Discussion
Eric Mc said:
There are no flying SR-71s. They don't need them. Apart from the satellite systems and the U-2s (all the TR-1s have been redesignated U-2Rs), the US military now have a range of "robot" recconaissance aircraft such as the Global Hawk which can perform the tasks originally alocated to the SR-71.
And what about the TR-3 Aurora?
www.aliendave.com/Article_US_SpaceBase_UTAH.html
(and dont try and deny the factual accuracy of a website called 'alien dave' either...)
The Wiz said:
So the US have a secret base on the Moon do they?
No but they did use RAF Machrihanish at lot (sometimes still do)
www.black-triangle.co.uk
Edited by father ted on Tuesday 17th October 17:34
Eric Mc said:
And what about the Tr-3 Aurora (I never knew that it had been designated TR-3)?
I think it is definitely a dead project now. What could it do that the current range of aircraft (manned and unmanned) can't already do?
I think it is definitely a dead project now. What could it do that the current range of aircraft (manned and unmanned) can't already do?
I wouldn't discount an Auroraesque aircraft (there's probably been at least 15 experimental aircraft since) just yet, there are UAV's for reconnaissance; however I'm not aware of any hypersonic UAV's.
As the frequency of potential hostile flashpoints thousands of miles apart increases, a hypersonic Ramjet or PDWE powered reconnaissance aircraft are preferable to a 130 kt predator aircraft.
You can keep your EE lightnings with self jettisoning cockpit, 800 mile range and zero defensive capability against GLMs, it was also more unreliable than Soviet and US designs of the same era.
Give me an A10 any day....
It can survive this and still come in for a perfect three pointer
Give me an A10 any day....
It can survive this and still come in for a perfect three pointer
petrol_noggin said:
You can keep your EE lightnings with self jettisoning cockpit, 800 mile range and zero defensive capability against GLMs, it was also more unreliable than Soviet and US designs of the same era.
Give me an A10 any day....
It can survive this and still come in for a perfect three pointer
Give me an A10 any day....
It can survive this and still come in for a perfect three pointer
As the "Queen of the skies" was designed as an "Interceptor" it had no requirement for defence from GLM's , nor did it have a self jetisoning cockpit ( I take it you are refering to the OCEngWg who "jumped" the chocks)Why have a range longer than 800 miles( If Sqn. Ldr. Howe also known as "poundstretcher" was flying)when the tanker is on the TOW line ?
The equivalent "Soviet" aircraft was the Mig21 which had a scheduled engine change every 50 hrs . The equvalent US aircraft was the F104 which apart from ejecting the pilot towards the ground in the early days, could not turn within an airfield boundary, and if the candle ( For the afterburner/reheat) blew out , fell out of he sky with monotonous regularity!
The "Warthog" is a fantastic a/c , capable of taking tremendous amounts of punishment , but , please compare like with like . The Frightning was designed in 1947 as an interceptor, the 'hog in he 70's as a ground attack aircraft,in response to the Vietnam fiasco .
Me ..... biased.........
Edited by NHyde on Tuesday 17th October 21:46
Edited by NHyde on Tuesday 17th October 21:51
NHyde said:
As the "Queen of the skies" was designed as an "Interceptor" it had no requirement for defence from GLM's , nor did it have a self jetisoning cockpit ( I take it you are refering to the OCEngWg who "jumped" the chocks)Why have a range longer than 800 miles( If Sqn. Ldr. Howe also known as "poundstretcher" was flying)when the tanker is on the TOW line ?
Edited by NHyde on Tuesday 17th October 21:46
3 verified canopy losses through a faulty latch, one happening at mach 1.2. I'll give you that point, it was the fastest convertible in the World . The 800 mile range wasn't the problem, it was the fact that the flaps and gear bay were even used as tanks, making the P1 a flying molotov cocktail. However, it does look rather mean
, I see 458 at EGTC almost daily!
Flaps , yep 25 imperial gallons per side , and the "git" seals leaked like a bitch ! The canopy losses all happened on Mk. 1's and were corrected by the time the Mk.1A was introduced . However, STI 129(STI 128 for the cable adjustment), which continued to be valid on all marks from 2, 2A, 3 and 6(T4&5) , including the Saudi and Kuwaiti aircraft , and is now continued on Beachy's in the RSA , one of which I flew in , introduced a "Jack head separation " measurement which prevented the "self ejecting cockpit"(..and I'm sure you mean canopy) in service .
I have 26DK stamped on my forehead , 26VC on my a**e, and NSN 1620 on my w***ger when its aroused !!
.......and yes I am biased
I have 26DK stamped on my forehead , 26VC on my a**e, and NSN 1620 on my w***ger when its aroused !!
.......and yes I am biased
Concorde....it was so cool ,people would show off their ticket to friends....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RsJqMjpFNs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RsJqMjpFNs
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff