Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?  
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9440 times:

Both of these aircraft were designed in the same era, the 1960's.

I give credit to Concorde for being a supersonic transport system. I give credit to the Blackbird for being the only aircraft to exceed Mach 3.3, and probably being the first stealth plane.

Either way for both, their engine systems are what I admire, and I wonder: How did they do it? Big grin


The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
74 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9416 times:

Blackbird.

It's harder to go supersonic than subsonic. It's harder to go Mach 2 than Mach 1.2. It's harder to go Mach 2.5+ than Mach 2.

The skin friction, drag, and engine inlet complexities increase dramatically for each step.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineMiamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9413 times:

The SR-71 is more of a technological acheivement for many reasons. Not to push aside Concorde's merits, but the SR-71 had the following:
-Titanium construction
-High Temp composits and Radar Absorbent Materials
-Advanced fuel
-High Temp Hydraulics
-Tires requiring exposure to high temperatures
-Advanced powerplants (J-58) that at high Mach numbers, the majority of the thrust came from the intakes
-Automatic Celestial Nav trackers.

IMHO, the Blackbird takes the cake.


User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9389 times:

We must also look at altitudes of the two aircraft. While there are lots of airplanes out there that can reach the 50-60,000ft range that the Concorde cruises in, theres not too much out there that can reach the SR-71's 85-100,000ft+.

User currently offlineXXXX10 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 777 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9380 times:

I think it was harder to design and build a plane that could meet the certification requirments to carry passangers.

There were no ejection seets in Concorde, no special fuels were needed, it could fit into normal airline services.


User currently offlineJush From Germany, joined Apr 2005, 1636 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9365 times:

I love the balckbird.
Can we go a little bit off topic? Could someone provide some graphics or outlines of the SR-71 powerplants and how the inlets worked at the different Mach stages?

Thanks in advance

Regards
jush



There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.
User currently offlineDalb777 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9357 times:

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 3):
We must also look at altitudes of the two aircraft. While there are lots of airplanes out there that can reach the 50-60,000ft range that the Concorde cruises in, theres not too much out there that can reach the SR-71's 85-100,000ft+.

Yes, I was thinking this same thing. I wonder how long it takes to reach that altitude. I love the look of the Blackbird.



Geaux Tigers! Geaux Hornets! Geaux Saints! WHO DAT!!!
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9333 times:

Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 4):
There were no ejection seets in Concorde, no special fuels were needed, it could fit into normal airline services.

True, but on the other hand the operating speeds and altitudes were much more benign for Concorde.

Quoting Jush (Reply 5):
ould someone provide some graphics or outlines of the SR-71 powerplants and how the inlets worked at the different Mach stages?

I'll let others get into the nitty gritty, but the inlet cones moved in and out in order to keep the shockwave in line with the inlet. This essentially ensured that airflow entering the engine was subsonic since the air was compressed by the cones and "shielded" by the shockwave. The earlier models had some issues with the control system. It couln't react quite fast enough, resulting in an incorrectly positioned shock cones. This would result in the what is known as an "unstart". The shock wave would blow out of the inlet, airflow into the compressor would decrease dramatically, with sudden loss of power. This would in turn lead to violent yaw, which despite the autopilot and manual inputs would often result in an unstart on the other engine as well. More violent yawing.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9327 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Thread starter):
Both of these aircraft were designed in the same era, the 1960's.

The SR-71 first flew on 22 December 1964 and its predecessors the A-12 and YF-12 flew years earlier 25 April 1962 and 7 August 1963 respectively. Their design started in the late 1950's.

The Concorde first flew on 2 March 1969. While there were French and British SST concepts shown in the late 1950's the design work of the Concorde started in 1962.

While the Concorde was a fantastic aircraft, and I am still mad I missed my only chance to fly her, it just didn't have the problems to overcome that the SR-71 family of aircraft did. Aluminum structure can withstand the temperatures of Mach 2 flight but titanium and high temperature composites are required for Mach 3 flight. As stated by Miamiair in Reply 2, just about everything on the Blackbird family had to be invented or developed.

I joined the USAF after the first flight of the SR-71 went through basic training and tech school (Airframe Repair). Was assigned to worked on the SR-71 at Beale AFB. I spent three years there and was discharged from the USAF, before the Concorde flew for the first time.


User currently offlineTigerotor77W From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9324 times:

Is the Blackbird still flying routine missions for the USAF?

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9312 times:

Quoting Tigerotor77W (Reply 9):
Is the Blackbird still flying routine missions for the USAF?

The Blackbird was retired from the USAF in 1990, returned to service in 1995 and retired again in 1998.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9291 times:

Quoting Jush (Reply 5):
Can we go a little bit off topic? Could someone provide some graphics or outlines of the SR-71 powerplants and how the inlets worked at the different Mach stages?

Check out http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/j-58/ it has several pictures of the J-58 and some drawing on how the spike functions.


User currently offlineMiamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9290 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 7):
I'll let others get into the nitty gritty, but the inlet cones moved in and out in order to keep the shockwave in line with the inlet. This essentially ensured that airflow entering the engine was subsonic since the air was compressed by the cones and "shielded" by the shockwave.

The late Ben Rich, who took over for Kelly Johnson at the helm of the Skunk Works was the manager of the team that designed the intakes. I will have to dig up the specifics, but Starlionblue was on the money about the "unstarts." There is a good article in Aviation Week & Space Technology's on-line magazine CONTRAILS about a test pilot's experience with an unstart at an aft CG configuration. It is a short but amazing read.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9267 times:

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 12):
about a test pilot's experience with an unstart at an aft CG configuration

In my three years working on the SR's I changed several cockpit hatch liners. Unstarts were so violent the crews heads would crack the fiberglass liners. Also the nacelles themselves would sustain sufficient damage. There are some internal braces made from 0.032" titanium that would be twisted and torn. They were a real bitch to reach and we would go in and drill out the rivets from the damaged braces and when were reinstalled new braces we used bolts in lieu of rivets, because they were going to be replaced again.


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2543 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 9184 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 8):
While the Concorde was a fantastic aircraft, and I am still mad I missed my only chance to fly her, it just didn't have the problems to overcome that the SR-71 family of aircraft did. Aluminum structure can withstand the temperatures of Mach 2 flight

But that's the point, Concorde could have used titanium structure but it wasn't commercially viable. The Boeing SST tried to go the Blackbird route (Mach 3 with exotic structures), but failed largely because of this. The new technology developed for Concorde enabled Mach 2 to be sustained for a long period with a conventional aluminium structure. Before Concorde, nobody had managed that. CG control allowed a phenominal speed range and practical cabin layout. Also it managed to achieve regular everyday service, no spacesuits for the crew, champagne for the passengers.

So the very constraints imposed by the use of conventional materials forced yet more innovative developments.

My view: Concorde takes the airframe honours, but the SR-71 wins the engine technology prize hands down.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineEGTESkyGod From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1712 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 9149 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I may be biased, but I feel Concorde had more hurdles to overcome than the Blackbird.

In terms of complexity, I've never seen a Blackbird in the flesh, but the only flaw I've heard of is that it leaks fuel when on the gound as the airframe has been built so it can expand at high temperatures. I realise this is necessary, but a better designed aircraft could have overcome this problem somehow, but I still believe SR71 is an AWESOME aircraft, so don't flame me for that last sentence.

Concorde, for me, was a bigger step forward as it benefited more people than the SR71. A select few got to fly in her, whereas 100 pax at a time could fly on Concorde for 27 years. No other aircraft could fly at Mach 2 with 109 people on board. (I know Tu144 challenged for a while, but was not good challenger IMHO) Until Concorde, it took 10 hours or so for passengers to cross the Atlantic, then all of a sudden it took just over 3 hours.

In conclusion, while both aircraft are technical marvels, Concorde wins my vote.



I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
User currently offlineJush From Germany, joined Apr 2005, 1636 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 9107 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 10):



Quoting 474218 (Reply 11):

Wow, thanks to both of you. Really interesting stuff.
Supersonic flight and engine technology is just such interesting stuff.
Can't get enough of that.

Regards
jush



There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9083 times:

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 15):

In terms of complexity, I've never seen a Blackbird in the flesh, but the only flaw I've heard of is that it leaks fuel when on the gound as the airframe has been built so it can expand at high temperatures. I realise this is necessary, but a better designed aircraft could have overcome this problem somehow,

Maybe the "problem" could have been overcome, but this would only have meant a bigger compromise on something else. I don't know if an aircraft with current materials technology could easily solve the problem without adding a lot of weight by insulating the tanks from the skin.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineMiamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 9078 times:

The North American XB-70 could not use titanium because it was unavailable; it was being used secretly for the YF-12/SR-71. The SR-71 pioneered the use of titanium on large aircraft. There was a learning curve associated with that use.

The XB-70 used a stainless steel-honeycomb sandwich construction, that had its own teething pains. The process and the qualith of this type of construction improved on the second prototype. The first prototype did reach mach 3, but shed a large sevtion that went down the intakes and FODed 4 of the six engines; one was able to be restarted for landing, but from that point on, A/V 01 was limited to a speed of 2.5M. A/V 02 did exceed 3.0M several times, but was lost in a Mid-Air collsion.

One of the problems that plagued both the SR-71 and the XB-70 was fuel leaks. The SR-71 seeped fuel until it was topped off and the skins expanded during flight. The XB-70 used a sealant that was applied to the interiors of the tanks and even that was a stop-gap (literally) measure.

Both airplanes are technological marvels; the Concorde had to meet Transport Category certification, but the SR-71 did have to go higher and faster with "more advanced" technology than the Concorde did.


User currently offlineHiFi From Brazil, joined Apr 2005, 192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9027 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
It's harder to go Mach 2 than Mach 1.2

Maintaining cruise at Mach 1.2 might be harder than at Mach 2, actually... Wave drag is much more violent around Mach 1  Wink

But anyways, that doesn't change your argument, which is still valid.

Now to answer the question, I'm a fan of the Blackbird, but the solutions developed and implemented for the Concorde in order to achieve (very fast) continued safe flight and landing are impressive... although I'm a bit skeptical about a hypothetical certification with updated regulations  Wink



no commercial potential
User currently offlineLitz From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1755 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9006 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 10):
The Blackbird was retired from the USAF in 1990, returned to service in 1995 and retired again in 1998.

Does NASA still fly their copies? I know for a while, at least, they used them for high alitude/high speed research ...

(other than a rocket, it's the ONLY plane that can reach those altitudes and speeds)

- litz


User currently offlineMiamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8987 times:

Quoting Litz (Reply 20):
Does NASA still fly their copies?

Dryden had a decade of past experience at sustained speeds above Mach 3. Two YF-12A aircraft and an SR-71 designated as a YF-12C were flown at the center between December 1969 and November 1979 in a joint NASA/USAF program to learn more about the capabilities and limitations of high-speed, high-altitude flight. The YF-12As were prototypes of a planned interceptor aircraft based on a design that later evolved into the SR-71 reconnaissance aircraft.

The two SR-71s at Dryden were assigned the following NASA tail numbers: NASA 844 (A model), military serial 61-7980 and NASA 831 (B model), military serial 61-7956. From 1990 through 1994, Dryden also had another "A" model, NASA 832, military serial 61-7971. This aircraft was returned to the USAF inventory and was the first aircraft reactivated for USAF reconnaissance purposes in 1995. It has since returned to Dryden along with SR-71A 61-7967.

The last SR-71 flight was made on Saturday October 9, 1999, at the Edwards AFB air show. The aircraft used was NASA 844. The aircraft was also scheduled to make a flight the following day, but a fuel leak grounded the aircraft and prevented it from flying again. The NASA SR-71s were then put in flyable storage, where they remained until 2002. They were then sent to museums.

Source: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Graphics/SR-71/index.html


User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8976 times:

Doesn't BA have more supersonic hours than all the worlds air forces put together?

That would also mean Concorde flew supersonic far longer than the Blackbird.
In terms of complexity I wouldn't know which is more complex, as both had completely different mission profiles to fulfil.

And regarding engine inlets, IIRC Concorde's digital engine inlet control is still a commercial secret and was the first thing removed from the aircraft once they arrived at their final destinations.
But perhaps GDB can confirm if this is true or not?


User currently offlineVc10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1407 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8965 times:

A very nice site "474218 " and if you compare it with the following site

http://www.concordesst.com/powerplant.html

you will see that although they used different methods both aircraft achieved the same thing, that is to present the airflow to the engine itself at subsonic speeds,and in the case of Concorde I believe was 0.5 mach. In both system they have a convergent then divergent duct with the essential terminal shock wave occurring just as the duct started to go divergent. Due to this reduction in speed there will come and increase in pressure and in the case of Concorde the compression ratio at Mach 2.0 of the intake alone was 7 to 1 which made the engine some 25% more efficient and I am sure this applied to the Black bird , but probably to a more extreme case.So I think in engine technology they probably come out quits.

If " unstarts " are the same as what was called "intake surges " on Concorde well believe me they could be quite violent too, and would usually end up the crew starting smoking again. On Concorde this spiting of the shock wave out the front of the engine would also cause a problem for it's adjacent engine so sometimes it could be difficult for the crew to diagnose which engine was the original problem.

Where I think Concorde might be more complex than the Blackbird was in wing design both in aerodynamic sense and in the construction, and it did not leak fuel , well not most of the time,

Lastly it has to be said that both aircraft are some thing to be proud of but for me Concorde wins by a short head as it had to also carry 108 people in comfort while doing it's thing

Little vc10


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8927 times:

Quoting HiFi (Reply 19):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
It's harder to go Mach 2 than Mach 1.2

Maintaining cruise at Mach 1.2 might be harder than at Mach 2, actually... Wave drag is much more violent around Mach 1 Wink

But anyways, that doesn't change your argument, which is still valid.

What I meant was that you don't need afterburners to go M1.2, but M2 is a bit beyond supercruise.

As I see some of the big hurdles between speed brackets:
- Subsonic to M1.2: Supersonic aerodynamics.
- M1.2 to M2: Afterburner requirement.
- M2 to M2.5+: Materials required to handle heat.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
25 David L : I assume you're using nice round munbers for simplicity so pointing out that Concorde only used afterburners up to M1.7 would be a waste of a nitpick
27 Post contains images David L : If you're just keeping it tidy, it's no problem. It was just an opportunity for me to mention one of the three things I know.
28 GDB : Some real good and informative posts. I think it is true that either BA or AF do have more supersonic hrs than all the military aircraft, right back t
29 Post contains images David L : Allegedly!
30 RichardPrice : A Concorde documentary I watched the other week on DVD made the comment that the afterburners were not required to get the aircraft to cruise speed,
31 Rsbj : I have a pilots manual for the SR-71. In the range charts where speed is graphed, the line stops at M3.3 and ends with a hash. Next to this hash is a
32 Wingscrubber : Concorde or Blackbird? Not really a fair comparison...I'd sooner wiegh up Concorde against the Tu-144 and Boeing SST, as for the SR-71, I'd sooner com
33 Post contains links and images Fumanchewd : The sr71 is a sentimental favorite of mine, as I made countless models of it as a child. The concord is great too, but an SR71 looks awesome. Anyone h
34 HaveBlue : While both are impressive, the SR-71 gets my vote. While many planes can reach Mach 2.2 and do so with convential production, the Blackbird family was
35 Viv : Difficult to compare the two. Concorde was designed to carry a large number of people in airliner comfort. Its supersonic speed posed a number of addi
36 Vc10 : Just a little correction Viv there was no attempt in the Concorde design to use fuel to cool the airframe, but fuel was used to cool systems such as H
37 David L : Perhaps it could be argued that the SR-71 had some features which were more complex than those of Concorde but Concorde had a greater number of comple
38 Econoboy : One thing that both planes have in common is that they were designed in the days before high-powered CFD. I admire the fact that the formidable obstac
40 OldAeroGuy : Come to the Museum of Flight in Seattle and you can see both airplanes at one location. The SR-71 has a bonus in that it is carrying a D-21 drone on i
41 474218 : Actually the Blackbird in Seattle Museum is a modified A-12, s/n 60-6940, know as a M-21. There were two M-21's that were to launch the D-21 drone. H
42 GDB : Whilst many aircraft, i.e fighters, some bombers, could reach Mach 2, how many could sustain this for a couple of hours? On a related note, how long c
43 474218 : As long as it had fuel. In a 4.5 hour mission of 7,150 miles, with 3 in-flight refuelings, the SR-71 would be above Mach 3 for just over 3.0 hours. T
44 EGTESkyGod : Same for the USS Intrepid in New York.
45 Go3Team : And the Udvar Hazy Museum at IAD.
46 Post contains images Litz : This would be my choice, as you can also gawk at the Dash-80 while there, and the shuttle Enterprise and tons else ... (one of these days, I will vis
47 EGTESkyGod : The advantage is that they're indoors there as well, and it's the only Air France Concorde on American soil. Being British, I prefer the BA Concorde'
48 Wingscrubber : Also on this side of the Pond, Duxford in cambridgeshire has Concorde 001 and SR-71 in the same hanger, amongst many other beautiful machines...
49 EGTESkyGod : Careful now! It has Concorde 01, or 101! Concorde 001 (F-WTSS) is at Le Bourget alongside F-BTSD!
50 RichardPrice : Duxford has 101 (G-AXDN), Yeovilton has 002 (G-BSST), and Brooklands has 202, serial 100 -002 (G-BBDG).
51 GDB : By all means go and see F-BVFA at Washington, but don't expect to go inside, you cannot. But the Udvar-Hazy centre is worth seeing in it's own right.
52 Lehpron : So in reality, probably approximately around an hour @ M3+, which is still incredible IMO. Is there any particular reason (other than maybe not the s
53 474218 : Just the standard training mission.
54 Lufthansi : Just thinking of the huge amount of titanium they needed to build the Blackbird in my oppinion the blackbird is more difficult to build. They had to i
55 Post contains images Wingscrubber : Sorry! 101, I stand corrected, anyhoo, it's the testbed one at Duxford, full of flight test equipment rather than seats and champagne. I was unaware
56 Rolfen : Depends what you mean by complex. Concorde uses less advanced materials then the Blackbird for commercial reasons. On the other hand I believe concord
57 Post contains links EGTESkyGod : See www.concordeproject.com for regular updates on the restoration. I'm lucky enough to be helping out for a day at Brooklands in a couple of weeks t
58 747LUVR : Yeah..sat in the cockpit of a 71 in the Aviation Museum in Seattle....nice!
59 Zkpilot : " target=_blank>http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm I was about to say!!! I wonder why nobody had mentioned the Aurora... Does anyone know anymo
60 RichardPrice : Has it even been proven to be more than a conspiracy theorists dream?
61 Post contains links A319XFW : As an aside - From what I read about aerospace titanium (IIRC in PE Magazine) used during the cold war. Due to the fact that most titanium came from
62 Starlionblue : As I recall, so did the enormous statue of Gagarin that's standing somewhere. But that might be a myth.
63 Post contains images Lehpron : I'd like to think I saw it once. my family used to do roadtrips when I was younger and in summer 95, something looked to me like a very shallow rocke
64 Post contains images Mikehobley : scramjets aside, can we classify the X-15 as an a/craft that has passed mach 3.3 (Mach 6.75@354,000ft)?
65 Starlionblue : Absolutely. The SR-71 is the fastest jet, not the fastest aircraft.
66 Post contains images Keta : It's very difficult to chose one, but I think I go with the SR-71. They serve for different purposes and have different specifications, both are marve
67 474218 : While the SR-71 can fly at Mach 3 as long it's fuel lasts, the MiG-31 can fly at Mach 3 as long it's engines last. The problem with the MiG is that i
68 Starlionblue : As 474218 points hints at, Mach 3 is not really a realistic speed for anything but one off missions in which the engines are destroyed. Maximum opera
69 Lehpron : I sit corrected, but then it wasn''t intentional. When I think of airplanes, I don't include getting dropped by a mothership. The Guiness Book lists
70 Post contains images Rsbj : Here is a pic out of my SR-71A manual. It depicts design mach number, Equivalent airspeed, and altitude.
71 Post contains links EGTESkyGod : Having just spent a day helping out there....... It was AWESOME!!! http://www.concorde-photos.me.uk/gal...y/displayimage.php?album=87&pos=45 Thanks m
72 Post contains images Rolfen : Thanks a lot So it's true that the advertised calpacities back then were not real.
73 Lehpron : Such as? You do realize the Air Force jets (SR-71's) were not as fast as the CIA jets (YF-12 and A-12)?
74 Rsbj : Please keep in mind I can only show you the "design mach number". When I got this book, I swore I would not show the EWO capabilities of the plane to
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Which Is More Efficient A320 Or 738 With Winglets? posted Tue Dec 20 2005 14:24:51 by Pavlin
JetA Or Carfuel, Which Is More Refined? posted Mon Sep 2 2002 08:16:01 by Sjc>sfo
Which Is More Fuel Efficient? posted Thu Sep 9 2004 05:11:58 by PacificWestern
Which Is Better: Tug Or Tractor? posted Mon Oct 31 2005 06:16:34 by Alberchico
Aerobatics Or Gliders, Which Is Most Beneficial? posted Fri Nov 21 2003 21:40:43 by NormalSpeed
Asphalt Or Concrete Runways. Which Is Better? posted Sun May 27 2001 16:18:35 by OO-VEG
Which Is It, High Or Low Pressure? posted Wed Mar 7 2001 00:52:13 by Max Power
Why 2 Engines More Efficient Than 3, Or 4? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 03:13:12 by MarkC
Which Is The Best Cargo Aircaft To Fly Blr-shj-blr posted Fri Jan 20 2006 09:15:12 by BABUMUSHAI
What Is It? Strange Jig Or Structure At LAX posted Sun May 15 2005 02:22:12 by Flyabunch

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format