Page 5 – Key Publishing

bdn12

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 13 posts - 61 through 73 (of 73 total)

← 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Posts
April 2, 2008 at 5:00 am in reply to: What Aircraft Would you get Running Again? #1228093

bdn12
Participant

XR220 TSR.2 Without a doubt, not only did she never prove her stuff, but compared to the P61 she’s a LOT rarer (only two left) and XR222 can hardly be classed as a complete aircraft! so TSR.2 Definitely to prove that we really did have a world beating aircraft

I know this is hard to believe coming from an American, but I believe that the TSR.2 looks better than any aircraft in our Air Force today and is the second best-looking jet behind the SR-71. I would love to hear those two Olympus’s going again and on something other than Concorde.

March 25, 2008 at 5:38 pm in reply to: In preservation, what aircraft types have you worked on? #1235842

bdn12
Participant

TSR.2? Wow. Is it in good condition SJMF?

March 5, 2008 at 3:44 am in reply to: Cosford museum #1248369

bdn12
Participant

I’d love to know the state of the TSR-2. Does it have engines in it? How good of condition is it in?

February 27, 2008 at 4:15 pm in reply to: World Air Speed Record holders – survivors #1255238

bdn12
Participant

Here is my attempt at a list of some of the more recent ones prior to the X-43 –

July 76 SR 71a 2189mph
May 65 YF12A 2070mph
July 63 E-166 1665mph
Nov 61 F4H-1F 1606mph
Dec 59 F106 1525mph
Oct 59 E-66 1483mph
May 58 F-104 1404mph
Dec 57 F101A 1207mph
Mar 56 FD2 1132mph
Aug 55 F100C 822mph
Oct 53 F100A 755mph
Oct 53 Skyray 752mph
Sep 53 Swift 735mph
Sep 53 Hunter 727mph
July 53 F86D 715mph

Wow. I find it amazing how it’s been over 30 years (really 40 since the Blackbird set records before ’76) since we’ve had manned, take-off under own power, speed record. Just shows how amazing Kelly Johnson and his team were.

February 17, 2008 at 11:02 pm in reply to: Sukhoi T-4 #1266344

bdn12
Participant

That’s a good point flanker. Never really thought of how much stuff could be written in Russian.

February 17, 2008 at 9:20 pm in reply to: Sukhoi T-4 #1266494

bdn12
Participant

Wow. Thats some impressive footage. Too bad there’s not too much info. on the web about the T-4 though. It seems like every site says more or less the same thing.

January 30, 2008 at 3:35 am in reply to: Museum Aircraft-flyable? #1286581

bdn12
Participant

Thank you everybody for your replies-they are all very informative and I have learned much new information. It seems like it’s not only the issue of if it’s ABLE to fly, but also if it’s ALLOWED to fly. So a static aircraft might theoretically be capable of flying with work done to it, but if the parts aren’t certified and every little part inspected, then it really doesn’t matter because the authorities won’t let it take to the air.

January 8, 2008 at 5:50 am in reply to: Which Aircraft Would You Like to Own if You Had an Infinite Budget? #1313870

bdn12
Participant

I like that idea about the TSR.2 Nashio. Besides the airframes being zero hour, there are also some zero time olympus turbojets hanging around in the UK. But for me, I’ll take the SR-71 Blackbird. There are still engines and some were flown into museums and even have their engines still installed, so with a good amount of money, they could be brought back to flight.

January 1, 2008 at 1:05 am in reply to: Could a "Joint Asiatic Fighter" be developed? #2527208

bdn12
Participant

No way. If you are thinking of them making something akin to the Eurofighter, that’s not going to happen. European countries are very closely aligned, especially because of the European Union. I feel Europe could integrate so well because the countries are so small-Asia is HUGE. India is almost as large as the EU itself, and China is much larger. For all intense and purposes, one could count the EU as a country in itself, which is why so many defense programs in Europe involve more than one country. Getting countries like India, China, South Korea, etc. to work together on a fighter would be extremely hard, if not impossible, also because of many political disagreements.

December 31, 2007 at 3:36 pm in reply to: Super Hornet buy to be reconsidered. #2527631

bdn12
Participant

For those of who you think Australia “needs” the F-22, that is ridiculous. What unfriendly neighbors can even match your air force now? The country everyone brings up is Indonesia- are they serious? They have about 6 Su-27’s and 30’s. Come on now. Countries just want the Raptor to say they are the best and take pride in having the best fighter in the world. That aircraft is ours only just as the F-117, B-2, SR-71, etc. How many times do we need a high ranking official to state the F-22 isn’t for export for Japan, Israel, and Australia to realize they can’t purchase it?

November 21, 2007 at 4:23 pm in reply to: Mig-25 vs. SR-71 and XB-70 vs. T-4 #2548271

bdn12
Participant

Sean,

bdn 12..

The relevance of the Mach is questionable….I think that the XB-70 demonstrated something like 17mins of M3 flight over its career.

And as I stated in my response it was also clear that there was capability beyond that demonstrated. However as it was NOT explored it will remain a ‘potential’ advantage, not a demonstrated one.

So we have a potential performance (and range) being used to bash a routinely demonstrated performance to say which is better….:(

I’m not bashing Concorde at all, it was an amazing aircraft and technological leap. I’m just saying that if they weren’t so careful about the XB-70, it very likely would have had much more M3 flight. Also, the two prototypes together logged almost 2 hours of M3 flight: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-084-DFRC.html

I believe that the Blackbird and Valkyrie were the only true Mach 3 aircraft because they were the only ones that could maintain that speed without the engines or airframe being destroyed as on the Mig-25. Most supersonic aircraft top out at around M2.2 because aluminum can’t bear the heat much past that speed. This is why the SR-71 was made of titanium and the XB-70 used stainless steel honeycomb panels and some titanium. There is a reason the Valkyrie and Blackbird look so much different than any other aircraft…

November 21, 2007 at 5:56 am in reply to: Mig-25 vs. SR-71 and XB-70 vs. T-4 #2548481

bdn12
Participant

[QUOTE=michelf;1184622]

The XB-70 did have a supersonic cruise capability…with AV/2 demonstrating a max of 32 mins at M2.8 and above (7 mins above M2.9) if memory serves. However this is still short of the 2h+ endurance of Concorde…OK the XB -70 never got that far down its development cycle so more was no doubt possible.

First of all, while the Concorde might have had more endurance, the XB-70 cruised almost a Mach faster. Also, the XB-70 never demonstrated its full capabilities even in prototype form. Of course, AV/2 crashed, but AV/1 hadn’t exactly been stretched to its limits. It was limited by people to Mach 2.5 after a small part of the wing came off after a flight above M3. If they would have let it continue M3 flight, there is no telling what it could have done. It also had a greater range than Concorde at 4500 miles.

November 17, 2007 at 5:45 pm in reply to: Mig-25 vs. SR-71 and XB-70 vs. T-4 #2549389

bdn12
Participant

Though the SR-71 didn’t overfly the USSR, it still gathered information because it could take pictures in Soviet territory from its side cameras. Also, it was definitely not a failure because it gathered so much intelligence from North Korea, Vietnam, etc. It should still be in service, but of course cost kills everything…
Author

Posts

Viewing 13 posts - 61 through 73 (of 73 total)

← 1 2 3 4 5