Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Did we actually build this

  1. Jul 4, 2005 #1

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Almost seems as if this is an alien designed aircraft.. I know.. I know.. I couldnt help but get amazed at this

    [​IMG]
    :rolleyes:
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 4, 2005 #2

    JasonRox

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    That's been around since like... ever. :)

    I love it too!
     
  4. Jul 4, 2005 #3
    You know I've seen the previews for that new movie coming out with the hightech fighter jets. They outfit one with an artificial intelligence and it becomes "self aware". I can't help but laugh out loud every time I see that preview.
     
  5. Jul 4, 2005 #4

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I agree. Hollywood's IQ levels are dropping with every new technology out there. Back to the topic, though:

    SR-71! Where did they even come up with such a blackbody design?

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Jul 5, 2005 #5

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    ahahaha i saw that stupid movie trailer!

    How does it rearm itself?!?! At some point doesnt the stupdi thing just run out of gas or ammo and the movie ends...
     
  7. Jul 5, 2005 #6

    enigma

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  8. Jul 5, 2005 #7

    honestrosewater

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I like Boeing's X-32A (which I happened to see on NOVA's 'Battle of the X-Planes') because, even though it lost the competition, it still looks happy. :biggrin:
    [​IMG]
     
  9. Jul 5, 2005 #8
    sr71 is the coolest plane there is :D
     
  10. Jul 5, 2005 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Unquestionably. And what makes it so awesome is that it first flew more than 40 years ago, yet remains utterly unmatched in performance today.
     
  11. Jul 5, 2005 #10
    I guess that depends on how you measure performance.
     
  12. Jul 5, 2005 #11

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What I find amusing about the Blackbird is that it's a 'successful failure'. For something that was originally supposed to be a fighter, a 15 mile turn radius turned out to be a little impractical. It certainly makes up for it in other roles, though.
     
  13. Jul 5, 2005 #12

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Like was already mentioned, it depends on how you define performance. IMO, Kelly Johnson was one of the greatest American minds of the last century.

    Back to the OP...it is amazing to see a B2 but to look back at it's roots under Jack Northrop makes you think about just how good engineering was back in that period.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2005
  14. Jul 5, 2005 #13

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    There are some great books out on the development, testing and flying of the YF-12 and SR-71. One of the most incredible survival stories I read was about a test flight that went bad (the YF-12 had a tendancy to break apart in flight) and there was an ejection at mach 2+ and over 80,000 ft. The pilot survived but the back seater didn't.
     
  15. Jul 5, 2005 #14

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ouch. :eek:
     
  16. Jul 5, 2005 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The SR-71 was designed for one purpose only: to replace the U-2 spy plane. For that purpose, it needed three things: altitude, speed, and range, with the altitude and speed being by far more important. It remains utterly unmached in both.

    After already being concieved as a spy-plane, Lockheed tried to branch out into other roles for it. The interceptor role came next. Please note, an interceptor is not a fighter and turning radius (its far more than 15 miles - closer to 150 miles) is irrelevant when you plan to launch your missiles from 300 miles away at bombers (bombers don't maneuver anyway) and never see your enemy. The primary purpose of an interceptor is to get off the ground fast and meet the enemy far away from friendly territory. In the case of the SR-71, that would have meant intercepting Soviet bombers over the north pole before they could launch their nuclear cruise missiles. It would have made a superb interceptor, for that role.

    The third role was as a strategic bomber. For this, it would have replaced the B-1, XB-70 and F-111 for the strategic role of flying nuclear bombs/missiles into the USSR. Both the B-1 and F-111 were ill-suited for their primary purpose (too vulnerable flying just above the tree-tops due to new look-down/shoot-down radars) and the XB-70 was cancelled partially because of the SR-71 (rumor has it, anyway). Why build a bomber that flies at mach 1.5 at 100 feet (the B-1 and F-111) or a bomber that flies at mach 2 at 60,000 feet (the XB-70) when you can build one that flies at mach 3 at 85,000 feet (the bomber version of the SR-71, never built)?

    Suggested reading: Skunk Works, by Ben Rich (designer of the SR-71 engine inlet and exhausts and directer of Skunk Works during the F-117 development). It chronicles the development of the SR-71 in detail and has some great anecdotes from pilots. Ie, the SR-71's speed was limited only by heat: in one test flight, the airspeed indicator started reading wrong and the pilot noticed it when things around him started melting and throttled back. Radar recordings indicated it had topped mach 4.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2005
  17. Jul 5, 2005 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It was a good idea - way ahead of its time, but the problem is that a flying-wing is about as stable as a frisbee or a piece of paper. With modern computers/avionics its a piece of cake to control today, but back in the '40s the control problem was utterly unsolvable.
     
  18. Jul 5, 2005 #17
    Just a nit but what about the space shuttle? Or does that not count?
     
  19. Jul 5, 2005 #18
  20. Jul 5, 2005 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The space shuttle is a rocket, not a jet...
     
  21. Jul 5, 2005 #20
    I believe that the F-117 looks most alien out of all aircraft.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    I mean look at that right above this text.....that doesnt look human to me :uhh: :surprised :bugeye: :approve: :tongue:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Did we actually build this
  1. We did it first (Replies: 18)

Loading...