A Blackbird is missing
Discussion
An interesting article on TWZ this morning. A static display SR-71 (the last one to fly) has gone missing and NASA have teased an image of a new x-plane looking very similar.
https://www.twz.com/air/a-sr-71-blackbird-has-vani...
Given the F-117A was 'retired' and then re-emerged as an LO adversary, I wonder if it is possible to re-commission a long retired airframe as complex and unique as the Blackbird. AIUI even when it retired the KC-135Qs remainined in service, despite there being no 'customers' for JP7 officially in the US inventory.
Even if they did bring it back, why would it be needed today? It isn't going to outrun modern SAM threats any more, and isn't LO enough to avoid detection.
https://www.twz.com/air/a-sr-71-blackbird-has-vani...
Given the F-117A was 'retired' and then re-emerged as an LO adversary, I wonder if it is possible to re-commission a long retired airframe as complex and unique as the Blackbird. AIUI even when it retired the KC-135Qs remainined in service, despite there being no 'customers' for JP7 officially in the US inventory.
Even if they did bring it back, why would it be needed today? It isn't going to outrun modern SAM threats any more, and isn't LO enough to avoid detection.
As long as airframe fatigue and engine hours/fatigue aren't major considerations, then I'd say it's definitely possible, but also definitely expensive and logistically almost ludicrous (JP7* production as per the article, the specific tankers for carrying JP7 and refuelling it probably aren't airworthy any longer, let alone the spares/repairs issue for what was a monstrously bespoke aircraft and highly complex engines).
...that said, it was well proven to work at Mach 3+, and the physics issues of a reusable airframe (& engine) operating at those temperatures haven't changed in the last 60 years. So it may be that recommissioning 1 (more?) Blackbird(s) to run as technology/material test-beds might be cheaper than developing a whole new untried X-plane for that specific purpose.
* Any extended running at higher Mach numbers will run into the same problems that required the development of JP7 in the first place, so they've probably already run through multiple multiple options before getting to this point. I'd also like to point out that if anyone needs me to do some work in the SoCal area in the near future I'm open to offers...would just ask for flexible hours!
...that said, it was well proven to work at Mach 3+, and the physics issues of a reusable airframe (& engine) operating at those temperatures haven't changed in the last 60 years. So it may be that recommissioning 1 (more?) Blackbird(s) to run as technology/material test-beds might be cheaper than developing a whole new untried X-plane for that specific purpose.
* Any extended running at higher Mach numbers will run into the same problems that required the development of JP7 in the first place, so they've probably already run through multiple multiple options before getting to this point. I'd also like to point out that if anyone needs me to do some work in the SoCal area in the near future I'm open to offers...would just ask for flexible hours!
You could learn from how they are built etc, and things like stripping to investigate build techniques,but surely tech has moved on so much since the 60s, most of that will be fairly useless.
It may be the new craft is a similar size, so they want to use an airframe for some reason.
Nasa flew them for quite a while after CIA service I think. Not sure when that finally stopped, probably 90s or early 00s.
But most likely it's an AI image to make nerds froth, it probably looks nothing like that.
It may be the new craft is a similar size, so they want to use an airframe for some reason.
Nasa flew them for quite a while after CIA service I think. Not sure when that finally stopped, probably 90s or early 00s.
But most likely it's an AI image to make nerds froth, it probably looks nothing like that.
bergclimber34 said:
You could learn from how they are built etc, and things like stripping to investigate build techniques,but surely tech has moved on so much since the 60s, most of that will be fairly useless.
It may be the new craft is a similar size, so they want to use an airframe for some reason.
Nasa flew them for quite a while after CIA service I think. Not sure when that finally stopped, probably 90s or early 00s.
But most likely it's an AI image to make nerds froth, it probably looks nothing like that.
It's still likely to be cutting edge IMO. Nothing really superceded it. It may be the new craft is a similar size, so they want to use an airframe for some reason.
Nasa flew them for quite a while after CIA service I think. Not sure when that finally stopped, probably 90s or early 00s.
But most likely it's an AI image to make nerds froth, it probably looks nothing like that.
Arguably the greatest aircraft ever made.
bergclimber34 said:
It is very far from cutting edge. It is a very old aeroplane I am afraid.
The greatest plane ever made is far more likely to be something like a commercial airliner like the 747 or the 707 that took vast numbers abroad.
Depends what your criteria are. Find me another aeroplane that can do Mach 3.3 - or try to build one...!The greatest plane ever made is far more likely to be something like a commercial airliner like the 747 or the 707 that took vast numbers abroad.
I can find several. Most of them research aircraft, the X15 could do well over 4000mph for instance and land back on earth!!
I am rather more impressed that France an d Britain built a passenger plane that could travel at Mach 2 while being quiet enough to talk in and pour champagne at the same time.
it was so clever the Yanks gave up!!
I am rather more impressed that France an d Britain built a passenger plane that could travel at Mach 2 while being quiet enough to talk in and pour champagne at the same time.
it was so clever the Yanks gave up!!
I can find several. Most of them research aircraft, the X15 could do well over 4000mph for instance and land back on earth!!
I am rather more impressed that France an d Britain built a passenger plane that could travel at Mach 2 while being quiet enough to talk in and pour champagne at the same time.
it was so clever the Yanks gave up then banned it because it made too much noise, nothing like sour grapes, are we sure Trump was not making political decisions back then for the US government?
I am rather more impressed that France an d Britain built a passenger plane that could travel at Mach 2 while being quiet enough to talk in and pour champagne at the same time.
it was so clever the Yanks gave up then banned it because it made too much noise, nothing like sour grapes, are we sure Trump was not making political decisions back then for the US government?
bergclimber34 said:
I can find several. Most of them research aircraft, the X15 could do well over 4000mph for instance and land back on earth!!
I am rather more impressed that France an d Britain built a passenger plane that could travel at Mach 2 while being quiet enough to talk in and pour champagne at the same time.
it was so clever the Yanks gave up!!
X15 was a rocket plane though I am rather more impressed that France an d Britain built a passenger plane that could travel at Mach 2 while being quiet enough to talk in and pour champagne at the same time.
it was so clever the Yanks gave up!!
Yes I agree Concorde was very impressive. It Sean’s as if we have gone backwards. Didn’t Boeing have a big swing wing concept supersonic passenger plane?
Simpo Two said:
Depends what your criteria are. Find me another aeroplane that can do Mach 3.3 - or try to build one...!
It was an astonishing aircraft. Personally I'm more impressed by one that flew 100 people at Mach 2 whilst they sipped champagne and dined on caviar , over 50,000 times - as mentioned above.
I was at the Duxford SR71 event earlier this year, and while it was a great experience to chat to people involved in the program, and the aircraft remains a wonderful and astonishing bit of kit, I agree, "plane with cameras goes really high and fast" has limited utility in the modern paradigm of such things.
_Rodders_ said:
It's still likely to be cutting edge IMO. Nothing really superceded it.
Arguably the greatest aircraft ever made.
Acknowledge that "great" is subjective, I'd still put Concorde up there. Doing what it did on a scheduled basis with fare paying passengers for decades will never be exceeded, I think.Arguably the greatest aircraft ever made.
bergclimber34 said:
I can find several. Most of them research aircraft, the X15 could do well over 4000mph for instance and land back on earth!!
I am rather more impressed that France an d Britain built a passenger plane that could travel at Mach 2 while being quiet enough to talk in and pour champagne at the same time.
it was so clever the Yanks gave up!!
X15 doesn't count - rocket with a cockpit and (rudimentary) landing gear, had to be carried to altitude.I am rather more impressed that France an d Britain built a passenger plane that could travel at Mach 2 while being quiet enough to talk in and pour champagne at the same time.
it was so clever the Yanks gave up!!
I did think of Concorde though when he made his post - I think overall Concorde should get the nod. BUT...the SR71 had to overcome arguably just as many engineering challenges and set more records - most of which have never been beaten.
...so I think we're splitting hairs - they're both exceptional achievements that still haven't been bettered.
definitely not a big ol' bus of an airliner, no matter how many sold.
havoc said:
BUT...the SR71 had to overcome arguably just as many engineering challenges and set more records - most of which have never been beaten.
Memorable insight from the Duxford event was the crew comments that they actually achieved better numbers, but were effectively told "yeah, we're not publishing that openly"WH16 said:
havoc said:
the specific tankers for carrying JP7 and refuelling it probably aren't airworthy any longer,
They were re-engined and branded as KC-135T and are still in service, but I have no idea whether they can still carry JP7.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff