R U sure about the fighter escort? I know during the Afganistan pounding, the B2 took off in Missouri and flew non-stop... basically around the world, to drop a few bombs and land back in Missouri (haven't quite figured out why we need to do all the at craziness, but that is another conversation). I doubt it had fighter escort.... at least most of the way. And I don't recall it being a failure. AFAIK, it is very radar-evading. but then again, I'm not an employee of Skunkworks/Boeing/whatever, so who knows.
Originally posted by: Superdoopercooper
Man, that A-10 is one ugly mutha'... but it can 0wnz j00, and everyone else, too.
And the SR-71... that thing is MONEY! The top UNCLASSIFIED speed of that thing was Mach 3.6 or something... at an altitude of 50,000-ish+ feet. So, you know that thing really moves at 4-5 Mach at or above 70k feet! Just guessing, but if I remember all the stuff I read when I was younger about this sexy machine, there were no Russian missiles ever made that could outrun that thing (at least back by mid 80's when I salivated over that plane).
I remember hearing a story (could easily be false) about a conversation from an SR-71 to a ground controller. Essensetially, the SR-71 pilot requested clearance to travel over the airspace at 80,000 feet. The controller said "fine, if you can reach it". The SR-71's response was "... descending to 80,000 now"
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: Superdoopercooper
Man, that A-10 is one ugly mutha'... but it can 0wnz j00, and everyone else, too.
And the SR-71... that thing is MONEY! The top UNCLASSIFIED speed of that thing was Mach 3.6 or something... at an altitude of 50,000-ish+ feet. So, you know that thing really moves at 4-5 Mach at or above 70k feet! Just guessing, but if I remember all the stuff I read when I was younger about this sexy machine, there were no Russian missiles ever made that could outrun that thing (at least back by mid 80's when I salivated over that plane).
I remember hearing a story (could easily be false) about a conversation from an SR-71 to a ground controller. Essensetially, the SR-71 pilot requested clearance to travel over the airspace at 80,000 feet. The controller said "fine, if you can reach it". The SR-71's response was "... descending to 80,000 now"
LOL. That's amazing.
I've also heard anecdotes about SR-71 crews taking meals with them and while on missions holding the food against the side of the cockpit to heat it.
I saw an SR-71 at an airshow. I was about 8-12 or so. I remember thinking: I could live in the space that one of those engines occupies. That thing was massive. Those Skunkwork guys rock.
I would have loved to work there... but I took a prelim. Aerospace/Astronautical Engineering class in college, and I was like ", WTH??". So, I bailed and took EE instead. :Q
I would have loved to work there... but I took a prelim. Aerospace/Astronautical Engineering class in college, and I was like "
, WTH??". So, I bailed and took EE instead. :Q You want huge? When I was in Middle School, I went out to Wright-Patterson AFB and they had a B-52 there. That thing was absolutely massive.
Youguys have seen a B52 land sidewise right it is pretty cool that they can do that (I don't mean all the way, but at like a 30 degree angle)
I knew they had not been decommissined forever (the sr71) but I swear I heard that russia developed some missle that could get them although I could well be wrong, or the person/source could have been wrong, b/c now I cannot find anything about it.
Skunkworks had EE working there too. I wanted to work there as well actually getting my degree in chemistry though.
I knew they had not been decommissined forever (the sr71) but I swear I heard that russia developed some missle that could get them although I could well be wrong, or the person/source could have been wrong, b/c now I cannot find anything about it.
Skunkworks had EE working there too
. I wanted to work there as well actually getting my degree in chemistry though.REALLY? that is the same place I saw the SR-71. I used to live about 3 hours from Dayton, and every year we'd at least go to the museum, b/c planes were my passion back then.
I grew up in East Liverpool. I don't remember the travel time to Dayton, but yeah, we'd take regular trips out there.
I'm pretty sure what you are thinking of was that missles were made as fast or faster than the Blackbird but by the time it reached the aircraft it would be out of fuel. SR-71 was decomissioned mainly because of the insane ability of satellites to do the same job.
Just found this tidbit in looking for info
"The twin J-58s on board the A-12 had the power to produce 160,000 shaft horse power, the same power the Queen Mary produced with her 4 turbine engines, with an exhaust temperature of 3,400 F. "
that was the predecessor to the SR-71
"The twin J-58s on board the A-12 had the power to produce 160,000 shaft horse power, the same power the Queen Mary produced with her 4 turbine engines, with an exhaust temperature of 3,400 F. "
that was the predecessor to the SR-71
Originally posted by: Feldenak
I actually prefer the look of the A-10 Warthog or the SR-71 Blackbird.
Edit: For the stealth fighter you've got it linked to a B-1 bomber. Medium altitude, high speed bomber
Can you edumacate me on the A-10? Why such a weird design.. what purpose does it serve?
Phuz,
here is your education:
It's sole purpose is close ground support -> Enemy tank killing. That is why it is affectionately know as the A-10 Tank Killer. It's huge gun on the front is good for poppin' ground troups and wrecking vehicles. It's Maverick missiles are good for trashing just about anything. And it's other stuff can own tanks.
here is your education:
It's sole purpose is close ground support -> Enemy tank killing. That is why it is affectionately know as the A-10 Tank Killer. It's huge gun on the front is good for poppin' ground troups and wrecking vehicles. It's Maverick missiles are good for trashing just about anything. And it's other stuff can own tanks.
yes. most of the stuff is pretty incredible machinery...in addition to the planes mentioned here (A10, SR71 etc), I am also impressed by the Russian Su37. you can debate all you want about its effectiveness, but as a machine, it is pretty effin' incredible.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
I make no claims to being an expert myself, this is just what I've read.
B-2 proponents claim the bomber actually saves money because it does not require electronic jamming and fighter escort aircraft for protection, making it the most efficient way to bomb a target. During the Kosovo campaign, the B-2 flew with these additional aircraft, either because stealth is not as effective as claimed or because no Air Force general wants to lose a $2.2 billion plane on his watch. Whatever the reason, the real-world B-2 costs as much to fly as other U.S. bombers and costs much more to buy and operate, decreasing its cost effectiveness.
From B-2 or not B-2...That is the Question.
My uncle was dodging A-10's at our strip with his Ag Wagon when I was a kid in the 70's. I can't believe they are still around and still effective.
You ain't lyin'. That SU37 is one bad machine!!! It could fly at some absurd angle of attack... like 70 degrees. It was never mached in that capability until maybe the new F22 with the thrust vecotring nozzles, but I know so little about that, i'm just guessing.
But how about the F-22?? Supercruising!!!! It can go mach 1.3 withOUT afterburners. That is rather dope!
Or how about the Sopwith Camel. We ruled WW1 with that bad boy. HAHAHA. ROTFL.
But how about the F-22?? Supercruising!!!! It can go mach 1.3 withOUT afterburners. That is rather dope!
Or how about the Sopwith Camel. We ruled WW1 with that bad boy. HAHAHA. ROTFL.
If you think th A-10 is old, check out the B-52 and C-130. They both started flying in the early 1950's
It used to be a medium altitude, high speed bomber. But then that project was cancelled in the 70's.
Now it's the B-1b, and it's officially a low level, subsonic bomber. They took away its adjustable engine inlets, which used to enable it to fly at Mach 2.5. Now it has fixed inlets which are optimized for subsonic flight.
I talked to a B-1b pilot at an airshow a couple of years ago, and he said that if you push it you can exceed the speed of sound but the fixed inlets won't let it go much faster than that. I think he said it will go mach 1.1 or something like that. He said it still has the same engines as the original one so it has more than enough power to go Mach 2.5, but with the fixed inlets it will effortlessly accelerate up to Mach 1 and it just won't go much faster.
Originally posted by: Superdoopercooper
Man, that A-10 is one ugly mutha'... but it can 0wnz j00, and everyone else, too.
And the SR-71... that thing is MONEY! The top UNCLASSIFIED speed of that thing was Mach 3.6 or something... at an altitude of 50,000-ish+ feet. So, you know that thing really moves at 4-5 Mach at or above 70k feet! Just guessing, but if I remember all the stuff I read when I was younger about this sexy machine, there were no Russian missiles ever made that could outrun that thing (at least back by mid 80's when I salivated over that plane).
There was a lengthy post made on rec.aviation.military about this a while back made by Mary Shafer, the SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Facility. She heads the research program for NASA that still flies the SR-71 after the military retired it. She wanted to lay to rest a lot of the hype and rumors that were generated during the time that the SR-71 was still classified.
She was debunking some of the myths that surround the SR-71. She said the the SR-71 was completely declassified in the 1980's, and now civilians can even buy the Dash-1 (operator's manual) for it.
She said that the maximum speed of the aircraft is limited by the engine inlet temperature. That's the spike that you see on the front of the engines. She said that the inlets are the hottest part of the aircraft when flying at speed due to friction, and this is what limits how fast the aircraft can go. Maximum inlet temperature is normally reached by Mach 3.2, and if you were to push it much faster the inlets would melt, the engines would suck up the pieces and the aircraft would be lost.
She said while flying the SR-71, they don't fly by the Mach number, but instead fly by inlet temperature, since atmospheric conditions may allow for 3.3 if the conditions are right, or maybe only Mach 3.1 if the conditions aren't optimal.
The stories of the SR-71 flying at Mach 4 and above are false. The inlets would have melted long before this speed was ever reached. She said that these stories probably were started by pilots who felt how much power the SR-71 has left at Mach 3.2 ... it feels like it could go much faster, and the engines do in fact have more than enough power to push it much faster. But the engineers and test pilots know that a critical part (the inlets) would fail long before those speeds were ever reached. She said everything about the plane was designed for Mach 3.0 flight. In addition, even if you were to somehow fix the inlets so they didn't overheat, other things would begin failing much over Mach 3.2, for instance the shockwave from the bow of the aircraft would impinge on the wingtips by the high mach 3's, and that having a shockwave reaching the wingtips would tear the aircraft apart.
Originally posted by: yllus
I make no claims to being an expert myself, this is just what I've read.
B-2 proponents claim the bomber actually saves money because it does not require electronic jamming and fighter escort aircraft for protection, making it the most efficient way to bomb a target. During the Kosovo campaign, the B-2 flew with these additional aircraft, either because stealth is not as effective as claimed or because no Air Force general wants to lose a $2.2 billion plane on his watch. Whatever the reason, the real-world B-2 costs as much to fly as other U.S. bombers and costs much more to buy and operate, decreasing its cost effectiveness.
From B-2 or not B-2...That is the Question.
You need to read from some better sources.
Seriously, this article and the material it uses as reference are clearly written by people not very knowledgeable about the subject matter they're commenting on. Looking at some of the other articles at these sites, it's readily apparent that there's an agenda they're pushing and that anything you read there should be taken in that context.For those who are interested, I dug up the post about the SR-71's performance:
>Has an SR-71 ever flown at max speed?
> (hoping against hope that Mary imparts more wisdom...)
Yes. But it required permission of the Commander on a per-flight
basis. The SR-71's usual limit is Mach 3.2, but flight at Mach 3.3
was allowed, and flown, with prior permission. There's no evidence
that anyone has ever flown faster than Mach 3.3 (although it's
possible that someone may have briefly dashed above 3.3, not cruised,
but it's not documented).
The cruise speed on the SR-71 is limited by CIT, compressor inlet
temperature. The limit is 427 degC, per the Dash-1. Since the SR-71
is designed to fly Mach 3.2 (standard atmosphere), this temperature is
reached at Mach 3.3, offering a fairly standard margin of safety. If
operational conditions require going Mach 3.3 it's possible. Rather
than flying Mach number, we fly CIT, cruising just a bit below the
limit. This usually works out to Mach 3.23 but that's because the
real atmosphere isn't the same as the standard atmosphere. Everything
about the airplane is designed for Mach 3.2, including the inlet spike
operation, etc. I've always assumed that the extra 0.1 Mach was a
bonus, discovered in flight test, because the calculations were on the
conservative side.
If you'll check in Deja News, you'll find that Lednicer worked it out
that the absolute airframe maximum is around Mach 3.5, because you get
the bow shock impinging on the wing above that. Unfortunately, this
can't be tested because the CIT limit is reached first.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer
>Has an SR-71 ever flown at max speed?
> (hoping against hope that Mary imparts more wisdom...)
Yes. But it required permission of the Commander on a per-flight
basis. The SR-71's usual limit is Mach 3.2, but flight at Mach 3.3
was allowed, and flown, with prior permission. There's no evidence
that anyone has ever flown faster than Mach 3.3 (although it's
possible that someone may have briefly dashed above 3.3, not cruised,
but it's not documented).
The cruise speed on the SR-71 is limited by CIT, compressor inlet
temperature. The limit is 427 degC, per the Dash-1. Since the SR-71
is designed to fly Mach 3.2 (standard atmosphere), this temperature is
reached at Mach 3.3, offering a fairly standard margin of safety. If
operational conditions require going Mach 3.3 it's possible. Rather
than flying Mach number, we fly CIT, cruising just a bit below the
limit. This usually works out to Mach 3.23 but that's because the
real atmosphere isn't the same as the standard atmosphere. Everything
about the airplane is designed for Mach 3.2, including the inlet spike
operation, etc. I've always assumed that the extra 0.1 Mach was a
bonus, discovered in flight test, because the calculations were on the
conservative side.
If you'll check in Deja News, you'll find that Lednicer worked it out
that the absolute airframe maximum is around Mach 3.5, because you get
the bow shock impinging on the wing above that. Unfortunately, this
can't be tested because the CIT limit is reached first.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer
Link to a picture of the A-10's GAU-8 next to a volkswagen for size comparison link... And a picture of one of the rounds that it fires... link. I believe the GAU-8 has two rates of fire, 1800 and 4200 rounds per minute....
The reason for the A-10's engine layout is to seperate the engines as much as possible. The A-10's roll is as a tank killer and CAS or Close Air Support of ground troops. In such a mission, it generally flies at low altitude and is subject to groundfire, and damage to the engines.... If one of the engines should take a hit that might cause a catastrophic failure, the distance between the two engines minimizes the possibility of damage to the other engine, enableing both plane and pilot to return. The pilot is also surrounded by a titanium bathtub rated to stop small arms fire up to I believe 23mm.
Someone also questioned the 'E' designation of certain aircraft... I believe that designates it as a Electronic Warfare or Electronic Countermeasure aircraft.... E6B Prowler would be one example...
Dave
The reason for the A-10's engine layout is to seperate the engines as much as possible. The A-10's roll is as a tank killer and CAS or Close Air Support of ground troops. In such a mission, it generally flies at low altitude and is subject to groundfire, and damage to the engines.... If one of the engines should take a hit that might cause a catastrophic failure, the distance between the two engines minimizes the possibility of damage to the other engine, enableing both plane and pilot to return. The pilot is also surrounded by a titanium bathtub rated to stop small arms fire up to I believe 23mm.
Someone also questioned the 'E' designation of certain aircraft... I believe that designates it as a Electronic Warfare or Electronic Countermeasure aircraft.... E6B Prowler would be one example...
Dave
Marshall... You have ruined my unscathed view of the Aura and Myth that is the SR-71. Man... the SU37 or the Mig29 or somehting could almost hit Mach 3. What a waste for such a big, sleek, beautiful airplane.
But you know... if that thing was invented in the 50s/60s, then think of the craziness they have now that they don't tell us about. I.e... the Aurora or whatever. Mach 5 or 6. I need one of these. You could get to Asia in about 2 hours or soemthing silly.
But you know... if that thing was invented in the 50s/60s, then think of the craziness they have now that they don't tell us about. I.e... the Aurora or whatever. Mach 5 or 6. I need one of these. You could get to Asia in about 2 hours or soemthing silly.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter