Thread: SR71 Blackbird: The Fastest Plane On Earth

Actually, the SR-71, or more accurately, its brother the YF-12 WAS intended to be an interceptor. I do wonder if the Blackbird was actually speed limited to some degree structurally and how fast i could REALLY go? The engines probably had a bit more power. That is the scuttlebutt regarding the F-22. We know that every time they tell us that it went a little faster, it has gotten further away from the theoretical top speed of any jet with fixed inlets. The USAF now ADMITS to Mach 2.5 plus and in theory a plane of that type should not be able to exceed Mach 2 if that. The rumors that I have heard from guys who live around Tyndall AFB and others are that it can, in fact, reach MiG 25 and possible SR 71 speeds, but the heat generated during such runs are not good for the very expensive stealthy composites used on the leading edges. That is apparently a major problem at lower altitudes, so the pilots really have to be careful how much juice they give the plane until they get up to high causing altitude. I have heard at least one story about an F-22 that still had its transponder on when the pilot hit the burners up high and the guys in the tower at Panama City though that there ATC computer had gone on the fritz because they allegedly had a blip on their screen that was moving at speeds approaching 2000 knots or Mach 3. Another rumor that I heard from a guy who worked for defense contractor that provided electronics for the F-22 is that the real reason that we will not sell F-22's even to our closest allies is that we figured out a way to build a fixed or at least a stealthy hidden inlet technology that permits those kinds of others theoretically impossible speeds.
What is more amazing about the F22 is that it can do combat maneuvers at altitudes where earlier planes would have had enough trouble flying straight and level. You hear some pretty crazy stories about the SR 71's engines getting a bit out of sync when they fired the burners to climb to cruising altitude and causing the plan to "fishtail" at Mach 2 plus. .

Originally Posted by BobH

Not disputing the Migs short comings but still it was at the time the second fastest plane in the world and it illustrates just how fast the SR71 was. Oth the SR71 was never intended as an interceptor, was never in operattional service in multiple squadron strength and could not be maintained by a Siberian draftee. I don't think the USSR did that badly at all considering that.

Bob

Originally Posted by Orville

Russians ALWAYS favoured brute force over finesse, anyway.

That they did and they occasionally ended up with a pretty darn good product like the T-34, the T-54/55, the AK47/AKM series, Akula submarine and the various and sundry Sukhoi aircraft culminating in the Su-27 series. The MiG 9, 15 and 29 and the Tu-22M Backfire and Tu-160 Blackjack were pretty decent too even compared to their contemporary western counterparts. The Kirov class nuclear battlecruiser is still a pretty cool piece of gear too.

You left out their rockets. Had a buddy who watched the first Americans launch at Baikonur many years back. Said the technology was virtually unchanged from the 60s. their attitude seems to be why fix what works.

Originally Posted by JDM61

Actually, the SR-71, or more accurately, its brother the YF-12 WAS intended to be an interceptor. I do wonder if the Blackbird was actually speed limited to some degree structurally and how fast i could REALLY go? The engines probably had a bit more power. That is the scuttlebutt regarding the F-22. We know that every time they tell us that it went a little faster, it has gotten further away from the theoretical top speed of any jet with fixed inlets. The USAF now ADMITS to Mach 2.5 plus and in theory a plane of that type should not be able to exceed Mach 2 if that. The rumors that I have heard from guys who live around Tyndall AFB and others are that it can, in fact, reach MiG 25 and possible SR 71 speeds, but the heat generated during such runs are not good for the very expensive stealthy composites used on the leading edges. That is apparently a major problem at lower altitudes, so the pilots really have to be careful how much juice they give the plane until they get up to high causing altitude. I have heard at least one story about an F-22 that still had its transponder on when the pilot hit the burners up high and the guys in the tower at Panama City though that there ATC computer had gone on the fritz because they allegedly had a blip on their screen that was moving at speeds approaching 2000 knots or Mach 3. Another rumor that I heard from a guy who worked for defense contractor that provided electronics for the F-22 is that the real reason that we will not sell F-22's even to our closest allies is that we figured out a way to build a fixed or at least a stealthy hidden inlet technology that permits those kinds of others theoretically impossible speeds.
What is more amazing about the F22 is that it can do combat maneuvers at altitudes where earlier planes would have had enough trouble flying straight and level. You hear some pretty crazy stories about the SR 71's engines getting a bit out of sync when they fired the burners to climb to cruising altitude and causing the plan to "fishtail" at Mach 2 plus. .

Both the SR71 and the Mig25 were first flown in 1964 so it really is no small wonder that an aircraft produced 33 years later should possibly be even more capable. I still think that the USSR produced and Russia today produces military gear that is very good and is often put down in the West. Just remember you can't get a person to the space station today without their rude and crude rockets.

Bob

Actually, the guys back in the early 60's pretty much pushed the boundaries of how fast you could go with conventional air breathing engines and rocket engines to boot. What has been done since then is to make the engines a hell of a lot more efficient and harder to spot, but the heavy lifting was mostly done in the big spending days of the Cold War, including the F-22. While the F35 builds on that structural advances from the F-22 and XF-23 programs and has more advanced avionics and electronics, its engines or at least its intake setup are not of the same caliber, nor ar the other Gen 4.5 fighters like the Typhoon or Rafale even though the engine in the F-35 supposedly produces more thrust. We still don't have another fighter anywhere that can STEALTHILY supercruise at Mach 1.6-1.8. The Raptor very well may be the last true "cost no object" fighter we see, no matter what the Charlie Foxtrot F-35 program ends up costing. I think that we saw in the F-23 is the next level of "black art" that we have grown accustom to form the special projects divisions of L-M, N-G and Boeing. The REAL trick is going to be if they can pull off the B1 and B-2 "replacement'" the LSR-B, the tricky part being acquiring it at the price they want, which is about 30% of the current cost of a B2. I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. LOL

Originally Posted by BobH

Both the SR71 and the Mig25 were first flown in 1964 so it really is no small wonder that an aircraft produced 33 years later should possibly be even more capable. I still think that the USSR produced and Russia today produces military gear that is very good and is often put down in the West. Just remember you can't get a person to the space station today without their rude and crude rockets.

Bob

Originally Posted by JDM61

Actually, the guys back in the early 60's pretty much pushed the boundaries of how fast you could go with conventional air breathing engines and rocket engines to boot. What has been done since then is to make the engines a hell of a lot more efficient and harder to spot, but the heavy lifting was mostly done in the big spending days of the Cold War, including the F-22. While the F35 builds on that structural advances from the F-22 and XF-23 programs and has more advanced avionics and electronics, its engines or at least its intake setup are not of the same caliber, nor ar the other Gen 4.5 fighters like the Typhoon or Rafale even though the engine in the F-35 supposedly produces more thrust. We still don't have another fighter anywhere that can STEALTHILY supercruise at Mach 1.6-1.8. The Raptor very well may be the last true "cost no object" fighter we see, no matter what the Charlie Foxtrot F-35 program ends up costing. I think that we saw in the F-23 is the next level of "black art" that we have grown accustom to form the special projects divisions of L-M, N-G and Boeing. The REAL trick is going to be if they can pull off the B1 and B-2 "replacement'" the LSR-B, the tricky part being acquiring it at the price they want, which is about 30% of the current cost of a B2. I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. LOL

Well, having the best equipment does not necessarily win anyone a war. It is interesting to push boundaries but a lot of times it is not necessary to go for the last 5% of what may be possible. Don't get me started on the F-35 and our governments involvement in procuring some, not really a big fan of it.

Bob

From a purely technical standpoint, I think that the B model for the USMC and the Royal Navy is the one that has caused a lot of the trouble. You guys actually ordered that one that appears to work.

Originally Posted by BobH

Well, having the best equipment does not necessarily win anyone a war. It is interesting to push boundaries but a lot of times it is not necessary to go for the last 5% of what may be possible. Don't get me started on the F-35 and our governments involvement in procuring some, not really a big fan of it.

Bob

Originally Posted by JDM61

From a purely technical standpoint, I think that the B model for the USMC and the Royal Navy is the one that has caused a lot of the trouble. You guys actually ordered that one that appears to work.

Even if we ordered the one that seems to work the cost is waaaay too much imo. The government here ran into a real crap storm when they announced what they were planning on doing and how they were involved in the procurement process. They pulled in their horns and mumbled something about having to reassess the whole thing. The real situation here wrt the F-35 is about clear as mud to the average Joe from what I can see. We will see what we will see eventually. Seems when you try and built a jack of all trades you wind up with a master at none.

Bob

I think that now the most advanced technology and are classified on the TV do not see.

You are correct. They managed to keep the F-117 secret for a LONG time even though the basic science behind the early "faceted" stealth design was published by a Russian scientist in 1964 and his work was either ignored of calculated to be way too expensive to implement.the first static model, the "Hopeless Diamond was built in 1975 and they had flying demo stators in 1977, and full production of the final model was funded in 1979. the first one was delivered 30 months later in 1981. By the time we found out about in 1988, a little over a year before it was first used in combat in Panama, the USAF and the defense contractors were YEARS down he road on the next bit of technology that we saw in the B2, F-22 and F-35. The B@ project was started in the Carter years and the final award of he project to Northrop-Grumman was made in 1981.

Originally Posted by Gipson

I think that now the most advanced technology and are classified on the TV do not see.