Mach 5.1 aircraft

Discussion in 'The Club House' started by Jagermeister, May 4, 2013.

  1. Jagermeister

    Jagermeister New Member

    6,811
    1
    0
  2. ScottA

    ScottA FAA licensed bugsmasher Lifetime Supporter

    7,141
    0
    36
    Yowzer! That's fast.
     

  3. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,635
    834
    113
    Let's just hope that our isolationist, anti military POTUS has enough common sense to finalize this system and get several thousand of them deployed ASAP.

    The possibilities here are endless. Not just as a strike craft, but an almost real time recon vehicle and possibly as a launch platform for an advanced missile interceptor.

    And think of the psychological value.:D:D
     
  4. 303tom

    303tom Well-Known Member

    5,254
    195
    63
    Hell yes thats fast, they estimate that the speed of a Scramjet could theoretically reach 15 to 25 times the speed of sound...........
     
  5. DFlynt

    DFlynt New Member

    3,038
    0
    0
  6. stratrider

    stratrider New Member

    1,590
    1
    0
  7. kbd512

    kbd512 Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,732
    88
    48
    A functioning scramjet "wave rider" capable of hypersonic speeds is "leap ahead" technology.

    This will mean we can make long range, fuel-efficient missiles with very simple, from a manufacturing standpoint, propulsion technology.

    The pilot is a limiting factor for manned aircraft, but I can see high-speed recon drone overflights being a definite possibility. That is, until our enemies perfect working rail guns or DEW's.

    We already have rail guns and DEW's, but we're just starting to deploy them.
     
  8. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,635
    834
    113
    I have to laugh when I think of the reports from 10-15 years ago about the USAF testing the "Aurora" (which, of course, didn't exist) at a secret base in Nevada which also didn't exist..:D

    The AF tried to get the UFO crowd interested to "explain" it, but most retired USAF pilots and techies didn't buy into that.
     
  9. kbd512

    kbd512 Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,732
    88
    48
    The Groom Lake facility exists, I just don't think the Air Force has "UFO's" there. It does or did, however, test a lot of unconventional and highly classified aviation-related technology there.

    At one point in time, the Air Force actually tested "flying saucers". The technology was abandoned because the engines of the day weren't powerful enough to make flying saucers supersonic, even though the disc lifting body technology is or should be the most efficient airframe form for what the Air Force wanted to use the disc lifting body for. We have far better and more efficient turbine technology now, but so far as I know they've not shown any further interest in testing that type of airframe. There are probably more efficient technologies available now for supersonic flight, like the "wave rider" airframes.

    If memory serves, the XB-70 and to a lesser extent the SR-71, were the first airframes to use compression lift to boost efficiency at supersonic speeds. By designing hypersonic airframes with appropriate lifting surfaces, the effect of compression lift further improves fuel efficiency and lessens the amount of thrust it takes to keep the airframe hypersonic.

    I'm very interested in what they want to use the technology for. You could potentially engineer lower cost single-stage-to-orbit vehicles with scramjets. They tested a variety of boosting technologies in decades past- everything from conventional rockets to carrier aircraft to special electromagnetic acceleration ramps (rail guns).
     
  10. ScottA

    ScottA FAA licensed bugsmasher Lifetime Supporter

    7,141
    0
    36
    Towards the end of his career in the USAF, my father ran into another officer who he had gone through some of his early training with. Turns out, he had eventually wound up working in "black projects".

    The only thing he could tell him about his job was that anything the Air Force is willing to let people know about, they are testing technology 25 years in the future.
     
  11. ScottA

    ScottA FAA licensed bugsmasher Lifetime Supporter

    7,141
    0
    36
  12. 303tom

    303tom Well-Known Member

    5,254
    195
    63
    You got that right, the X-15 was a rocket with a range of less than 300 miles. The Scramjet is a air breathing engine. You want to talk top of the mark, there is the SR-71, 2900 miles at Mach 3.3+, it has out run rockets fired at it. The Scramjet is leaps beyond that even, in air breathing engines...........
     
  13. -06

    -06 New Member

    134
    0
    0
    Last edited: May 6, 2013
  14. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,635
    834
    113
    You can bet they didn't retire the SR-71 unless they had something better already deployed.

    If they're willing to talk about the wave rider, it's very near deployment, (Or already in limited deployment) and it's replacement is on the drawing boards.
     
  15. kbd512

    kbd512 Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,732
    88
    48
    You left out the part where it ran into its own cannon shells. Apparently if you're gonna fire cannon shells from a perfectly good airplane it's a good idea to make sure that the BB's are flying substantially faster than the aircraft they're shot out of. Apparently those slide rules don't help when you misplace a zero somewhere.

    It's pretty funny that they were worried about it being shot down with a missile. It would've taken the Russians longer to track and acquire a lock on it than it would've been inside the engagement envelope of anything they had to launch at it.

    I also like the fact that it was made with Russian Titanium. Nothing like building weapons with the material that the enemy makes for you.
     
  16. kbd512

    kbd512 Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,732
    88
    48
    They retired the SR-71 because Keyhole was providing better imagery once the camera (lens technology, actually) was of sufficient quality to negate the utility of the airplane.

    That said, it was a damn impressive feat of engineering and science.
     
  17. DFlynt

    DFlynt New Member

    3,038
    0
    0
    The one that has me wondering is the X-37, I really wonder what it was doing the 6 months or so it was up in space on the 2 missions it has flown.
     
  18. kbd512

    kbd512 Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,732
    88
    48
    It's flown three missions, so far as I know.

    My guess is simple spying, which is what the Air Force, CIA, and NSA are traditionally most interested in.
     
  19. DFlynt

    DFlynt New Member

    3,038
    0
    0
    Possible it was keeping a close eye on Iran or something, seems it would be easier to move it into place than moving one of the spy satellites
     
  20. ScottA

    ScottA FAA licensed bugsmasher Lifetime Supporter

    7,141
    0
    36
    That could be. Short term orbits compared to the satellites means it could burn more fuel moving around.