the spy plane Auora

[iluveagles]

Very well, you are right, I am wrong, you know more than I do, I know nothing, ect, ect ect..............

[MKopack]

Very well, you are right, I am wrong, you know more than I do, I know nothing, ect, ect ect..............

Truthfully, I have no idea whether you "know nothing" or not, but at least in this instance I would have to agree with the rest of your statement. I'm sorry if my reply was rude, although, not that sorry.

Not directed at anyone in particular, but I'm not sure I have ever seen a forum of people so willing to blindly believe - or not believe - almost anything, based upon almost nothing. The SR-71 can fly at MACH 6. The F-22 has these incredible flaws. The Su-whatever series of aircraft are military superplanes, etc, etc... Everyone has opinions, and there's nothing wrong with that, but when people hold their beliefs so strongly that when someone who "does" military aviation for a living states fact and is then told that they 'must be smoking something' that is where there is a problem.

I don't know where a lot of the opinions here on the site come from, but this is where I come from: I'm an ex-USAF certified Tactical Aircraft Maintainer, specializing in the F-16A, B, C, & D both with the P&W and GE engines (engine run qualified on the F110). I have maintenance experience on the T-38, F-15, F-4, CF-18, HU-25, P-3, C-130, KC-10, and C-9 with more limited experience on the AV-8B, F-14, F-104, F-86, MiG-15 and 17, and Mirage F.1C and E, and Alpha Jets (and quite a few others that aren't jumping up at me now...) Was based stateside and overseas. Crash recovery and chemical decontamination qualified. Deployed during the Gulf War where my unit lost two aircraft to the Iraqis. Licenced by the US Federal Aviation Administration to maintain everything from a hot air balloon gondola to the Space Shuttle. Flown in C-130's, C-141's, C-5's, KC-135's, KC-10's, AF and Army Hueys and Blackhawks, RAF Nimrods and with the US Army's Golden Knights. Been a published avaiation photographer and author for over twenty years. Know, or have interviewed everyone from Bob Morgan (the pilot of the Memphis Belle) to Chuck Sweeney (dropped the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki) to Steve Ritchie and Chuck DeBellevue (11 kills between them in SEA) to Snort Snodgrass (highest time Tomcat pilot) to the many current Hornet, Viper, Eagle and Tomcat pilots I know well.

But I guess that doesn't mean anything when you know somebody who knows an ex-Soviet radar tech who told him about MACH 6 SR-71's.

Mike

[iluveagles]

No, no I deserved it. You know the funny thing right after I got up on my high horse and all, I had this funny feeling.............

Anyway, how was I supposed to know that you are not just another one of the people you described as, "Falcon 4.0 or Flight Simulator desk jocky"'s (neither am I, I read books, and talk to people like yourself). But at the same time I must smack myself for not expecting anything, instead of assuming...........

In truth, I was merely using the information that I knew about the aircraft, and then applying it to the fact that a trustworthy individual told me that he had a friend ect ect ect...................obviously I was sadly mistaken...............

Ever stationed at Tyndall AFB?

[iluveagles]

I will take your word for all of this, however, there are a couple things that I need add before I totally drop the subject, and by no means am I trying to be disrespectful in anyway with these questions, I merely want to ask someone who has been there about this stuff, that way I do have correct information.

1. Is it also not possible that the aircraft that the ex-Soviet radar operator clocked at 5.5 was not an SR-71, but something along the lines of an Aurora(obviously you can't comment if you know anything about it, but I'm just putting it out there.................)?

2. If all of the capabilities are declassified and are well known, then tell me the fastest an aircraft you worked on, ever flew..........

Thanks

[valkyrian]

Interesting and very impressive bio to say at least MKopack.  It is good to have here experienced people, we can learn a lot.  Maybe you could start a thread about the F100vsF110 engines, i am sure you know from first hand the topic. And interesting points of view. I agree with you 100%.

Iluveagles, i guess you understood that your answers were somehow inappropriate, in the way you wrote them. Anyone in here, has his own opinions which based on what he knows/read/filtered/processed. All thoughts and opinions are acceptable and respectfull, as long as some rules of polliteness are being kept.

I understand your knowledge on ramjets, or turboramjets (in the case of the J58). You are 110% right when you say that they are capable of higher velocities (at least Mach 4 i'd say, although i don't have my books near me right now). By the same logic, the turbojet J85 engined F-5 (knock knock Tigershark were are you?) are capable for higher than Mach 2 speeds. Why not mach 3, since Valkyrie used turbojets also?
Can you see the difference?

[iluveagles]

I see the difference between the turbojet and a ramjet, however again it was my understanding that the SR-71 had engines which flew like the turbojet you suggested until flying fast enough to change over to a ramjet engine. Not as if there were 4 engines or anything, but more like a jet engine to ramjet conversion. Along with that, everyone I have talked to or discussed it understood it the same way before now.

Writing this out, it seems weird, but from everything I have read/watched that is the best image it could paint for me.

[valkyrian]

Just bcz a ramjet is capable of operating at higher than 3 doesn't mean it has the apropriate power rating to propel the SR-71 at Mach 4, or 5. Apart from that, and even if the 2 J58s could produce the required power to do so, they would need a very specific type of airflow thus a modified air inlet (probably longer nose cones). I haven't said anything for the much much more higher temperatures experienced in hypersonic velocities, since titanium can withstand a lot, but for over Mach 5 i think the material should be changed to inconel (a superalloy used on the 6.72 Mach Bell X-15).

The maximum speed for the YF-12 (the type that holds the record is not the SR-71) is Mach 3.31 but nowhere it is mentioned whether this was due to thrust limit, engine temperature limit, fuselage structural limit, or even an aerodynamic limit (the variation of the center of pressure with speed could result in dangerous from the stability point of view combination).

[iluveagles]

Well, looking at the specs I do see that the thrust to weight ration is pretty high, so I can see why it doesn't fly any faster than mach 3.5..........................

[MKopack]

Thanks Valkyrian and Iluveagles, and don't worry about it, I've been known to hit the "send" button and then have second thoughts about the way I've said things as well.

When we're talking about the Blackbird, remember that we're discussing an aircraft that first flew in 1962 and was in its design phase when the F-4 made its first flight (50 years ago next week). At that time of that first flight the F-100, the first supersonic USAF fighter, was still in widespread squadron service and many ANG units were equipped with F-86's, so with a top speed of MACH 3+, its performance was amazing for the time, as it would still be today. MACH 3+ in 1962 was as shocking as M6 would be today. But, as I said, we are still talking about 1950's technology in aerodynamics, engine design and structural metalurgy. At the time the X-15 was capable of much higher speeds, of course, but they were 'one off' hand crafted test aircraft - even more 'custom operated' than Space Shuttles today - not production built and flown (although exotic production built and flown) aircraft.

Is it possible that the ex-Soviet radar operator could have tracked something other than an SR-71. Sure, in theory it is possible. My main problem with the possibility is if it was true, I believe there would be MANY more reports of similar contacts. Both internationally and domestically. Truthfully, with a very few exceptions, the US isn't very good at keeping secrets. Russia / the Soviet Union, yes, China, yes, here in the USA, not so much... Were the U-2 and the SR-71 'black' when they were new? Yes. Did a relatively large population of people know about them? Of course they did. The same with the US Migs. And the same with the F-117's as I was growing up. About as secret as the AF could make it, but by 86-87 I had built up a pretty good picture of the program, all based on 'stories' and 'rumors', etc. The information was there to put together. If a Soviet radar tech made the track of the 'object', there would probably be at least hundreds of Americans, civilian and military, who would have made similar tracks - as there were with the SR-71's passing through the air traffic control system.

As far as the top speed of the aircraft that I 'worked', the F-16 is not much over M2, limited in a large part by its fixed duct. I believe that the F-15's top end is classified (at least I have never seen a publically released 'official' figure) and it will probably remain that way while the aircraft are still in service, but the SR-71 is different. As amazing as they were, they're gone. They're aviation history today, and as a piece of history, their preformance specifications have been released. Why keep it a secret? They will never fly again.

Ooooh, F100's vs. F110's? P&W vs. GE? That's a good way to start a fight!

Mike

[iluveagles]

Thanks for the info. I would go into a bunch of speculation about the whole thing with tracking objects and stuff, but I've never been a fan of conspiracy theories, so I'll just leave it where it is.

The top end of the F-15 that I have seen is 2.5+ another one of those + signs.............look where that got me with the SR-71. The real difference is the thrust-to-weight ration on the F-15 though. Its 1:1.12, almost 1:1, which leads me to believe that it COULD(notice, could as in the possibility exists)fly faster than it says it does. As a matter o' fact here's something interesting. The F-15 with a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1:1.12 is said to fly Mach 2.5+, where as a Mig-25 that has a thrust-to-weight ratio of about 94.73:1 is said to fly Mach 3.

I find that interesting................

[valkyrian]

Ooooh, F100's vs. F110's? P&W vs. GE? That's a good way to start a fight!

Mike

The Great Engine War..........

[valkyrian]

The F-15 with a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1:1.12 is said to fly Mach 2.5+, where as a Mig-25 that has a thrust-to-weight ratio of about 94.73:1 is said to fly Mach 3.

I find that interesting................

The T/W ratio has little to do with the top speed, as u can see the SR-71, or even better an XB-70 Valkyrie have very poor ratios.

T/W has much to do with rate of climb.