Mr. Snover: I'll just leave this here...

[Black0ut]

Son of Blackbird -- SR-72

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_11_01_2013_p0-632731.xml

I await your insight oh wise one.

 

[Outlaw99]

link doesnt work for me.

 

[thomas91169]

i think its their page, even if you search and click it through google it just sits and spins

 

[oldmodman]

Here are some more articles for everyone.

Hypersonic Successor to Legendary SR-71 Blackbird Spy Plane Unveiled | Autopia | Wired.com

Meet SR-72, The Most Astonishing Airplane You'll Ever See | Fast Company | Business + Innovation

Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works Reveals Blackbird Successor in Exclusive Interview with Penton's Aviation Week - Yahoo Finance Canada

I'd love it if it actually gets built. But I'm not holding my breath. Especially since you could feed, educate and make lifelong democrats of tens of thousands of illegal aliens for what just one airframe would cost.

 

[Black0ut]

link doesnt work for me.

i think its their page, even if you search and click it through google it just sits and spins

Massive SVTP traffic has crashed them it seems ;-)

Side note: seems to work fine for me.

 

[Phallen]

I really doubt that's the actual picture of the airplane. Those air intakes just look far too big to be able to handle multiple Mach speeds. The ingenious design of the SR-71's conical intakes made it possible to allow the air to be burned. IIRC, the engines couldn't burn that amount of air at those speeds, thus cones were used to compress and slow the air down to be ignited.

 

[dsg04MACHone]

I really doubt that's the actual picture of the airplane. Those air intakes just look far too big to be able to handle multiple Mach speeds. The ingenious design of the SR-71's conical intakes made it possible to allow the air to be burned. IIRC, the engines couldn't burn that amount of air at those speeds, thus cones were used to compress and slow the air down to be ignited.

Why are those too big for a scram jet? I think the cones at the front of the sr 71 limited the pressure on the compressor as well as controlling the shock waves so if there was not a turbine in those intakes you see, what would be the point in having the conical section or something similar if it was aerodynamically sound? What if the turbine itself is maybe incorporated into the body and maybe those intakes also provide air for the jet engine then the scram jets take over when they reach the appropriate speeds? They don't necessarily have to be one unit together.

Just thinking out loud.

 

[James Snover]

I don't know why Lockheed or the government would let tyhis be announced more than fifteen years before it is projected to fly. I don't know why they would announce it at all.

The overall shape of the aircraft looks right. But not the inlets. I don't know what is up with those large unobstructed inlets, unless they have variable geometry ramps ala the F-15 & F-14.

The inlets were the whole key to the Blackbird's speed & range. The pressure-recovery they allowed made the plane more efficient and powerful. Those cones, at speeds above Mach 1, channeled and shoved the Mach+ high pressure shock wave right down the throat of the ducts, where the shape of the duct slowed the air to sub-sonic speed, converting air at insanely high speed to air at insanely high pressure and insanely high temperature.

How high? At 80,000 feet there isn't much air at all. The atmospheric pressure at that altitude is less than half a pound per square inch (yes, 0.5psi!), and it's something like -60 degrees F below zero. The Blackbird's inlet ducts maintained 40psi, and keep in mind, that is with two giant engines gulping down huge volumes of air as fast as they can get it. And that conversion of high velocity air to high pressure air also dumped over 900 degrees F of energy into the air. In other words, the airplane gulped down a large portion of it's supersonic shockwave, reclaiming energy that otherwise would have been lost. It literally supercharged itself on it's own shockwave.

So I don't quite believe that those inlets, as shown in these pics, are the real configuration.

And again, I do not understand why they would be making any portion of this program public knowledge at all, much less more than fifteen years before it is going to fly.

 

[firemanmike]

I did not read enough; are they or did they build that jett???

 

[MaximumVelocity]

Color me skeptical when a "skunkworks" reveals its plans.

 

[James Snover]

A couple of other observations: the exhaust nozzles are the wrong shape. For maximum efficiency, you really want a circular cross-section on the inlets and exhaust. And at these speeds and distances, you need to maximize efficiency every where you can. Which brings up the next item that is "wrong" with this illustration:

The engines are too close to the fuselage. That's going to set up all kinds of shockwaves disturbing the airflow over the airframe, which increases drag, which reduces range. The Blackbirds engines are way out to the sides, and located way back on the fuselage, for just these reasons (as well as some others).

 

[James Snover]

Also, the more I look at it, the more I don't like the "cranked arrow" wing. That's the sort of thing you want on a fighter, for maneuverability. You don't maneuver at Mach 6, you stay nice and steady. The Blackbird only went Mach 3+, and it couldn't maneuver at all.

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

they're throwing us a red herring. the real plane is still being developed. as snover pointed out, too many inconsistencies and things that don't add up for what the plane is supposed to do. it's like ford releasing the image below and saying the NEXT svt terminator convertible:

 

[Steve@TF]

That rendering looks like a "hyperjet"? I read about a few years ago they were calling "Aurora Project". They said it would basically jump into space and fly at speeds much faster than the sr71. Back then it was people just theorizing and rumors though.

 

[SVT_BERTO]

Also, the more I look at it, the more I don't like the "cranked arrow" wing. That's the sort of thing you want on a fighter, for maneuverability. You don't maneuver at Mach 6, you stay nice and steady. The Blackbird only went Mach 3+, and it couldn't maneuver at all.

Why didn't I think to email you when I was writing a 6-page research paper on the SR-71?!?!

I'm a huge aeronautics nerd and there's soooooo much I didn't know about the Blackbird.

 

[James Snover]

I've got a stack of books four feet high on the Blackbird and all its variants. And yet there is more to learn about the old girl.

I'm always ready to talk about the Blackbird, start a thread or email me anytime.

Why didn't I think to email you when I was writing a 6-page research paper on the SR-71?!?!

I'm a huge aeronautics nerd and there's soooooo much I didn't know about the Blackbird.

 

[94Gt5.0]

This thread makes me feel dumb :lol:. Very cool stuff though!!

 

[HEMIHUNTER]

they're throwing us a red herring. the real plane is still being developed. as snover pointed out, too many inconsistencies and things that don't add up for what the plane is supposed to do. it's like ford releasing the image below and saying the NEXT svt terminator convertible:

I agree.
Maybe it's already built and "they" want the world to think we're still working on it.

I don't know what it's 'strike capability option' would be though.Laser of some kind or maybe a EMP type weapon that didn't affect onboard systems.

 

[VegasMichael]

Also, the more I look at it, the more I don't like the "cranked arrow" wing. That's the sort of thing you want on a fighter, for maneuverability. You don't maneuver at Mach 6, you stay nice and steady. The Blackbird only went Mach 3+, and it couldn't maneuver at all.

True. It sounds as if this craft is being created for double duty. Recon plane at high speeds, fighter jet at less than max speeds. :shrug:

 

[dsg04MACHone]

The overall shape of the aircraft looks right. But not the inlets. I don't know what is up with those large unobstructed inlets, unless they have variable geometry ramps ala the F-15 & F-14.


So I don't quite believe that those inlets, as shown in these pics, are the real configuration.

Why not? Why do the inlets have to be obstructed if there is no compressor in them to be concerned about?

A couple of other observations: the exhaust nozzles are the wrong shape. For maximum efficiency, you really want a circular cross-section on the inlets and exhaust. And at these speeds and distances, you need to maximize efficiency every where you can. Which brings up the next item that is "wrong" with this illustration:

The engines are too close to the fuselage. That's going to set up all kinds of shockwaves disturbing the airflow over the airframe, which increases drag, which reduces range. The Blackbirds engines are way out to the sides, and located way back on the fuselage, for just these reasons (as well as some others).

I imagine you're right on the exhaust in that it's likely able to vary it's geometry. But what do you mean engines too close to the fuselage? Are those not just essentially giant afterburners? The actual turbine jet engine is likely to be in the fuselage similar to other military jets. Those inlets probably feed the jet engine at lower speeds and the ram/scram whatever jet takes over at high speeds.