The off topic plane section...

[wild_weasel]

Alright. The SR-71 was never really an Air Force thing, but a CIA thing. By the way the designation for it started out as "RS" instead of "SR" (nice Camaro connection huh?). Once the SR-71s got axed by Dick Cheney back in the early nineties, NASA still kept one for "testing purposes"...uh huh, right.

The U-2s started the same way more or less (CIA project, before the SR-71) but the AF got a hold of them and still uses the things (props to Kelley Johnson). And I hate to disagree (slightly) with the Father, but the Camaros were chase cars for landings...copilot may be a stretch

And if stuff is gonna get trashed from a UAV, the MQ-9 Reapers will probably handle that these days.

[Bumble Bee '77]

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

You guys feel free to keep talking about the planes over here...

[boxmonkeyracing]

The SR-71 was a wonderful plane way ahead of it's time. and the 3.0+ rating was AT sea level. only planes I know that fly that low normally are navy planes. working on planes for a living I know it's very possible for a plane rated at X speed at sea level it will fly a lot faster at altitude. the higher you go the less air friction you have. But the less usuable air for your engines. that's why the SR-71 had a scram/regular engine combo. but as has been stated Jetfire should not be an SR-71 because they have been retired for like a decade for a second time. if they are going to do a highly classified aircraft they should do aurora. It gives them an outlet to design their own AC and make it do mach 4+. Yes official line is we do not have a aircraft of such capabilities but we all know they've denied the existence of such AC before.

[TAG UR IT]

Originally Posted by Bumble Bee '77

Hey....I can't allow the team to get distracted while on a mission. We need total and complete concentration.

Originally Posted by aston70

Hey, look at me. I finally started a thread...

[1bad67camaro]

http://www.tmpanime.com/images/medium/yam60yf19_MED.jpg

[CamaroSpike23]

Originally Posted by chadrcr

He should be an F/A-18 Super Hornet, or F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, or F-22 Raptor if they stray from the roots (Navy) of the F-14.

actually the SR71 works out great due to the fact that in the toys/cartoons, Jetfire/Skyfire was rather large in comparison to Starscream

Originally Posted by EllwynX

Skyfire/Jetfire. The names are actually both correct. In the cartoon he was Skyfire, in the comics/toys he was Jetfire.

What his name is is one of those arguments that will go on forever with Transformer fans, just like whether Rumble is red or blue. (He's BLUE!)

He starts out as a Decepticon (in G1) before he realizes he doesn't really agree with their methods. Though he hates aligning himself against his old friend Starscream.

That said, I've always much preferred SKYfire.

technically he doesnt start out on either side. he and Starscream are scientist friends, he gets frozen on earth, SS finds him millions of years later and he joins up with the decepts, then realizes that SS has changed and switches to the Autobots and sacrifices himself to save them.

Originally Posted by radz282003

I agree on the points of the F-14. It's too bad it was so costly to maintain and operate. I love that jet.

The SR-71 did have a close rival though, the MIG-25 and MIG-31. Both were able to get up to Mach 2.83 or something close to there, and there was speculation it could go faster. I think, though, the SR-71 was still better, as there were something like 700+ USSR missles fired at it without ever bringing one down. They'd just go WOT and run away from the missles. I think the top speed of those, officially, was Mach 3.3, but I've read there were pilots who'd reached higher speeds. One thing to remember was it was designed to run at, at least, those speeds regularly. That's awesome.

But I digress. I vote F-14 or F-15

while i like the 14/15, they dont have the prestige and reputation the blackbird does.

oh, and sidenote, there were unofficial claims by blackbird pilots of over mach 8.

[The_Stache]

Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23

oh, and sidenote, there were unofficial claims by blackbird pilots of over mach 8.

Wait wait wait... mach 8?!?!?! Your talking about 6089.6MPH... with the earth being 24,901.55 miles in circumference.. thats circling the earth in 4 hours... UH I think I will have to call BS on this one.

[CamaroSpike23]

Originally Posted by diarmadhi

Wait wait wait... mach 8?!?!?! Your talking about 6089.6MPH... with the earth being 24,901.55 miles in circumference.. thats circling the earth in 4 hours... UH I think I will have to call BS on this one.

the circumference of the earth might be 24k miles, but when you are 35 miles up, the distance you are traveling is greater than what it is on the surface

[wild_weasel]

Originally Posted by diarmadhi

Nifty useless piece of random information.. The sr71 has a fuel line that runs under the wings that actually leaks aviation gas when its not moving mach 1+, this was done becuase an actual solid fuel line would burst from the air pressure generated by the high speed. SO any sr71 that is fueled and on the ground leaks gas.

Yeah, it also leaked bad because they had to make valves to survive in the ultra-hot environment at Mach 3. Everything expanded and fit when it was going but was about as watertight as a window screen on the ground.

Originally Posted by radz282003

Have you heard of the Valkerie? I forget the designation, but this one was a promising jet also; Mach 3+ bomber. I think the US produced a prototype, but it was scrapped thanks to Kennedy or someone in that era.
Too bad. This is a great discussion. (Sorry for )

It was the XB-70. It was scrapped after an F-104 crashed into it during a photo-op flight. Plus, what is the point of a Mach 3 bomber? You cant drop anything out of it at those speeds during the days before guided munitions. And even if they were guided, do YOU want to drop LIVE ordnance into a Mach 3 freestream where air friction creates temperatures hot enough to melt lead (and thats a COOL temperature at those speeds, just think of a leading edge of a bomb fin). I think dropping HE into that hot of an environment is a bit...shall we say...risky.

I know the point was to dash in, and dash out, but...news flash...SAMs are faster than you and always will be, so when your bomb bays are open being a giant radar reflector, I'm fairly certain a SAM can get you before you close up and get too far.

Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23

oh, and sidenote, there were unofficial claims by blackbird pilots of over mach 8.

Yeah, unofficial, because it can't happen. The D-21 drone they piggybacked on the SR-71 may have been able to get around those speeds, but they scrapped that after it crashed into the Blackbird during a test flight so there's not much data on it, unofficial or otherwise.

[wild_weasel]

Also, the F-35 is the Lightning II these days. I don't know what the Brits call their version but thats what we call ours. Not the best name in my opinion, the similarities between the P-38 and the F-35 even in abstract terms are few.

[TAG UR IT]

I DO recall watching a documentary on the plane and a pilot had said they saw 3 sunrises and 3 sunsets in one day...from circling the earth.

[wild_weasel]

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

I DO recall watching a documentary on the plane and a pilot had said they daw 3 sunrises and 3 sunsets in one day...from circling the earth.

I think that aircraft can be anywhere on the globe in 8 hours...don't quote me though. Besides the speed, they can see multiple sunrises/set because of the ridiculous edge-of-space altitude. You can see the curvature of the earth at the altitudes they flew at.

[boxmonkeyracing]

Originally Posted by wild_weasel

It was the XB-70. It was scrapped after an F-104 crashed into it during a photo-op flight. Plus, what is the point of a Mach 3 bomber? You cant drop anything out of it at those speeds during the days before guided munitions. And even if they were guided, do YOU want to drop LIVE ordnance into a Mach 3 freestream where air friction creates temperatures hot enough to melt lead (and thats a COOL temperature at those speeds, just think of a leading edge of a bomb fin). I think dropping HE into that hot of an environment is a bit...shall we say...risky.

I know the point was to dash in, and dash out, but...news flash...SAMs are faster than you and always will be, so when your bomb bays are open being a giant radar reflector, I'm fairly certain a SAM can get you before you close up and get too far.

that's why TF (terrain following) was invented. . .you fly in at mach 200 ft above ground lvl below mountains. reach the target area slow down fast drop your munitions and book it out of there. some bombers and fighters do it.

SAMS are easy to trick and aren't as fast as you are making them out to be. at MACH 3 they'd have very little chance to lock on and fire before you are out of range. especially if you're doing TF. IF they did fire a SAMs are very fast traveling at mach 4-8 depending on the type of SAM. But by the time it's fired with the EW systems there are today the plane would know what's coming and already have counter measures in use.

Give me a Mach 3 bomber with TF and advanced EW and I'll show you a plane that's hard to find and take out.

[wild_weasel]

I don't want to be doing Mach 3 and be close enough to terra firma to use TF.

My point was: you have to slow down to drop stuff, way down, and THAT'S where a big fat missile twice as fast as you has its shot. If your boiling air at Mach 3 (and it does BOIL the air as it comes out of the nozzle by the way)...SAMs are just big fireworks, especially with ECM and a little maneuvering.

I LOVE the SR-71 and I think it would easily survive today, they even had plans to put missiles and stuff on those things, but there's a reason why they didn't. Metallurgy, guidance, and aerodynamics are only so flexible at those speeds.

Point taken on the altitude issue. Going fast enough to make MANPADS useless and being low enough to make SAMs useless has its merits. The B-1 was really supposed to do that type mission. And F-16 guys practice something similar even though they won't actually do it in combat. F-15Es could, they are great at interdiction, but nowadays, why risk the lives of pilots and crew and a multi-million or billion dollar aircraft to do what a cruise missile already does and was, from inception, designed for?

I hate UAVs as much as the next guy, and i want to fly low and fast and blow stuff up like the next guy, but I'm also an engineer. Hence, I look at things from the perspective of form follows function. The XB-70 was kind of the next iteration of the idea of the B-58 Hustler (which had a fatal pitch mode by the way, killed several pilots. I think it was due to Mach tuck but I can't remember). Making FAST bombers is a really tough thing to design for. Fast bombers are getting left in the dust for stealth bombers, "who needs speed when you can't be seen?" sort of thinking. I think they still have a place, and I hope haul-ass bomb haulers stay, but its a tough spec to design to.