lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:57 am

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.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17053
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:27 am

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." - John Ringo
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:29 am

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.
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:43 am

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+.
 
XXXX10
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 7:10 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:54 am

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.
 
jush
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:10 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:16 am

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.
 
dalb777
Posts: 1698
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 9:35 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:32 am

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 avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17053
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:21 am

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." - John Ringo
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:28 am

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.
 
tigerotor77w
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:35 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:31 am

Is the Blackbird still flying routine missions for the USAF?
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17053
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:53 am

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." - John Ringo
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:16 am

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.
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:18 am

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.
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:32 am

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 avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2562
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:19 pm

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 avatar
EGTESkyGod
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:15 pm

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
 
jush
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:10 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:12 pm

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 avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17053
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:20 pm

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." - John Ringo
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:34 pm

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.
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
HiFi
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 5:36 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:55 am

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 avatar
litz
Posts: 1849
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:29 am

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
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:02 am

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
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:15 am

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?
 
vc10
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2001 4:13 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:40 am

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 avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17053
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:19 am

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." - John Ringo
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:44 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 24):
M1.2 to M2: Afterburner requirement.

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 attempt?
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17053
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:11 am

Quoting David L (Reply 25):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 24):
M1.2 to M2: Afterburner requirement.

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 attempt?

 white 
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:27 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 26):

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.  Smile
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:24 am

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 to Chuck Yeager in 1947.

While we are not really comparing like for like, both types were fantastic, very advanced, iconic types.
Both notably also have not been replaced.

For me, the rigours of civil certification, being the first major multi national project, both coming from nations which while capable of producing advanced types, did not have any real counterpart to NACA later NASA, DARPA, 'Black Project' funding etc, pips it for Concorde.
As well as having much smaller wallets.

The Chief Engineer on the B2707, on the 'Planes That Never Flew' programme, lamented the Mach 3, later 2.7 requirement-which was a political one, identifying that as a major cause of the projects failure.

While slower, lower than SR-71, on Concorde you had 100 pax, some perhaps in lounge suits, SR-71 had two people in spacesuits.

A senior BA Concorde pilot, Jock Lowe, recalls how he met a USAF Blackbird driver, who had once been at 60,000 ft near Cuba, he got a crackly message telling him to move a few miles off course.
Huh? What in the airline world is capable of reaching our altitude, it was an AF Concorde, out of Caracas.
So these two fabulous aviation icons sort of met, at least once, how fitting.
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:38 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 28):
Both notably also have not been replaced.

Allegedly!  duck 
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Fri Mar 24, 2006 2:25 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 24):
- Subsonic to M1.2: Supersonic aerodynamics.
- M1.2 to M2: Afterburner requirement.

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, as the engines were capable of doing it on normal thrust. The afterburners were used because it was more efficient as it got the aircraft up to cruise speed and altitude faster than without, thus technically saving fuel rather than using more!
 
rsbj
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:49 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Fri Mar 24, 2006 4:40 am

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 note that states "Speeds greater than Mach 3.3 require Ops Group Commander approval". When I get home from this trip, maybe I'll post a pic of it if demand warrents.
In talking to a Blackbird pilot, he said the power limit was M3.8, but that the potential for unstarts increases exponentially just below that speed. It didn't need to fly any faster, as nothing could catch it at M3.2, so this was their normal max.
Another interesting tidbit, if they were fuel critical, best range speed was M2.3 in minimun afterburner.
Without question, the most mesmorizing airplane I will live to see.
I fly really fast and take a lot of chances.
 
wingscrubber
Posts: 806
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 1:38 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:52 am

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 compare it (as aforementioned) to aircraft like the Valkyrie, Tupolev Tu-360 concept or maybe even the TSR-2.
They're both complex aircraft, just in different areas... SR-71 has no air conditioning for 100 passengers, no drooping nose, no room for cargo, no toilets(and associated water/sewage system), no galley etc.
Equally, Concorde has no chemical fuel ignition system for its engines, no tyres designed to withstand extremely high temperature and very high landing speeds, no ejection seats.
The difference between the two in my opinion is that Concorde was a culmination of research and technology developed on preceding aircraft like the Avro Vulcan, Fairey Delta 2, TSR-2, whereas the SR-71 was more or less designed from scratch.
The sad truth however, is that these are both aircraft from a now bygone age, and there's nothing around to replace them....yet!!
Resident TechOps Troll
 
fumanchewd
Posts: 2878
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 7:43 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:37 am

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.

Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 32):
The sad truth however, is that these are both aircraft from a now bygone age, and there's nothing around to replace them....yet!!

Anyone hear any news about the Aurora lately? The last I heard, was that the cotton ball "pulse jet" engines were too uncontrollable and they were now experimenting with scramjets for it. http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm



http://wave.prohosting.com/aurora85/
In the time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey...
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2104
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:25 pm

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 designed in 1959 and had nothing whatsoever to draw on. Everything from the fuel, the shape, the tires, the spikes and just about everything you can think of was an experimental innovation and this in the time of slide rules, not computers. While M 2.2 is great, the rigors of M 3+ is phenomenal and the fact they pulled it off, and so well, is a testament to Kelly Johnson and his team at the Skunk Works.

I love both aircraft, but the Blackbird set precedent and has not been matched before nor since.
Here Here for Severe Clear!
 
viv
Posts: 2953
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:17 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:53 pm

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 additional challenges, notably with regard to engine intake variable geometry and skin cooling (using fuel as a heat sink). Its delta configuration meant a very high angle of attack on landing, necessitating a variable geometry nose for adequate pilot vision.

The SR-71 flew at much higher speed and altitude - this brought its own set of design challenges, notably with regard to heat dissipation and engine management. On the other hand, it carried only a crew of two and operating costs were secondary to operational capability.

Horses for courses. It's hard to compare a transport aircraft with a military reconnaissance aircraft. Pushed to vote, I would say that the SR-71 was more complex. But I would guess that its production cost and operating costs were much higher than those of Concorde.
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
 
vc10
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2001 4:13 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:10 pm

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 Hydraulics, air conditioning etc. In fact fuel was used first from the Auxiliary fuel tanks because it would be heated up by the skin and so reduce its use for cooling the system

little vc10
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:33 pm

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 complex features.
 
EconoBoy
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 12:10 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:25 am

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 obstacles to reaching and sustaining supersonic flight were overcome using empirical data and slide-rules.
 
wingscrubber
Posts: 806
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 1:38 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:27 am

Quoting David L (Reply 37):
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 complex features.

 bigthumbsup  yes 
Resident TechOps Troll
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3185
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:05 am

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 its back.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:39 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 40):
The SR-71 has a bonus in that it is carrying a D-21 drone on its back.

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. However, one was destroyed in a launch accident and the project was scrapped. When the M-21 was carrying the D-21 the pair was called the Mother and Daughter. After the destruction of the M-21 the D-21 drones were launched by a modified B-52.
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:07 pm

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 could a SR-71 typically sustain Mach 3, or the higher part of the Mach 2 range?
I suspect the requirement would be for it to do so for some period.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Sun Mar 26, 2006 1:44 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 42):
On a related note, how long could a SR-71 typically sustain Mach 3

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. That works out to an average speed of 1,588 miles per hour.

The 4.5 hour mission includes takeoff, refuel at 25,000 feet, climb to 78,000 feet, descend to 25,000 for refuel, climb to 83,000 feet, descend 25,000 feet for refuel, climb to 80,000 feet, descend and land.
 
User avatar
EGTESkyGod
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:29 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 40):
Come to the Museum of Flight in Seattle and you can see both airplanes at one location.

Same for the USS Intrepid in New York.
I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
 
Go3Team
Posts: 3156
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 1:19 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:24 am

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 44):
Same for the USS Intrepid in New York.

And the Udvar Hazy Museum at IAD.
Yay Pudding!
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 1849
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:17 am

Quoting Go3Team (Reply 45):
And the Udvar Hazy Museum at IAD.

This would be my choice, as you can also gawk at the Dash-80 while there, and the shuttle Enterprise and tons else ...

 Smile

(one of these days, I will visit this place)

- litz
 
User avatar
EGTESkyGod
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:42 pm

Quoting Go3Team (Reply 45):
Udvar Hazy Museum at IAD

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's, but I definately wouldn't say no to having a look around F-BVFA in Washington!
I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
 
wingscrubber
Posts: 806
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 1:38 am

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:25 pm

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...
Resident TechOps Troll
 
User avatar
EGTESkyGod
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: Which Is More Complex: Concorde Or Blackbird?

Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:33 pm

Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 48):
Duxford in cambridgeshire has Concorde 001

Careful now! It has Concorde 01, or 101! Concorde 001 (F-WTSS) is at Le Bourget alongside F-BTSD!
I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests