a very small handful of experimental aircraft, I'm fairly certain that the SR-71 was one of the only turbo-ramjet setups (codependent turbojet + ramjet combination) that was used on an aircraft, let alone in a coaxial configuration... I believe you might be thinking of the term 'intake ramps' that aren't normally on the same plane as the turbine engines, for some fighter aircraft..

For the most part, the SR-71 and the above mentioned few other experimentals, were the only aircraft to have been ramjet-powered.

reply to post by Zaphod58


aaaand that would be the falcon! which was mothballed due to funds, correct?

reply to post by kingofyo1


Allegedly it was.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Sammamishman

 

And what is the SR-72 supposed to be an offshoot of?

But then, what's the point of having a plane, when you need rockets to get it to speed?

I'm pretty certain that the SR-72 will not rely on a boost-glide type tech... Especially if they're wanting this thing to be somewhat dependable and reusable, unless they'll have a few hundred of these.

reply to post by Zaphod58


IF, and its a big if really, the 72 employees turbine to ramjet and then ram to scram then how in the living zombie would they manage to bypass all of the heat buildup issues! that was one of the biggest problems of the 71 IIRC

reply to post by weavty1


He didn't say it was the SR-72 though. Or that it needed a rocket to boost it. In fact he said the engine was developed and tested, which leads to a lot of very interesting things.

That is a sweet looking successor to the SR-71. Based on looks alone, it was always one of my favorites after the A-10

Glad some of them will be manned. It would have been disappointing if no one ever got to sit at the controls of that beast.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Namely?? They are also talking about a FRV, which is about the size of the f22, and supposedly a precursor to the 72.. but it doesnt say anything in this paragraph about rockets

The path to the SR-72 would begin with an optionally piloted flight research vehicle (FRV), measuring around 60 ft. long and powered by a single, but full-scale, propulsion flowpath. “The demonstrator is about the size of the F-22, single-engined and could fly for several minutes at Mach 6,” says Leland. The outline plan for the operational vehicle, the SR-72, is a twin-engine unmanned aircraft over 100 ft. long (see artist’s concept on page 20). “It will be about the size of the SR-71 and have the same range, but have twice the speed,” he adds. The FRV would start in 2018 and fly in 2023. “We would be ready to launch the SR-72 shortly after and could be in service by 2030,” Leland says.

kingofyo1
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

IF, and its a big if really, the 72 employees turbine to ramjet and then ram to scram then how in the living zombie would they manage to bypass all of the heat buildup issues! that was one of the biggest problems of the 71 IIRC

Materials technology has changed MASSIVELY, since the mid-1960's (when the SR-71 became operational).

That's almost 50 years

Allow me to put this into perspective for you guys - Think to yourself and answer this question, what kind of cell phone were you using in 2007...? That was just 6 years ago, and now look at what we have. A complete technological and world-changing technology... A true smart phone, that can do almost anything.


Once you've digested that... Now just imagine what nearly limitless budgets and some of the most brilliant minds in the world, can get you, on the defense/military side of things..

reply to post by kingofyo1


That's for this one. The one that I brought up was developed and tested 25 years prior to their search in 1990. If they were up to the testing stage then, what do you think they're up to now?

reply to post by weavty1


I meant that the air intake and exhaust looked like they were on the same geometric plane as the ramjet (straight in, straight out) and the turbine was mounted above that plane.
Is that not accurate?

reply to post by Zaphod58
reply to post by Weavty1

OK lets think.. In 53 years(if going by 1960) they have developed better more efficient and more powerful engines privately to be used in these projects.. They've also more than likely found a way around some of the heat buildup issues, but this is mach 20 we're talking about..

On the xb70 valk: During a Mach 3 cruise the aircraft would reach an average of 450 °F (230 °C), although there were portions as high as 650 °F (340 °C).

if thats just mach 3, lets think about 6-7x that speed would develop. Although it wouldnt be a linear graph most likely, we're still looking around 2-3000°F right?

To put that in perspective, its the same temperature lava flows at.. LAVA!

Sammamishman
reply to post by weavty1

 

I meant that the air intake and exhaust looked like they were on the same geometric plane as the ramjet (straight in, straight out) and the turbine was mounted above that plane.
Is that not accurate?

That would be right.. But for some dumb reason, I was thinking you were referring to the horizontal plane, not vertical plane. My bad.. Lol, my mind is obviously elsewhere today! (Thanks Mondays!!!)

kingofyo1
reply to post by Zaphod58
reply to post by Weavty1

 

OK lets think.. In 53 years(if going by 1960) they have developed better more efficient and more powerful engines privately to be used in these projects.. They've also more than likely found a way around some of the heat buildup issues, but this is mach 20 we're talking about..

On the xb70 valk: During a Mach 3 cruise the aircraft would reach an average of 450 °F (230 °C), although there were portions as high as 650 °F (340 °C).

if thats just mach 3, lets think about 6-7x that speed would develop. Although it wouldnt be a linear graph most likely, we're still looking around 2-3000°F right?

To put that in perspective, its the same temperature lava flows at.. LAVA!

Yep, then again, there are tons of other variables to be taken into account, when it comes to that...

That's pretty intense, though!!

LAVAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by weavty1


LOL I know, thats the point i was getting across I dont know though, maybe they've found or developed some new material that can instantly dissipate any and all heat associated with hypersonic transport

reply to post by kingofyo1


And they had the engine for it around 1965. What does that tell you about what's in the black world?

reply to post by Weavty1



Have yall seen this??

aviation week



seems aerojet has developed a turbine with a dual mode ram/scram and they specifically mention m6 in the top paragraph... Sounds fishy

Failure of the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory's HiSTED program to produce a small turbojet capable of speeds up to Mach 4 helped doom DARPA's Mach 6 Blackswift. Now AFRL is proposing a follow-on TBCC demonstrator that would be built instead around an off-the-shelf fighter engine. That raises the issue of how to bridge the thrust gap.

reply to post by kingofyo1


Go in and edit it, and use the button with the arrow, to use an tag. Give it an easy name like "Aerojet" or something, and put the link in that way. AW links don't work normally.

reply to post by Zaphod58


kk thats better... But now that we're talking m20, obviously a plane going that fast would not be able to be anywhere near lower than 85k feet, and when you get near LEO, you need an oxidizer in the fuel to compensate for the lack of oxygen Would that be a problem?