Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird - Origins & Evolution

Orionblamblam said:
foiling said:
(Now, among my top priorities, i am only short of quality 3-views of ... the Aerocon Wingship...
Click to expand...
Something I've wanted to tackle, but the references I've found have been either distressingly low-rez or irritatingly contradictory. Decent diagrams *were* made back in the day, but sadly I've not come across good enough quality copies to hope to produce reliably accurate diagrams of my own.
Click to expand...
 
foiling said:
(Now, among my top priorities, i am only short of quality 3-views of the ...the Aerocon Wingship,
Click to expand...

What the hell, I started work using the references on hand. Some inconsistencies in the original diagram, coupled with the monumentally low rez, leading to some uncertainties. But it seems to be coming together.
 

Attachments

  • wig wip.png
    wig wip.png
    56.2 KB · Views: 65
Question @Orionblamblam but IF remember correctly, aren't MOST of Lockheed products considered overrated and prone to malfunction or similiar issue?

Note : I am severely ignorant on the subject.
 
TheRejectionist said:
Question @Orionblamblam but IF remember correctly, aren't MOST of Lockheed products considered overrated and prone to malfunction or similiar issue?
Click to expand...

Lockheed products in the last several generations have tended to be technologically advanced, sometimes more advanced than entirely practical. F-22, F-35, AH-56 even F-104 were at the leading edge and had inevitable problems as a result. However, the F-104, SR-71, F-117 and others ended up being useful aircraft that put in decades of service.
 
Okay, now I'm trying to find out what an expander cycle turbojet is. All I can find is expander cycle rockets. Are they the same thing? And is there a difference between an ejector ramjet and a ducted rocket? Similarly air turborocket vs air turboramjet?
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
Orionblamblam said:
foiling said:
(Now, among my top priorities, i am only short of quality 3-views of ... the Aerocon Wingship...
Click to expand...
Something I've wanted to tackle, but the references I've found have been either distressingly low-rez or irritatingly contradictory. Decent diagrams *were* made back in the day, but sadly I've not come across good enough quality copies to hope to produce reliably accurate diagrams of my own.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Thanks fo sharing this link. I know the illustrations, but hope eventually to see much better. I am confident that i will; there is so much talent on this site.
 
Forest Green said:
A good read but more photographs would have made it better.
Click to expand...
Photographs would ahve made it prohobitively expensive. Besides, not a lot of photos available that haven;t already been published. The diagrams, though... those were largely new to the public.
 
I admire the work and efforts, but let's admit that Ubu now looks like a snake digesting one of those slow USAF F-102.

Someone calls a (fast) veterinarian!
image
 
Last edited:
Orionblamblam said:
Forest Green said:
A good read but more photographs would have made it better.
Click to expand...
Photographs would ahve made it prohobitively expensive. Besides, not a lot of photos available that haven;t already been published. The diagrams, though... those were largely new to the public.
Click to expand...
Sometimes the companies concerned will waive any costs for photographs with a no-fee reproduction agreement. I've seen one of those. It tends to help if you are a former employee, or good friends with relevant people inside the company, or if the book helps promote the company in a positive light.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Sometimes the companies concerned will waive any costs for photographs with a no-fee reproduction agreement. I've seen one of those. It tends to help if you are a former employee, or good friends with relevant people inside the company, or if the book helps promote the company in a positive light.
Click to expand...

That may all be true. But in the case of "SR-71," I had no photos that were really new or enlightening. Photos would have either had to replace text or diagrams, or expand the length of the book. I was unhappy with the first option, and the second option would have jacked up price for (in my opinion) no real added benefit. What I *would* have liked to have had is a bunch of brand new original color artwork depicting the various designs... but that would have not only had to involve the previously mentioned options of deletions or added pages, it would have also added substantial cost, as artists generally don't work for free for commercial products like this.

Speaking solely for myself: if I came across a book on the evolution and development of, say, the Lockheed SR-91 Aurora spyplane and it was full of photos that I've seen before, and at the same time I also find a similar history that was full of diagrams I hadn't seen before... so long as the diagrams are clear and trustworthy (unlike a *lot* of garbage books I've seen with craptacular low-rez drawings snagged from crappy online articles with no provenance and low trustworthiness), I'm buying the book with the diagrams. Every time. Maybe the photo book will sell better, I don't know... but that's not the book I want, either to buy or to create.

Granted, if I came across a photo album of SR-91 photos... sure, what the hell, I'll publish it, so long as doing so won't get my ass in a sling with the feds.
 
I agree, mostly. Picture-heavy books (e.g. 75 Years of the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works by Jim Goodall) generally leave me cold. The Secret Projects type books do benefit from desk model photos and a smattering of artwork to help visualise the designs better. Given the availability of material, there wasn't much alternative other than CGI which, like you say, is expensive.
 
I saw a copy of this book in Smith's yesterday, one of three on the shelf. I have seen a few books of this ytpe in Hasda be but they tend to be few and far between.
 
Another question. The NASP 'Mach 25' scramjet. Can a scramjet really work at Mach 25, or was the idea to switch over to rocket power later?
 
Forest Green said:
Another question. The NASP 'Mach 25' scramjet. Can a scramjet really work at Mach 25, or was the idea to switch over to rocket power later?
Click to expand...
Very unlikely IMO. My guess is that most of the imagery produced of even the later 'converged' NASP were equivalent to the initial B-2 illustrations that omitted the exhausts.

Looking here,


Scroll down to Flateric's post at #15

NASA Langley, TDT Tunnell, November 1992 - NASP model is mutating again (if that really NASP-related).
Interesting, that later ARSLS (Advanced Reusable Small Launch System) craft looks pretty close to wind tunnel model.

ARSLS, even as a two-stage concept, has a linear aerospike rocket.

ARSLS-3views.jpg
...and #34.

Actually, with the high level of probability, *this* is final X-30 configuration.
At least Pratt&Whitney paper authors state so.

Again, this looks like it has a rocket, suggested by the complication in the trailing edge.

a202.jpg
 
Forest Green said:
Another question. The NASP 'Mach 25' scramjet. Can a scramjet really work at Mach 25, or was the idea to switch over to rocket power later?
Click to expand...
No scramjet has worked past Mach 10, I believe. And even if you *could* get an airbreathing engine to work at Mach 25... it would be fundamentally insane to do so. At Mach 25, you want to spend as little time as humanly possible in the air. Because that nonsense will turn your plane into a shower of molten droplets.

What you probably want to do is get to Mach ~10 in a climb, shoot out of the sensible atmosphere, and fire up that linear aerospike rocket engine in the tail to push you to orbit.
 
Orionblamblam said:
What you probably want to do is get to Mach ~10 in a climb, shoot out of the sensible atmosphere, and fire up that linear aerospike rocket engine in the tail to push you to orbit.
Click to expand...
Assuming you can sustain Mach 10 at 110,000 feet, or thereabouts, that's enough kinetic energy to zoom up to over 1,600 km. Yes, switching to SI units when it becomes astronautics.

I don't know how high up you get before the scramjet runs out of oxygen, but it'll be a heck of a difference to the performance needed of the rocket. Especially since you're now going to be lighting the thing as close to vacuum as makes no difference.
 
Don't forget that as height is increased, the Scramjet would need more air hence more speed to find enough oxygen to sustain a combustion. So, there is certainly something like a corner stone with Scramjet propulsion that would force you to switch to rocket propulsion anyway.
 
Wasn't there some article going around saying there's an engine that can work at Mach 16 now though? Sodramjet?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom