Discussion
Total loss said:
Tango13 said:
In terms of sheer thrust the X-15 really ruled the roost, Milton O Thompson describes how "The Bull" could accelerate at a sustained 4G, hard enough that the pilot could feel the tendons holding his heart in place stretch and make it difficult to breathe.
Another way to look at is that they gained 100 mph in velocity every second, whilst at the far side of 3000mph in a 45dg climb
I can't remember the exact numbers but 240 nautical miles 350,000ft+ of alttitude and back home for tea and medals in about 6mins was about the norm!
But how long did it take to get to launch height of what ever it was slung beneath the B-52, 1/2hr ? So its 0-60,000 ft would be considerably slower than all the others discussed. Another way to look at is that they gained 100 mph in velocity every second, whilst at the far side of 3000mph in a 45dg climb
I can't remember the exact numbers but 240 nautical miles 350,000ft+ of alttitude and back home for tea and medals in about 6mins was about the norm!
Still one of the most awesome machines ever built though
Wonder what time Concorde would post, empty of passengers, with minimal fuel, and full throttle from a standstill?
rhinochopig said:
Total loss said:
Tango13 said:
In terms of sheer thrust the X-15 really ruled the roost, Milton O Thompson describes how "The Bull" could accelerate at a sustained 4G, hard enough that the pilot could feel the tendons holding his heart in place stretch and make it difficult to breathe.
Another way to look at is that they gained 100 mph in velocity every second, whilst at the far side of 3000mph in a 45dg climb
I can't remember the exact numbers but 240 nautical miles 350,000ft+ of alttitude and back home for tea and medals in about 6mins was about the norm!
But how long did it take to get to launch height of what ever it was slung beneath the B-52, 1/2hr ? So its 0-60,000 ft would be considerably slower than all the others discussed. Another way to look at is that they gained 100 mph in velocity every second, whilst at the far side of 3000mph in a 45dg climb
I can't remember the exact numbers but 240 nautical miles 350,000ft+ of alttitude and back home for tea and medals in about 6mins was about the norm!
Still one of the most awesome machines ever built thoughWonder what time Concorde would post, empty of passengers, with minimal fuel, and full throttle from a standstill?
k all ever got close! Milt Thompson described the X-15 as having the sort of performance that any self respecting fighter jock would give his left bk for.The X-15 certainly wasn't a "Manned Missle" Anyone who thinks so really needs to read up on their history. The Mercury astronauts sat on top of about 78,000lbs of thrust and were little more than "Spam in a Can" Those that flew the X-15 actually Rode the Bull!
Edited by Tango13 on Sunday 9th October 19:30
Not to take anything away from Concorde, but if you read some of the stories of the SR-71 development you get to realise just how "cutting edge" that plane was. Designed between 1958 and 1963, and with a top speed that makes Concorde look distinctly slow, the aerothermal implications of a cruising speed at ~M3.2 / 3.3 whilst in continuous afterburning, boggle the mind given the technology availible at the time. Even things we take for granted like accurate navigation systems didn't exist, so they had to develop everything from scratch (eg Inertial navigation units with blue light star tracking telescope !!)
This pic of the "clean up ops" after a SR-71 crash really brings it home to me, just check out the cars and trucks, they practically look pre-historic !!
Reading the SR-71 flight manuals, the "poor" climb limitation was likely to be due to 2 main reasons:
1) the engine intakes only operate efficiently in a narrow range of dynamic pressure
2) the fuel tank "inerting" system (nitrogen over pressure) had to keep the tank pressure about 3psi above ambient, and it could not vent pressure fast enough to cope with rapid altitude changes.
Also, operationally, they first mission target was to refuel at a medium altitude (because the brakes were marginal(at full fuel weight) in terms of heat rejection if an aborted take off before rotation was required), so blasting up to FL60 was never an operational objective.
Interestingly, when the Airforce looked into an Interceptor version of the airframe, i would immagine the maximum climb performance was looked into?
This pic of the "clean up ops" after a SR-71 crash really brings it home to me, just check out the cars and trucks, they practically look pre-historic !!
Reading the SR-71 flight manuals, the "poor" climb limitation was likely to be due to 2 main reasons:
1) the engine intakes only operate efficiently in a narrow range of dynamic pressure
2) the fuel tank "inerting" system (nitrogen over pressure) had to keep the tank pressure about 3psi above ambient, and it could not vent pressure fast enough to cope with rapid altitude changes.
Also, operationally, they first mission target was to refuel at a medium altitude (because the brakes were marginal(at full fuel weight) in terms of heat rejection if an aborted take off before rotation was required), so blasting up to FL60 was never an operational objective.
Interestingly, when the Airforce looked into an Interceptor version of the airframe, i would immagine the maximum climb performance was looked into?
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 9th October 19:45
Max_Torque said:
Not to take anything away from Concorde, but if you read some of the stories of the SR-71 development you get to realise just how "cutting edge" that plane was. Designed between 1958 and 1963, and with a top speed that makes Concorde look distinctly slow, the aerothermal implications of a cruising speed at ~M3.2 / 3.3 whilst in continuous afterburning, boggle the mind given the technology availible at the time. Even things we take for granted like accurate navigation systems didn't exist, so they had to develop everything from scratch (eg Inertial navigation units with blue light star tracking telescope !!)
This pic of the "clean up ops" after a SR-71 crash really brings it home to me, just check out the cars and trucks, they practically look pre-historic !!
Reading the SR-71 flight manuals, the "poor" climb limitation was likely to be due to 2 main reasons:
1) the engine intakes only operate efficiently in a narrow range of dynamic pressure
2) the fuel tank "inerting" system (nitrogen over pressure) had to keep the tank pressure about 3psi above ambient, and it could not vent pressure fast enough to cope with rapid altitude changes.
Also, operationally, they first mission target was to refuel at a medium altitude (because the brakes were marginal(at full fuel weight) in terms of heat rejection if an aborted take off before rotation was required), so blasting up to FL60 was never an operational objective.
Interestingly, when the Airforce looked into an Interceptor version of the airframe, i would immagine the maximum climb performance was looked into?
Whilst you make a good argument for the SR71, it still pissed fuel on the ground, and was, according to sled driver, an aircraft that required a hell of a lot of TLC - and you had to wear a space suit whilst flying it. Concorde whilst not as fast, or quite as high flying, was a commercial passenger aircraft, which for me is the astounding thing about it as a design. This pic of the "clean up ops" after a SR-71 crash really brings it home to me, just check out the cars and trucks, they practically look pre-historic !!
Reading the SR-71 flight manuals, the "poor" climb limitation was likely to be due to 2 main reasons:
1) the engine intakes only operate efficiently in a narrow range of dynamic pressure
2) the fuel tank "inerting" system (nitrogen over pressure) had to keep the tank pressure about 3psi above ambient, and it could not vent pressure fast enough to cope with rapid altitude changes.
Also, operationally, they first mission target was to refuel at a medium altitude (because the brakes were marginal(at full fuel weight) in terms of heat rejection if an aborted take off before rotation was required), so blasting up to FL60 was never an operational objective.
Interestingly, when the Airforce looked into an Interceptor version of the airframe, i would immagine the maximum climb performance was looked into?
rhinochopig said:
Whilst you make a good argument for the SR71, it still pissed fuel on the ground, and was, according to sled driver, an aircraft that required a hell of a lot of TLC - and you had to wear a space suit whilst flying it. Concorde whilst not as fast, or quite as high flying, was a commercial passenger aircraft, which for me is the astounding thing about it as a design.
IIRC, there were extensive periods before Mir was launched that the people at the highest altitude in the world were wearing ties and drinking champagne. And that's pretty special.rhinochopig said:
Max_Torque said:
Not to take anything away from Concorde, but if you read some of the stories of the SR-71 development you get to realise just how "cutting edge" that plane was. Designed between 1958 and 1963, and with a top speed that makes Concorde look distinctly slow, the aerothermal implications of a cruising speed at ~M3.2 / 3.3 whilst in continuous afterburning, boggle the mind given the technology availible at the time. Even things we take for granted like accurate navigation systems didn't exist, so they had to develop everything from scratch (eg Inertial navigation units with blue light star tracking telescope !!)
This pic of the "clean up ops" after a SR-71 crash really brings it home to me, just check out the cars and trucks, they practically look pre-historic !!
Reading the SR-71 flight manuals, the "poor" climb limitation was likely to be due to 2 main reasons:
1) the engine intakes only operate efficiently in a narrow range of dynamic pressure
2) the fuel tank "inerting" system (nitrogen over pressure) had to keep the tank pressure about 3psi above ambient, and it could not vent pressure fast enough to cope with rapid altitude changes.
Also, operationally, they first mission target was to refuel at a medium altitude (because the brakes were marginal(at full fuel weight) in terms of heat rejection if an aborted take off before rotation was required), so blasting up to FL60 was never an operational objective.
Interestingly, when the Airforce looked into an Interceptor version of the airframe, i would immagine the maximum climb performance was looked into?
Whilst you make a good argument for the SR71, it still pissed fuel on the ground, and was, according to sled driver, an aircraft that required a hell of a lot of TLC - and you had to wear a space suit whilst flying it. Concorde whilst not as fast, or quite as high flying, was a commercial passenger aircraft, which for me is the astounding thing about it as a design. This pic of the "clean up ops" after a SR-71 crash really brings it home to me, just check out the cars and trucks, they practically look pre-historic !!
Reading the SR-71 flight manuals, the "poor" climb limitation was likely to be due to 2 main reasons:
1) the engine intakes only operate efficiently in a narrow range of dynamic pressure
2) the fuel tank "inerting" system (nitrogen over pressure) had to keep the tank pressure about 3psi above ambient, and it could not vent pressure fast enough to cope with rapid altitude changes.
Also, operationally, they first mission target was to refuel at a medium altitude (because the brakes were marginal(at full fuel weight) in terms of heat rejection if an aborted take off before rotation was required), so blasting up to FL60 was never an operational objective.
Interestingly, when the Airforce looked into an Interceptor version of the airframe, i would immagine the maximum climb performance was looked into?
After re-fueling the Habu had to "Dipsey-Doodle" to unload the airframe and make the climb to FL85 possible and a couple of Habu's were lost in a deep stall due to a lack of thrust!
The interceptor version of the SR-72, the proposed F-12 wasn't really an interceptor as such, it's job was to sit at 85,000ft and t
t anything it fancied from 100nm+Max_Torque said:
blasting up to FL60 was never an operational objective.
Indeed, the Lightning, SR-71 and Concorde all had totally different objectives.Kitchski said:
Simpo Two said:
Most certainly; no good getting up there if all you can do is throw bacon rolls at the target.
Funniest thing I've heard today, thanks! 
In fact I may patent the 'bacon roll' as a new aerobatic manouver. It employs 'G' to get one's packed lunch from behind the ejector seat into a position from which you can eat it. Sort of like a barrel roll only with a -ve G element for the inital lift, then air-brakes... damn uncomfortable but you do at least get breakfast.
Now where did that little carton of Ribena go?
Edited by Simpo Two on Sunday 9th October 21:53
Tango13 said:
rhinochopig said:
Max_Torque said:
Not to take anything away from Concorde, but if you read some of the stories of the SR-71 development you get to realise just how "cutting edge" that plane was. Designed between 1958 and 1963, and with a top speed that makes Concorde look distinctly slow, the aerothermal implications of a cruising speed at ~M3.2 / 3.3 whilst in continuous afterburning, boggle the mind given the technology availible at the time. Even things we take for granted like accurate navigation systems didn't exist, so they had to develop everything from scratch (eg Inertial navigation units with blue light star tracking telescope !!)
This pic of the "clean up ops" after a SR-71 crash really brings it home to me, just check out the cars and trucks, they practically look pre-historic !!
Reading the SR-71 flight manuals, the "poor" climb limitation was likely to be due to 2 main reasons:
1) the engine intakes only operate efficiently in a narrow range of dynamic pressure
2) the fuel tank "inerting" system (nitrogen over pressure) had to keep the tank pressure about 3psi above ambient, and it could not vent pressure fast enough to cope with rapid altitude changes.
Also, operationally, they first mission target was to refuel at a medium altitude (because the brakes were marginal(at full fuel weight) in terms of heat rejection if an aborted take off before rotation was required), so blasting up to FL60 was never an operational objective.
Interestingly, when the Airforce looked into an Interceptor version of the airframe, i would immagine the maximum climb performance was looked into?
Whilst you make a good argument for the SR71, it still pissed fuel on the ground, and was, according to sled driver, an aircraft that required a hell of a lot of TLC - and you had to wear a space suit whilst flying it. Concorde whilst not as fast, or quite as high flying, was a commercial passenger aircraft, which for me is the astounding thing about it as a design. This pic of the "clean up ops" after a SR-71 crash really brings it home to me, just check out the cars and trucks, they practically look pre-historic !!
Reading the SR-71 flight manuals, the "poor" climb limitation was likely to be due to 2 main reasons:
1) the engine intakes only operate efficiently in a narrow range of dynamic pressure
2) the fuel tank "inerting" system (nitrogen over pressure) had to keep the tank pressure about 3psi above ambient, and it could not vent pressure fast enough to cope with rapid altitude changes.
Also, operationally, they first mission target was to refuel at a medium altitude (because the brakes were marginal(at full fuel weight) in terms of heat rejection if an aborted take off before rotation was required), so blasting up to FL60 was never an operational objective.
Interestingly, when the Airforce looked into an Interceptor version of the airframe, i would immagine the maximum climb performance was looked into?
After re-fueling the Habu had to "Dipsey-Doodle" to unload the airframe and make the climb to FL85 possible and a couple of Habu's were lost in a deep stall due to a lack of thrust!
The interceptor version of the SR-72, the proposed F-12 wasn't really an interceptor as such, it's job was to sit at 85,000ft and t
t anything it fancied from 100nm+In this case, time to altitude, and hence time to high speed flight, would have been critical. I guess they could have maintained a 24-7 high altitude presence around the US boarders, just in case, but wow, that would have been some logistical/financial undertaking !
Max_Torque said:
I guess they could have maintained a 24-7 high altitude presence around the US boarders, just in case, but wow, that would have been some logistical/financial undertaking !
They did it with bombers; Up to 12 in the air, with armed nukes, 24/7 for about 10 years at the peak of the cold war.Max_Torque said:
At the risk of a further thread diversion, my understanding was that the mid 60's US Airforce brass wanted a fast plane, that could get out away from the US coast quickly, towards incoming attack bombers that had been detected by the early warning radar, and shoot them down before they were within their launch window (assuming they were carrying fairly limited range nuclear cruise missiles etc)
In this case, time to altitude, and hence time to high speed flight, would have been critical. I guess they could have maintained a 24-7 high altitude presence around the US boarders, just in case, but wow, that would have been some logistical/financial undertaking !
It wasn't so much a case of wanting a fast airplane, what was needed was altitude and lots of it because height equals might and from FL85 you have a massive range, both in terms of what you can see and what you can shoot at.In this case, time to altitude, and hence time to high speed flight, would have been critical. I guess they could have maintained a 24-7 high altitude presence around the US boarders, just in case, but wow, that would have been some logistical/financial undertaking !
The logistics of keeping enough F-12's in the air as you say just boggle the mind, much cheaper to buy F-102 or F-106's with their relativly stunning intercept capabilities on a point and shoot basis than spend a bloody fortune on standing patrols with a few F-12's and their look down-shoot down capabilities.
davepoth said:
Max_Torque said:
I guess they could have maintained a 24-7 high altitude presence around the US boarders, just in case, but wow, that would have been some logistical/financial undertaking !
They did it with bombers; Up to 12 in the air, with armed nukes, 24/7 for about 10 years at the peak of the cold war.davepoth said:
rhinochopig said:
Whilst you make a good argument for the SR71, it still pissed fuel on the ground, and was, according to sled driver, an aircraft that required a hell of a lot of TLC - and you had to wear a space suit whilst flying it. Concorde whilst not as fast, or quite as high flying, was a commercial passenger aircraft, which for me is the astounding thing about it as a design.
IIRC, there were extensive periods before Mir was launched that the people at the highest altitude in the world were wearing ties and drinking champagne. And that's pretty special.I remember a Farnborough airshow when everyone was marvelling at the F15 that had just flown from the US without refuelling. Imagine! A Mach 2 fighter that could fly across the Atlantic on one fuel load!
It couldn't do that AND fly at Mach 2 though, so it looked a bit sick when Concorde did a flypast.
It couldn't do that AND fly at Mach 2 though, so it looked a bit sick when Concorde did a flypast.
Just as an aside, FL85 would be 85oo ft at Std pressure 1013mb. FL850 would be a lot more impressive!
My vote for most impressive aircraft would be Concorde in all round ability ( although I missed getting onto it by a few years seniority :-( ) however in sheer audacity/bravery the stories of what the SR71 pilots did ( as against the aeroplane ) are just breathtaking.
My vote for most impressive aircraft would be Concorde in all round ability ( although I missed getting onto it by a few years seniority :-( ) however in sheer audacity/bravery the stories of what the SR71 pilots did ( as against the aeroplane ) are just breathtaking.
Mr Dave said:
Found this online and cant confirm the details.
"Streak Eagle
the empty weight on record attempt for 30,000 meter flight
was about 25,200 LBS.
fuel carried on attempt was about 7,300 LBS
static sea level thrust was about 47,660 LBS even though
the aircraft was not exactly at sea level....
thrust to weight ratio at engine startup was about 1.46-to-1 "
And...
"I have read that a production F-22A weighs just under 33,000 LBS
empty and has up to 78,000 LBS of static sea level thrust"
static seal level thrust is a kinda useless statistic for time to height, because thrust changes with speed, and altitude, and different engines have different drag. Strap a pair of Boeing 777 engines on and you'll have 160,000lbs of static seal level thrust, but you'll never get a time to height record..."Streak Eagle
the empty weight on record attempt for 30,000 meter flight
was about 25,200 LBS.
fuel carried on attempt was about 7,300 LBS
static sea level thrust was about 47,660 LBS even though
the aircraft was not exactly at sea level....
thrust to weight ratio at engine startup was about 1.46-to-1 "
And...
"I have read that a production F-22A weighs just under 33,000 LBS
empty and has up to 78,000 LBS of static sea level thrust"
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff