MILAVIA Forum
Military Aviation => Military Aircraft => Topic started by: TOPGUN4LIFE on October 22, 2005, 05:36:31 AM
-
theres been talk about a new plane that can reach mach 8, one seater, and might take place of SR-71 Blackbird. News say it might come out in 2020!
-
Sounds cool, must be better then what Europe is planning at the moment. The Neuron (manless).
-
If they build it, who'd fly with it? I mean control a beast at 6-8Mach, the likelyhood that u hit a random aircraft during the flight is getting bit bigger then usually :D (even if it's manless, some1 still has to control it from somewhere)
Anyway I think it's just a myth. There are no hard proof that would prove the development of such a plane and why would they need such a plane? It's waist of money, that's what it is. They have all bunch of satelites and they have Sr-71 incase they need a spyplae. Why need a new one? Specialy when it is so expentsive. Even if they would build it, what will they do with it? Fly over N Korea and make it back by launch time, to get a burito?
Well, there are too many questions with this subject and too few anwasers and no real proof, so there's big change that it is just a myth, like a UFO storie.
-
Hay Guys what do u think about Hypersonic Speed i mean flying an aircraft on a Mach 6 speed on hight of 1,50,000 ft and the aircraft works like an eye on the sky, Aurora have all the capablities, but dose this aircraft actualy have any existance or these news are only Rumors ???? what do u think ???
other information which is so far available for this aircraft is as under
Aurora Specifications
Speed:
Speeds are reported to be in the range of Mach 5-8.
Length:
110 feet (33.5 meters)
Wingspan:
60 feet (18.2 meters)
Ceiling:
150,000 feet (28.4 miles)
Design:
The Aurora aircraft has an airframe like a flattened American football, about 110 ft long and 60 ft wide, smoothly contoured, and covered in ceramic tiles similar to those used on the Space Shuttle which seem to be coated with "a crystalline patina indicative of sustained exposure to high temperature. . . a burnt carbon odor exudes from the surface."
Engine:
Several have heard a distinctive low frequency rumble followed by a very loud roar, which could be the exotic engine used by a Mach 6 (4,400 miles per hour) aircraft. Experts say a methane-burning combined cycle ramjet engine (uniting rocket and ramjet designs) could have been developed to power Aurora. Observers in California have also reported seeing a large aircraft with a delta-wing shape and foreplanes. Some think this could be an airborne launch platform for satellite-delivery rockets or even the Aurora, before its more advanced engines were developed.
Power comes from conventional jet engines in the lower fuselage, fed by inlet ducts which open in the tiled surface. Once at supersonic speed, the engines are shut down, and Pulse Detonation Wave Engines take over, ejecting liquid methane or liquid hydrogen onto the fuselage, where the fuel mist is ignited, possibly by surface heating.
A vast amount of runours, conjecture, eye-witness sightings and other evidence point to an aircraft, funded as a Black Project, built by the Lockheed Skunk Works, operating out of the Groom Lake / Area 51 location. Always at night, never photographed, officially denied... This is the Aurora Project. No matter what speculation takes place, it seems the secrets that lie beyond the mountains of the Nevada desert will remain until the US military decides otherwise.
Power Plant:
At subsonic speeds power comes from conventional jet engines in the lower fuselage, fed by inlet ducts which open in the tiled surface. Once at supersonic speed, there are three possibilities for the propulsion that carries the plane up to its mach 5+ speed:
PWDE Pulse Detonation Wave Engines - Essentially, liquid methane or liquid hydrogen is ejected onto the fuselage, where the fuel mist is ignited, possibly by surface heating. The PDE Pulse Detonation Engine (PDE) operates by creating a liquid hydrogen detonation inside a specially designed chamber when the aircraft is traveling beyond the speed of sound. When traveling at such speeds, a thrust wall (the aircraft is traveling so fast that a molecules in the air are rapidly pushed aside near the nose of the aircraft which in essence becomes a wall)is created in the front of the aircraft. When the detonation takes place, the the aircraft's thrust wall is pushed forward. This all is repeated to propel the aircraft. From the ground, the jet stream looks like "rings on a rope". Another reader thinks this method is very suspicious. He goes on "a serious problem with the SR-71 and other high-speed aircraft is excessive skin heating. The last thing you want is to add combustion at or near the surface."
Ramjet - A reader points out that there is "a second possible power plant design, the Combined Cycle Ramjet Engine. Essentially, it is a rocket until it goes supersonic. At that point the rocket nozzles are withdrawn and the engines run as ramjets up to Mach 4-6. With a few minor modifications to the shape of the combustion housing, you could soup the power plant up to a scramjet, which could see speeds up to and beyond Mach 8. The fuel for this power plant could be liquid methane or methylcyclohexane, plus liquid oxygen as an oxidizer in the primary 'rocket' stage. Further data on this power plant is available through Popular Science Magazine, March 1993 issue. " However another reader feels that a ramjet is not a possible propulsion source because "the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) was cancelled in large part due to the inability to solve the materials problems with the proposed supersonic ramjets. I don't think there has been enough progress, even in the black world to solve these problems. Further, RAMJET doesn't leave doughnuts on a rope."
Regular Pulsejet - Pulsejets uses the forward speed of the engine and the inlet shape to compress the incoming air, then shutters at the inlet close while fuel is ignited in the combustion chamber and the pressure of the expanding gases force the jet forward. The shutters open and the process repeats itself at a high frequency. This results in the buzzing drone for which the pulsejet missile is named: the buzzbomb. A reader points out that "pulsejets can be cooled to solve the materials problems of supersonic ramjets. They could also generate doughnuts on a rope although this is speculation as I am unaware of any previous actual tests at high altitude."
Armament:
Although it has been rumored that the Aurora is equipped with the capability of carrying air-to-ground armaments, it is unlikely that the aircraft is designed for, or able to, support armaments. It is likely the plane is equipped for reconnaissance only.
There has been some debate about this though, as there was a Phoenix Air to Air missile that was designed to be carried in the F-12 (Basically a later interceptor version of the SR-71). This missile can only be carried by the F-12, the F-111 and the F-14 Tomcat. This missile might also be usable on the Aurora.
Mission:
Reconnaissance missions.
Contractor:
It is rumored that the Aurora was designed and built by Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co., the same company who built the SR-71.
The SR-71 has served as one of the only aircraft capable of performing a mobile reconnaissance mission. Although satellites are useful in this role, the SR-71 had the advantage of going wherever and whenever an "eye-in-the-sky" is needed. In spite of this funding for the SR-71 program was canceled in 1989 and SR-71 flights ceased.
Given the importance of the role of the SR-71, and the fact that it is the only plane capable of performing that role, it has been suggested that government must have some secret aircraft that was capable of replacing the SR-71. According to Richard H. Graham, Col., USAF in his book SR-71 Revealed, "in 1990, Senator Byrd and other influential members of congress were told a successor to the SR-71 was being developed and that was why it was being retired. The "Aurora" could be this plane.
This argument is weakened by the fact that in 1995, congress approved $100 million to bring the SR-71's back into service. One argument is that the Aurora was abandoned, either due to expense or technical difficulties, and that the SR-71 had to be brought back to resume its mobile surveillance role.
-
Collected here are some of the key dates in the Aurora's "history."
August 1989
A former Royal Observer Corps member working on a North Sea gas rig, 100 Km off the Norfolk coast spotted a matte-black aircraft refueling from a KC-135, accompanied by two F-111s. The aircraft was "a perfect triangle", slightly bigger than an F-111. The formation was heading towards the UK coast. (This may have either been a prototype of the canceled US Navy A-12 Avenger II, several of which are reported to have flown, or more likely the Northrop(?) TR-3A Black Manta Recce aircraft).
March 1990
Aviation Week and Space Technology first broke the news that Aurora was inadvertently released in the 1985 US budget, as an allocation of $455 Million for Black aircraft PRODUCTION in FY 1987. Note that this was for building aircraft, not R&D.
Observers in Nevada have seen and heard a distinctive aircraft flying over the Mojave desert at high altitude and speed, usually in the early morning. The contrail has been described as "doughnuts on a rope." Engine note at take-off "sounds like the sky ripping." Officials on the inside say "it's so black you won't hear anything about it for 10-15 years. "
October 1990
Aviation Week & Space Technology published reports of: "A high altitude aircraft that crosses the night sky at extremely high speed.... The vehicle typically is observed as a single, bright light -- sometimes pulsating -- flying at speeds far exceeding other aircraft in the area, and at altitudes estimated to be above 50,000 ft.... Normally, no engine noise or sonic boom is heard."
May 1991
"Aviation Week" claims that briefings have been given to selected members of Congress, and high-ranking Government officials suggest that some of these aircraft might be "the ultimate weapons featured in comic books- the ones so devastating that any potential adversary would never think of disturbing the peace for fear of the "Good Guys" retaliation. Aviation Week, stressing that it is only a "theoretical possibility", claims that one of the Aurora aircraft has an airframe like a flattened American football, about 110 ft long and 60 ft wide, smoothly contoured, and covered in ceramic tiles similar to those used on the Space Shuttle which seem to be coated with "a crystalline patina indicative of sustained exposure to high temperature. . . a burnt carbon odor exudes from the surface." Power comes from conventional jet engines in the lower fuselage, fed by inlet ducts which open in the tiled surface. Once at supersonic speed, the engines are shut down, and Pulse Detonation Wave Engines take over, ejecting liquid methane or liquid hydrogen onto the fuselage, where the fuel mist is ignited, possibly by surface heating. Speeds are reported to be in the region Mach 6-8. Beneath the fuselage are 121 tile-covered ports, housing nuclear or conventional munitions. These are ejected downwards at subsonic speed. The aircraft is reported to have a minimal RCS (Radar Cross Section), and a dedicated recce version is possibly already in service.
June 1991
A series of unusual sonic booms were detected in Southern California, beginning in mid to late 1991. On at least five occasions, these sonic booms were recorded by at least 25 of the 220 US Geological Survey sensors across Southern California used to pinpoint earthquake epicenters. The incidents were recorded in June, October, November, and late January 1991. Seismologists estimate that the aircraft were flying at speeds between Mach 3 and 4 and at altitudes of 8 to 10 kilometers. The aircraft's flight path was in a North North-East direction, consistent with flight paths to secret test ranges in Nevada. Seismologists say that the sonic booms were characteristic of a smaller vehicle than the 37 meter long shuttle orbiter. Furthermore, neither the shuttle nor NASA's single SR-71B were operating on the days the booms were registered. In the article "In Plane Sight?" which appeared in the Washington City Paper on the 3rd of July 1992 (pg. 12-13) one of the seismologists, Jim Mori, noted: "We can't tell anything about the vehicle. They seem stronger than other sonic booms that we record once in a while. They've all come on Thursday mornings about the same time, between 6 and 7 in the morning."
November 1991
Reports of "unusually loud, rumbling sonic booms" near Pensacola, Florida in November 1991 have been associated with the Aurora program.
Late 1991
An anonymous arms-control analyst says he examined a late-1991 Landsat image of Dreamland that shows three white triangles sitting by the main- runway. Each was about the size of a Boeing 747.
February 1992
At Beale Air Force Base, the California facility that was long home to the SR-71, on two consecutive nights in late February 1992, observers reported sighting a triangular aircraft displaying a distinctive diamond-shaped lighting pattern, comprised of a red light near the nose -- similar to the F-117 configuration -- two 'whitish' lights near what would be conventional wingtips and an amber light near the tail. While the wing lights are reportedly much brighter than normal navigation lamps, they do not illuminate the aircraft's platform. Observers claim the vehicle's wing lights are approximately twice as far apart as those on the F-117, and nose-to-tail light spacing is about 50 percent longer than that on the stealth fighter.
Early 1992
An aircraft fitting the description of the Aurora was seen being loaded into a C-5 at night at Lockheed's Skunk Works. The C-5 then departed for Boeing Field in Seattle. Speculation is that this aircraft is a hypersonic drone launched from the larger Aurora aircraft, like the SR-71/D-21A system. "... RAF radars have acquired the hypersonic target traveling at speeds ranging from about Mach 6 to Mach 3 over a NATO-RAF base at Machrihanish, Scotland, near the tip of the Kintyre peninsula, last November and again this past January." [Rogers, Jim, "RAF Radar Tracked 'Aurora' Over Scotland at Speeds From Mach 3 to Mach 6," Inside the Air Force, 24 April 1992, pages 1, 10-11.] In early 1992 a number of houses (+/- 25) in the Netherlands were damaged as a result of a sonic boom. The strange thing was that there were no aircraft in the region that could have caused the boom... A Dutch newspaper suggested it came from a top secret plane temporarely based in Scotland for testing.
Mid 1992
By mid-1992 noted aviation observer Bill Sweetman concluded that, "The frequency of the sonic booms indicates that whatever is making them is now an operational aircraft."
Summer 1992
An observer saw an Aurora type aircraft on finals to a secret Lockheed- operated RCS range in the Mojave desert one night in the summer of 1992. Because it was a moonlit night, he was able from a range of about one mile to discern a prominent raised-dorsal spine, two rectangular exhaust nozzles and a light-colored paint job with darker leading and trailing edges. Other observers who have claimed to have seen a similar aircraft flying near Edwards AFB say it "dwarfed" an F-16 chase plane, and reckoned it was about 200ft long.
October 1992
A night sighting was made near Beale AFB in California, ex-home of the 9th SRW flying the SR-71. The aircraft was seen in company with F-117s and a KC-135Q. (The KC-135Q was a dedicated version specifically for carrying the SR-71s special JP-7 fuel.) Because it was night, the exact shape of the "Aurora" aircraft could not be determined, but sported an unusual diamond shaped nav light pattern, which when compared to the formatting of F-117s suggest that it was about fifty percent longer with twice the wingspan. The engine note was described as being "like a very low rumble, like air being passed over a very large bottle."
Several reports have been received from the LA area of double sonic booms, minutes apart, which are characteristic of two aircraft flying slightly different tracks. The booms were recorded by the US Geological Survey's seismic monitors, and when compared with baseline data obtained from Space Shuttle re-entries and SR-71 operations suggest a speed in excess of Mach 3. A senior USAF officer hinted that Beale AFB would be assigned a new mission within two years. It is thought that "Auroras" have visited the base, probably as transients, in recent months. Local residents report hearing a series of "booms like artillery firing" emanating from within the base perimeter. Propulsion experts confirm that these booms are consistent with light-off testing of Pulse Detonation Wave Engines.
In Amarillo, Texas, Steven Douglas photographed the "doughnuts on a rope" contrail pattern of Aurora passing overhead. Shortly after, he picked-up digitally encrypted speech on a narrow-band frequency used by the USAF for special missions, and as a Comsat downlink. He also intercepted Air/Air R/T between a USAF AWACS and two unknown aircraft using the call signs "Darkstar Mike" and "Darkstar November."
A month later, radio enthusiasts in California monitoring Edwards AFB Radar, c/s "Joshua Control", heard early morning R/T between Joshua and a high flying aircraft using the callsign "Gaspipe." Joshua controllers were vectoring Gaspipe into Edwards AFB, using terminology usually used during Space Shuttle recoveries. "You're at 67000 ft, 81 miles out." was heard, followed by "Seventy miles out now, 36000 ft, above glideslope. " Now, at the time, NASA was operating both the SR-71 and the U2-R from Edwards, but it has been confirmed that neither of these types were operating at the time Gaspipe was heard.
Financial analysts Kemper Securities have examined Lockheed Advanced Development Company's declared revenues from Black programs: Returns for 1987 were $65 Million. Returns for 1993 were $475 Million. The only declared Lockheed Black Projects are U2-R and F117A upgrade programs, and nothing new has been announced between 1987 and 1993. It was also discovered that the TOTAL US budget allocation for Project Aurora for 1987 was no less than $2. 27 Billion. According to Kemper, this would indicate a first flight of around 1989. The spread of US Government payments to Lockheed indicate that the aircraft is probably about one-fifth of the way through it's development program, or has been "extensively prototyped." Around $4. 5 Billion has already been spent.
February 1993
The USAF has applied to buy over 4000 acres of land overlooking Area 51. Local residents have reported hearing Pulse Detonation Wave Engines being tested inside the perimeter. These tests have also been reported from Edwards AFB. One local pilot who lives near Edwards said that the engines could be heard 25 miles away when being ground tested.
March 1994
Further evidence of Aurora comes with details of a new hangar which has been built, several stories high, with a large gantry crane inside. Apparently this is used to mate the hypersonic drones to the Aurora mothership. Huge cryogenic storage tanks containing liquid methane or liquid hydrogen have been built. These are the two fuels that Pulse Detonation Wave Engines would use.
April 1995
Freedom Ridge Shut down. A hill overlooking Area 51 is shut down by the government.
January 1995
A sighting by two British Airways pilots and other witnesses at Manchester Airport on January 6 1995 has been attributed to the Aurora aircraft.
July 1996
Report of a sonic boom over Orange County, CA coming on 20 July 1996. It is reported that the "quake" occurred around 3pm PST, fitting the "skyquake" pattern of previous reports. November 1996 Aviation Week magazine is reporting that SR-71 operations have resumed. The first flight was a week ago today. The fiscal 1997 budget provides $30 mil for operations, which will result in about 250 flight hours. Three crews are assigned to operations, not known how many aircraft are available.
December 1996
In the Dec 2 issue of Aviation Week a small column about a "screaming roaring take off" sound heard Nov. 25th in Palmdale around 6am that morning. Article quote an old aviation hand who lives there as it being unlike anything he'd ever heard.
Unknown Dates
The crew of a London-bound United 747 on climb out from LAX filed an Airmiss after an "unidentified supersonic aircraft" passed within 500- 1000ft vertically of them near George AFB in California. The crew described it as "a lifting-body, like the forward fuselage of an SR-71 but without wings." Further sightings have been made in the US: Observers in California have reported seeing an aircraft with a similar platform to the XB-70 Valkyrie, with a clipped delta wing with winglets, narrow blended fuselage with a clear canopy, sharp nose and possibly a retractable canard.
-
Salman, can you please put your sources under the message if you are posting copied information!? Not only because of copyright concerns, but also because we then could check the validity of the information.
-
So far i haven't seen much convincing proof of the Aurora... Mostly rumors and "first-hand observers" who may have seen or heard something wrongly... Or are just plain lying, if it comes to that.
-
I have heard of the Aurora spy plane about 6 months ago, I don't know, I think its possible, but not any time soon at that.
Heres some pics anyway (Not real of course :P)
(http://dlr.thexhunters.com/richard/aurora.jpg)
(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/recon/aurora/aurora_05.jpg)
(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/recon/aurora/aurora_03.jpg)
(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/recon/aurora/aurora_02.jpg)
(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/recon/aurora/aurora_01.jpg)
WOW, that thing is BEASTLY ;D
-
That's like PAK-DA, gets you a hard on, but that's it.
-
So far i haven't seen much convincing proof of the Aurora... Mostly rumors and "first-hand observers" who may have seen or heard something wrongly... Or are just plain lying, if it comes to that.
Conspiracy theorist dream this bird...
-
So far i haven't seen much convincing proof of the Aurora... Mostly rumors and "first-hand observers" who may have seen or heard something wrongly... Or are just plain lying, if it comes to that.
Conspiracy theorist dream this bird...
;D ;D ;D
Cobra2-I'm sure with enough time and effort any other guy with some sense of proportion and design can draw those pictures in SketchUp... Still. They look quite cool... CGI, but cool. ;D
-
This is completely random, but I have a Chengdu J-10A Vigorous Dragon model I started for YS, its highly detailed, for YS. It will soon be done. I have, so far, 4 paint schemes I found to do for it :)
I did the model upgrade, from the blocky unrealistic 2ch (for non lag) models, to my high res model.
I cut out the ailerons, flaps, rudder, canards, front flaps, spoilers, canopy, now I have to extract them from the Srf as a independant .srf and then I finish the pilot and interior, then I do some other stuff for the landing gears and any openings, then I add parachute (after I make it), and assign them to their rightful duties (aka landing gear, spoiler, VGW wings etc. etc.) and then make them animate, then I place the drop tanks and such, pilot etc., THEN I compile into a single .DNM, give it a blank cockpit file, add a coll file, edit and add a .dat file, make the .lst, put it in the Aircraft folder, stick it with some other files in my CMP pack, zip the file, put it for download on my mod site, announce on YS pilots ;D
Thats being very modest though, I have more to do to it than that, like cutting out the camo :P
Wow, I just spammed a ton in the wrong thread.... >:D
-
Since i see a lot of conspiracy theories i would like to mention another one, based on a real incident that happened in the early 90's at boscombe down, England. To cut a long story short, one night a mysterious plane landed and immediatelly was covered with trapoline (i guess this is a special sheet). One man who observed the airplane , stated it looked like the the YF-23. The story goes on by saying that Northrop participated in the ATF contest in order to take money for a new supersonic aircraft. The YF-23 was just a cover. After all, during that ATF contest, the YF-23 wasn't tested as hard as the YF-22. the author went on by saying that bcz the YF-23 was resembling that mysterious airplane, it was natural to posses greater speed potential than the YF-22.
Anyway, bcz i don't remember the story well, and i may have spoiled it, anyone who likes a little conspiracy, would google for Boscombe Down.
-
I'd report you. >:D But then again, i'm a nice guy. ;D
Hmm. That sounds alot more interesting than the Aurora one, valk... :P What if they're all bombers...
-
Collected here are some of the key dates in the Aurora's "history."
August 1989
A former Royal Observer Corps member working on a North Sea gas rig, 100 Km off the Norfolk coast spotted a matte-black aircraft refueling from a KC-135, accompanied by two F-111s. The aircraft was "a perfect triangle", slightly bigger than an F-111. The formation was heading towards the UK coast. (This may have either been a prototype of the canceled US Navy A-12 Avenger II, several of which are reported to have flown, or more likely the Northrop(?) TR-3A Black Manta Recce aircraft).
March 1990
Aviation Week and Space Technology first broke the news that Aurora was inadvertently released in the 1985 US budget, as an allocation of $455 Million for Black aircraft PRODUCTION in FY 1987. Note that this was for building aircraft, not R&D.
Observers in Nevada have seen and heard a distinctive aircraft flying over the Mojave desert at high altitude and speed, usually in the early morning. The contrail has been described as "doughnuts on a rope." Engine note at take-off "sounds like the sky ripping." Officials on the inside say "it's so black you won't hear anything about it for 10-15 years. "
October 1990
Aviation Week & Space Technology published reports of: "A high altitude aircraft that crosses the night sky at extremely high speed.... The vehicle typically is observed as a single, bright light -- sometimes pulsating -- flying at speeds far exceeding other aircraft in the area, and at altitudes estimated to be above 50,000 ft.... Normally, no engine noise or sonic boom is heard."
May 1991
"Aviation Week" claims that briefings have been given to selected members of Congress, and high-ranking Government officials suggest that some of these aircraft might be "the ultimate weapons featured in comic books- the ones so devastating that any potential adversary would never think of disturbing the peace for fear of the "Good Guys" retaliation. Aviation Week, stressing that it is only a "theoretical possibility", claims that one of the Aurora aircraft has an airframe like a flattened American football, about 110 ft long and 60 ft wide, smoothly contoured, and covered in ceramic tiles similar to those used on the Space Shuttle which seem to be coated with "a crystalline patina indicative of sustained exposure to high temperature. . . a burnt carbon odor exudes from the surface." Power comes from conventional jet engines in the lower fuselage, fed by inlet ducts which open in the tiled surface. Once at supersonic speed, the engines are shut down, and Pulse Detonation Wave Engines take over, ejecting liquid methane or liquid hydrogen onto the fuselage, where the fuel mist is ignited, possibly by surface heating. Speeds are reported to be in the region Mach 6-8. Beneath the fuselage are 121 tile-covered ports, housing nuclear or conventional munitions. These are ejected downwards at subsonic speed. The aircraft is reported to have a minimal RCS (Radar Cross Section), and a dedicated recce version is possibly already in service.
June 1991
A series of unusual sonic booms were detected in Southern California, beginning in mid to late 1991. On at least five occasions, these sonic booms were recorded by at least 25 of the 220 US Geological Survey sensors across Southern California used to pinpoint earthquake epicenters. The incidents were recorded in June, October, November, and late January 1991. Seismologists estimate that the aircraft were flying at speeds between Mach 3 and 4 and at altitudes of 8 to 10 kilometers. The aircraft's flight path was in a North North-East direction, consistent with flight paths to secret test ranges in Nevada. Seismologists say that the sonic booms were characteristic of a smaller vehicle than the 37 meter long shuttle orbiter. Furthermore, neither the shuttle nor NASA's single SR-71B were operating on the days the booms were registered. In the article "In Plane Sight?" which appeared in the Washington City Paper on the 3rd of July 1992 (pg. 12-13) one of the seismologists, Jim Mori, noted: "We can't tell anything about the vehicle. They seem stronger than other sonic booms that we record once in a while. They've all come on Thursday mornings about the same time, between 6 and 7 in the morning."
November 1991
Reports of "unusually loud, rumbling sonic booms" near Pensacola, Florida in November 1991 have been associated with the Aurora program.
Late 1991
An anonymous arms-control analyst says he examined a late-1991 Landsat image of Dreamland that shows three white triangles sitting by the main- runway. Each was about the size of a Boeing 747.
February 1992
At Beale Air Force Base, the California facility that was long home to the SR-71, on two consecutive nights in late February 1992, observers reported sighting a triangular aircraft displaying a distinctive diamond-shaped lighting pattern, comprised of a red light near the nose -- similar to the F-117 configuration -- two 'whitish' lights near what would be conventional wingtips and an amber light near the tail. While the wing lights are reportedly much brighter than normal navigation lamps, they do not illuminate the aircraft's platform. Observers claim the vehicle's wing lights are approximately twice as far apart as those on the F-117, and nose-to-tail light spacing is about 50 percent longer than that on the stealth fighter.
Early 1992
An aircraft fitting the description of the Aurora was seen being loaded into a C-5 at night at Lockheed's Skunk Works. The C-5 then departed for Boeing Field in Seattle. Speculation is that this aircraft is a hypersonic drone launched from the larger Aurora aircraft, like the SR-71/D-21A system. "... RAF radars have acquired the hypersonic target traveling at speeds ranging from about Mach 6 to Mach 3 over a NATO-RAF base at Machrihanish, Scotland, near the tip of the Kintyre peninsula, last November and again this past January." [Rogers, Jim, "RAF Radar Tracked 'Aurora' Over Scotland at Speeds From Mach 3 to Mach 6," Inside the Air Force, 24 April 1992, pages 1, 10-11.] In early 1992 a number of houses (+/- 25) in the Netherlands were damaged as a result of a sonic boom. The strange thing was that there were no aircraft in the region that could have caused the boom... A Dutch newspaper suggested it came from a top secret plane temporarely based in Scotland for testing.
Mid 1992
By mid-1992 noted aviation observer Bill Sweetman concluded that, "The frequency of the sonic booms indicates that whatever is making them is now an operational aircraft."
Summer 1992
An observer saw an Aurora type aircraft on finals to a secret Lockheed- operated RCS range in the Mojave desert one night in the summer of 1992. Because it was a moonlit night, he was able from a range of about one mile to discern a prominent raised-dorsal spine, two rectangular exhaust nozzles and a light-colored paint job with darker leading and trailing edges. Other observers who have claimed to have seen a similar aircraft flying near Edwards AFB say it "dwarfed" an F-16 chase plane, and reckoned it was about 200ft long.
October 1992
A night sighting was made near Beale AFB in California, ex-home of the 9th SRW flying the SR-71. The aircraft was seen in company with F-117s and a KC-135Q. (The KC-135Q was a dedicated version specifically for carrying the SR-71s special JP-7 fuel.) Because it was night, the exact shape of the "Aurora" aircraft could not be determined, but sported an unusual diamond shaped nav light pattern, which when compared to the formatting of F-117s suggest that it was about fifty percent longer with twice the wingspan. The engine note was described as being "like a very low rumble, like air being passed over a very large bottle."
Several reports have been received from the LA area of double sonic booms, minutes apart, which are characteristic of two aircraft flying slightly different tracks. The booms were recorded by the US Geological Survey's seismic monitors, and when compared with baseline data obtained from Space Shuttle re-entries and SR-71 operations suggest a speed in excess of Mach 3. A senior USAF officer hinted that Beale AFB would be assigned a new mission within two years. It is thought that "Auroras" have visited the base, probably as transients, in recent months. Local residents report hearing a series of "booms like artillery firing" emanating from within the base perimeter. Propulsion experts confirm that these booms are consistent with light-off testing of Pulse Detonation Wave Engines.
In Amarillo, Texas, Steven Douglas photographed the "doughnuts on a rope" contrail pattern of Aurora passing overhead. Shortly after, he picked-up digitally encrypted speech on a narrow-band frequency used by the USAF for special missions, and as a Comsat downlink. He also intercepted Air/Air R/T between a USAF AWACS and two unknown aircraft using the call signs "Darkstar Mike" and "Darkstar November."
A month later, radio enthusiasts in California monitoring Edwards AFB Radar, c/s "Joshua Control", heard early morning R/T between Joshua and a high flying aircraft using the callsign "Gaspipe." Joshua controllers were vectoring Gaspipe into Edwards AFB, using terminology usually used during Space Shuttle recoveries. "You're at 67000 ft, 81 miles out." was heard, followed by "Seventy miles out now, 36000 ft, above glideslope. " Now, at the time, NASA was operating both the SR-71 and the U2-R from Edwards, but it has been confirmed that neither of these types were operating at the time Gaspipe was heard.
Financial analysts Kemper Securities have examined Lockheed Advanced Development Company's declared revenues from Black programs: Returns for 1987 were $65 Million. Returns for 1993 were $475 Million. The only declared Lockheed Black Projects are U2-R and F117A upgrade programs, and nothing new has been announced between 1987 and 1993. It was also discovered that the TOTAL US budget allocation for Project Aurora for 1987 was no less than $2. 27 Billion. According to Kemper, this would indicate a first flight of around 1989. The spread of US Government payments to Lockheed indicate that the aircraft is probably about one-fifth of the way through it's development program, or has been "extensively prototyped." Around $4. 5 Billion has already been spent.
February 1993
The USAF has applied to buy over 4000 acres of land overlooking Area 51. Local residents have reported hearing Pulse Detonation Wave Engines being tested inside the perimeter. These tests have also been reported from Edwards AFB. One local pilot who lives near Edwards said that the engines could be heard 25 miles away when being ground tested.
March 1994
Further evidence of Aurora comes with details of a new hangar which has been built, several stories high, with a large gantry crane inside. Apparently this is used to mate the hypersonic drones to the Aurora mothership. Huge cryogenic storage tanks containing liquid methane or liquid hydrogen have been built. These are the two fuels that Pulse Detonation Wave Engines would use.
April 1995
Freedom Ridge Shut down. A hill overlooking Area 51 is shut down by the government.
January 1995
A sighting by two British Airways pilots and other witnesses at Manchester Airport on January 6 1995 has been attributed to the Aurora aircraft.
July 1996
Report of a sonic boom over Orange County, CA coming on 20 July 1996. It is reported that the "quake" occurred around 3pm PST, fitting the "skyquake" pattern of previous reports. November 1996 Aviation Week magazine is reporting that SR-71 operations have resumed. The first flight was a week ago today. The fiscal 1997 budget provides $30 mil for operations, which will result in about 250 flight hours. Three crews are assigned to operations, not known how many aircraft are available.
December 1996
In the Dec 2 issue of Aviation Week a small column about a "screaming roaring take off" sound heard Nov. 25th in Palmdale around 6am that morning. Article quote an old aviation hand who lives there as it being unlike anything he'd ever heard.
Unknown Dates
The crew of a London-bound United 747 on climb out from LAX filed an Airmiss after an "unidentified supersonic aircraft" passed within 500- 1000ft vertically of them near George AFB in California. The crew described it as "a lifting-body, like the forward fuselage of an SR-71 but without wings." Further sightings have been made in the US: Observers in California have reported seeing an aircraft with a similar platform to the XB-70 Valkyrie, with a clipped delta wing with winglets, narrow blended fuselage with a clear canopy, sharp nose and possibly a retractable canard.
Don´t forget the mysterious case of Portugal.
Some years ago, maybe 2-3 years, a strange blip appeared on a Radar station, i don´t remember the name, anyway as far as i remember it seemed to be flying very fast, suddenly it appeared to start climbing and at an estimate altitude of 60.000ft it was gone.
-
Even if such an aircraft exists and is operated by the USAF, the only way you will ever find anything out about it that is true, will be to get into the community in the USAF. Otherwise we probably won't hear about it any time soon, and if its that black, its likely no one will hear about it during our life times..............
Along with that, who says that it is the Aurora, the SR-71 is capable of Mach 6, in theory. A friend of mine knows an ex-Russian radar operator who said that they clocked an SR-71 at 5.5 before it was gone...............with ramjet engines its completely feasible that the 71 is capable of speeds in excess of Mach 6.
-
Mach 5.5 even for Blackbird is out of question! There are various issues like fuselage strength, engine stability etc.
-
No it is not out of the question.................wtf do you think ramjet engines are built for? hmmmm, because last time I checked they are not meant just for mach 3.5.................more like 4 or 5, along with that, why do you think the US government listed its top speed as Mach 3.5+? Maybe its because it can fly a hell of a lot faster than that...............the Blackbird in its design could easily have exceeded Mach 5.5, and in reality you can't argue that the fuselage strength is an issue, unless you are telling me you have gotten a set of plans and real specs for it, because anything that we have is either a half truth or BS...................
Engine stability? wow............what exactly do you know about engine stability in the SR-71? and do you have a different understanding of the term "ramjet" than I?
-
Forgive me for my lack of English ???, but "wtf" means "Way To Fast"?
Define me the term and then i can answer appropriately..........
-
Haha, sorry, its actually quite crude and I was tired and unhappy last night, so I apologize......WTF means "What the f***"
-
A friend of mine knows an ex-Russian radar operator who said that they clocked an SR-71 at 5.5 before it was gone...............
Not in a million years. I would either doubt the Russian radar, or question whether the operator had been partaking in some of the alcohol coolant fluid. The actual real-world capabilities of the SR-71 are declassified and well known today.
Is this the aviation conspiracy site, or what? I must have missed something on the homepage. I've never seen some many wild stories and complete fabrications.
Mike
-
No, that actual specs are not completely declassified....................what are you smoking exactly to say that?
The aircraft was in service less than 12 years ago, there is no way on Earth, that the United States government would ever declassify the actual abilities of a spy plane such as the SR-71.................must I repeat myself again, they say, "Mach 3.5+"...............the aircraft was capable of much much higher top speeds..............again are you familiar with the term, "ramjet" because it doesn't seem like it.............
-
iluveagles
must I repeat myself again, they say, "Mach 3.5+"
Mike was correct he quoted your post and you said
A friend of mine knows an ex-Russian radar operator who said that they clocked an SR-71 at 5.5 before it was gone...............with ramjet engines its completely feasible that the 71 is capable of speeds in excess of Mach 6.
-
No, that actual specs are not completely declassified....................what are you smoking exactly to say that?
The aircraft was in service less than 12 years ago, there is no way on Earth, that the United States government would ever declassify the actual abilities of a spy plane such as the SR-71.................must I repeat myself again, they say, "Mach 3.5+"...............the aircraft was capable of much much higher top speeds..............again are you familiar with the term, "ramjet" because it doesn't seem like it.............
Son, let me let you in on a little secret.
I've stood laces deep in JP-7 under Habu, sat in a live cockpit and the scars on my hands are from sharp titanium. I've saluted a Blackbird crew as he pulled out of chocks on a mission. I have an SR-71 Dash 1 manual here on my desk. I know exactly what a ramjet is, and I know the similarities and differences between one and a P&W J58; and I know what the Blackbirds were capable of, the Oxcart, the YF-12 and the SR-71. I'm not an Falcon 4.0 or Flight Simulator desk jockey, and I don't smoke.
What exactly is your area of expertise?
Listen to Valkyrian, you might just learn something.
Would you like to continue?
Mike
-
Very well, you are right, I am wrong, you know more than I do, I know nothing, ect, ect ect..............
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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).
-
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..........................
-
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
-
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................
-
Ooooh, F100's vs. F110's? P&W vs. GE? That's a good way to start a fight! :)
Mike
The Great Engine War..........
-
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.
-
So you are saying that, an extremely low ratio, almost 1:1 would make no difference in speed? I don't see how that works............if you match the thrust to weight, how would that make no difference in thrust?
-
1/1 T/W ratio is very very good thing to have.
Maximum speed is a matter between aerodynamic drag - engine power and far far less a matter of weight.
Maximum speed occurs in level flight, and when an aircraft is flying horizontally, the weight, as a force, plays part only by a small portion of drag.
An F-16 has a far better T/W than the Mig25/31 SR-71 XB-70, yet it is far more slower than all of them.
By the way, NASA has some wonderful schematics on such topics. Google for your self, they are very informative.
Anyway we went off topic. What's the conclusion, Aurora exists or not?
I would like to believe that such an aircraft exists. If Lockheed could build a mach 3 marvel in the 60's, i guess in the 80's a much more better spyplane could be built. All areas of technology ie propulsion, structures, aerodynamics, computer power you name it, have been improved by a factor of 10 to 1000000. The technology exists. The reason to build it existed, in the 80's so why not? Although if it was reall, naturally it would overfly over Russia, China, etc, and some contacts with lets say Mig-25s or Mig-31s would have been made.
-
True, but in the end, proportionate to the specific aircraft, you get a better all around thrust capability with such a low T:W ratio...........anyway.......I mean think, if the SR-71 did have a higher T:W ratio, along with anything else nessecary, body strength w/e, would it not fly faster?
Well, the SR-71 never really came into much contact with Russian Migs, it was there and gone so quickly...........
See, I know we tried putting a nuclear reactor on a plane, what about plasma propulsion or ion propulsion engines? I have been looking into the topic about going to Mars, it was said that we have the technology to use a plasma propulsion engine to go to Mars in 40 days. If you do the math, Mars is 35 Million miles away, you would have to fly at 36,000mph, thats Mach 55.55....................
Now, I'm not saying we have an aircraft that can do this, but if we have the technology now, to do that, even though we have not done it yet..........who says the Aurora is not real and is not flying so fast that there is literally just a blip that flies across the radar scope?
So my conclusion is, that considering the 71 was retired, we must have replaced it with something, whether that be with Sat's or another plane who knows? The possibility exists though, that the Aurora or another aircraft like it is very real, and very fast.
-
In my opinion, we can speculate. But then again, speculation was never too accurate when done without any solid proof at all.
If it's just a blip on the radar scope, can't they freeze the "image" then analyse it? I would think anything that top secret would be stealth...
iluveagles... Atmospheric re-entry speed isn't negligible either... The problem with your theory is that on the way to mars you'd have no air friction. And a quick boost in the direction is all it would take to get there. "an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force" or something like that... Just get out of earth's gravity's area of effect, do a five minute 150% power boost, and viola. Nonstop to mars.
-
Do i see Flash Gordon and evil Mig somewhere?
-
What about Flash Gordon valk? ???
-
Just joking Raptor. Since you mentioned about spaceships capable of travelling between Mars and earth.........
-
Well, thats the game plan isnt it? Doesnt NASA/ESA want to be able to go to Mars and the moon continuosly in the next few decades?
-
Well Russia is blowing alot of smoke about going to Mars. I'm just not sure yet how much propaganda is in it.
-
I thought Russia had pretty much stopped their space programs, I dont imagine that they would have the money to do what NASA/ESA are doing ???
-
iluveagles started the Mars thing. ;) I was just blowing his theory about how they could get to Mars at ridiculous speeds so they should be able to do it on earth. ::)
-
Just a question here. I'm trying to phrase it right.
Orbital speed is roughly 17,000 mph, but there's no air up there, hence no friction heating of aircraft (spacecraft) skin. But 17,000 mph at sea level would really fry your eggs. I guess the question is where could Aurora fly (altitude-wise) and at what speed so that skin heating would not be such a big problem? It seems to me that there must be some altitude where there is enough "air" to support "flying" and combustion of fuel without carrying oxidizer, and at the same altitude, not so much "air" so that friction with it would cause structural heating problems at very high speeds. What altitude, and what speed?
Shawn A
-
Isn't the height limit for a plane to fly with out leaving the atmosphere like 60,000 feet? Where the sky is black?
-
Hey Gripen, I love OZ, and Opals.
I just had a real good reply dissolve into the internet, but, sustained level flight is possible above 60,000 ft. I've been in a MIG-31E that got up to 67,000 ft without breathing hard. U-2s and Global hawks can get to 60,000 and higher. the issue I so wonderfully posed in my deleted reply was - at what altitude does atmospheric friction heating and high altitude balance out? It seems to me that a very high mach aircraft would encounter less heating from friction at higher altitudes, but at some point there would not be enough "air" to support level flight. To me this means that any super high mach "aircraft" would either have to employ "skipping" (going super high to avoid heating, and then returning to the "air" to gain thrust and lift to employ a zoom climb back to an altitude where it could cool off and coast in a relatively friction free environment until it's suborbital velocity required another "skip") or carrying oxidizer, which would seem to reduce it's range considerably. To my simple brain, Aurora would have to either leave the air that causes skin heating, or carry oxidizer to allow it to "fly" at altitudes where there is not enough air to either heat the skin, or provide enough oxygen to burn fuel. What altitude, and what speed might that be?
(My first reply was so much more succinct)
Shawn A
-
What about exiting and re-entering the atmosphere completely? Sounds crazy but heck it is possible. So it'll be a spacecraft. Yeah it's pricey. But if it existed it'd have a huge budget.
-
If it was a space craft it'd be doing like mach 10+, like the space shuttle.
-
I think orbital velocity (somewhere around 17,000 mph) is around mach 25. If Aurora exists, I think it will not be an orbital platform. I feel that there is something kept hidden at Groom Lake, what with the huge hanger that was constructed there with an earthen berm seemingly placed to prevent anyone at the closest legal vantage point from seeing into the hanger with super high-power optics.
Shawn A
-
Groom Lake. Heck, everyone thinks there's something there. The Aurora could be in Vegas and we wouldn't even know it. ::)
-
Hey Gripen, I love OZ, and Opals.
I just had a real good reply dissolve into the internet, but, sustained level flight is possible above 60,000 ft. I've been in a MIG-31E that got up to 67,000 ft without breathing hard. U-2s and Global hawks can get to 60,000 and higher. the issue I so wonderfully posed in my deleted reply was - at what altitude does atmospheric friction heating and high altitude balance out? It seems to me that a very high mach aircraft would encounter less heating from friction at higher altitudes, but at some point there would not be enough "air" to support level flight. To me this means that any super high mach "aircraft" would either have to employ "skipping" (going super high to avoid heating, and then returning to the "air" to gain thrust and lift to employ a zoom climb back to an altitude where it could cool off and coast in a relatively friction free environment until it's suborbital velocity required another "skip") or carrying oxidizer, which would seem to reduce it's range considerably. To my simple brain, Aurora would have to either leave the air that causes skin heating, or carry oxidizer to allow it to "fly" at altitudes where there is not enough air to either heat the skin, or provide enough oxygen to burn fuel. What altitude, and what speed might that be?
(My first reply was so much more succinct)
Shawn A
The SR-71/YF-12 series of aircraft regularly flew at 80,000-85,000' (25,000m); it could fly higher than that (some sources quoted figures as high as 100,000', but I find that hard to believe), but altitudes above 85,000' greatly increased the chances of a disastrous "unstart", or compressor stall. The J58 was most happy at about 80,000' & M3.2.
However, DARPA has already flown an a/c at speeds in excess of M6 & 95,000' (the X-43A); there are also hypersonic a/c in the works that will, hopefully, exceed M7 this year (the X-51). And, eventually, it is hoped a reusable M20 exo-atmospheric will be flying by 2025 (see picture below).
(http://media.airspacemag.com/images/hypersonic_main-388-sept07.jpg)
For a couple of good references, read these articles in the Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine:
http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/hyper.html?c=y&page=1 (http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/hyper.html?c=y&page=1)
http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/hypersonics.html?c=y&page=1 (http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/hypersonics.html?c=y&page=1)
-
The difference is that the SR-71 is a line production aircraft, whereas all these others aren't. Small differences in life... :P
-
Now, ok, problem with this is that the SR-71s speed is still classified. In fact, practically the only thing on the aircraft that is still classified is the airspeed indicator, the fastest posted speed I've found is Mach 3.5+, but generally, it is listed as Mach 3.2+, it is however, always listed with that plus after the speed. It's altitude is listed in between 85,000ft up to 100,000ft and the U-2 operates in excess of 90,000 in fact it has a 5 degree window, so to speak, where if the nose goes above that 5 degrees you exit the earth and fly into space and the if you do the opposite you end up ripping the wings off.
SR-71 wise, through a few different sources it is not at all unlikely that it has a top speed of above Mach 5. The fact that it's engines are ramjets only provides more in sight to the matter.
-
Welcome back iluveagles
-
Thanks! ;D
-
Ah i would agree on that "SR-71 over Mach 5" bit.. I mean, loads of Russian airframes are pushing mach 3 easy.. And the SR-71 still claims to be the fastest. :P
Anyway, back on topic, any news on the Aurora? ;D