over G“Speed” and “chaotic” goes with some minds as well.
what you want, to start to say “entropic relation on fluid dynamics” or “reinolds number”, hell no body would understand me…
Lockheed Blackbird. Beyond the secret missions
obviously with that title you have a best seller :rolleyes:
over GSooooo simple.” over G, you tend to induce headache. Now get with “the programme”: It’s called “spell checker
man, all the technology is based in simpler concepts, that is the trick to understand at least something, is obvious that the blackbird design is veeeeeeeeery complicated i post that before in this threat, but the basic concepts are very simplee
over GNow why did the AF-12 design use fins? Because of the cut-back chines. The R-12, which is what the SR-71 was originally known as in-
i think that you didnt read this
“isnt very wise to design a M3 plane with multiple SW generators, actually that was the reason why the designers putted tha huge fin in the f12s”
the f12 still needed nose stalilization,i have posted that before,
better supersonic design than the f12, actually the 12s chine were very sharper and rectangular to compensate in something the problems on stability by the nose
dont be puritan, you see small pathetc chines and put like a strong argument
not an interceptor, why would it have had the same layout as the AF-12
aerodynamics improvements, what you are saying that the f12 is stealth?? :rolleyes:
having trouble with this is beyond me. Why is your observation, made almost 60 years after the plane was designed
because the people only see details and not the whole design, because im not an aviation fan like you -i dont have any problem whit that but lets talk seriously- , and because those myths sells good
over Gimproved aerodynamic properties. No, that isn’t why they were added. The design approved by the CIA had no chines
if it would have not chined nose the plane would be more unstable,it would needed the fins, and ,stabilization is something problematic on reconaissence missions, that is the simple fact, do you realy think that they would be worried by a stupid chine only by a veeeery marginal rcs reduction???, or because the flight performace???, isnt very wise to design a M3 plane with multiple SW generators, actually that was the reason why the designers putted tha huge fin in the f12s :rolleyes:
Like I said, Lockheed was even wary of the chines because it was felt they might adversely affect stability, even though this was discovered to not be the case. It
in dont know that tale, im only say what i see in the design develpment, a12 no fins, chined nose;f12 fins, cilindrical nose; sr71 chined nose , no fins, that is over any kind of tale…..
over GThen why were the chines added with the intent of reducing RCS? Why were the fins canted with the intent of reducing RCS? Incidentially, Lockheed was initially concerned that adding the chines would cause an adverse effect on stability; they ended up improving it.
well, well, well
sr71 chined nose=not fins, f12 conventinal nose= fins stabilzators
sr71 chined nose=not fins, f12 conventinal nose= fins stabilzators
sr71 chined nose=not fins, f12 conventinal nose= fins stabilzators
sr71 chined nose=not fins, f12 conventinal nose= fins stabilzators
sr71 chined nose=not fins, f12 conventinal nose= fins stabilzators
sr71 chined nose=not fins, f12 conventinal nose= fins stabilzators
……..now you understand?????
from the start the f12 wasnt an stealth machine that is quite obvious, but it use those canted fins, could be a stealth feature, but i think that is an aerodynamic feature -i could have some theories, but im not sure-, because is absurd to worry about the lateral rcs with such cilindrical shape ,fins, etc..you only see details but not the whole design
over Gsferin, dont be ridicoulus, i wont start with that stupid argument “im studing that” or “i know more than you”, because i have learned a loooot from guys that arent engineers or didnt study that, i know that you are a nationalistic biased poster, hell i think that the 80-90% of the guys in this forum are, but please do a little more research, because is easy for the ingorant people to believe that a f17 can sustain 60º aoa at 50 knots, the f22 isnt delta ,the f14 can pull 7gs at M2, the f22 is an stealth design as the sr71, the blackbird nose brings 90% in rcs reduction etc…. all for the national pride….and to sell books
im not an aviation fan, i mean i dont know if the B version of the X plane is 2.57cm wider or if the U version has 3 pylons instead 2, for me such conversations are irrelevant, acually i hate such debate, im just like o talk about desing and how diferent engieeners teams reach solutions from diferent problems, always under a scientific perspective
now, please try to research some of the mother nature laws and engienering basics, just how, how works, because if you dont, you will still blinded by politic-consume myths, but well if you like that, what can i do??? :rolleyes:
funny is that the f12 also had these canted intakes cones with such conventional nose :rolleyes: , just simple, the sr71 didnt needed the radar , so they used the better nose design for aerodynamics reasons, the plane has nothing of stealth features, only RAM, and ferrumpaint, nothing more
which had a cylindrical fuselage and engine pods, a single vertical tail and conical inlets. All bad ideas from an RCS point of view.
eehhhhhh, that isnt the sr71???? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ;), and look i dont need your fan-books :rolleyes:
over Ganyway, please research some aerodynamics basics, again we are talking about an M3 machine, only the sw is enough radar return source, but again some people think that a plane is designed to be stealth before the fly requierements, and thats ridicoulus to a M3 plane
but i know that is a myth very posisionated in the popular minds, anyway, please do alittle more research
over GIf you researched the design history of the aircraft, you’d know why the chines were added.
ahhhh yes that 90% rcs reduction….. not??????? :rolleyes:
over GSimply put, they added chines for RCS reasons, gained some stability as a bonus
so the stability in a M3 plane was less important than the rcs????, specially a fine a costly reconnaissance machine??? tsss…., the nose is cilidrical chined, it dont have special rcs features, again it looks mysterious and strange, some words that are easely confused with……..stealth :rolleyes:
over Gsferin, i explained that before, hell i guess that the explanation was for you!!!, is about the shape of the shockwave (sw), look, its simple, if you have a conical sw (in conventional nose) the flow is more chaotic at such speeds, because there is more probability to have pressure diferences arround the “cone” at all directions, the chined nose is nore stable, because there isnt so much “uncertanly” in were the difference presure appears, the sw has different shape and actually it help “holding” the nose and the airframe by the pressure forces and location
also have to do with the interaction between that sw and the others arround the rest of the airframe
over Gsfrerin,sferin,sferin, speed dont mean always supersonic performance, performance requierements also are the behavior of the machine at such speeds, temperature, sustained drag ,lift etc.. ,also the sr71 has not a sharp chine nose, is a chined cilindrical nose, and have nothing to do with stealth features, the plane has huge intakes, persistent simetric geometry, and clearly better supersonic design than the f12, actually the 12s chine were very sharper and rectangular to compensate in something the problems on stability by the nose
is funny, when the people see the sr71 only see that chined nose, but not all the design :rolleyes:
now please dont start with that magical reduction of 90% in the rcs only by the nose design :rolleyes:
over Gohhh greate, the problem is again the lack of minimal knowledge, like the planar form of the sr71, everybody looks it and say “its stealth!!!” , but the reason is the problem in the dilatation due the temperature in the titanium
the sr71 is a very complex piece of engineering, unlike that johnson “phrase” (its a phrase????) “keep simple idiot”, it was designed for speed not for stealth, now tell me SOC, which plane needed fins (no matter which kind)…..the f12!! not????..tss
and you are worried about the rcs of a stupid fin when you have a huge cilindrical simetric (again) size body?????….comon…
in the 60s-70s the radars had lower frecuency than todays sistems, so that “it was much stealthier than today” argument is absurd
the problem is that some guys think that a plane must be stealth before it could barely flight :rolleyes: , so then come these “its steath,its stealth,its stealth,” arguments, is like a a fashion
over Gthere is a favorable myth on the sr71, and an negative myth on the mig25, the belenko claims were later denied by confirmations from different sources, that was discussed before, that was propaganda,as i said belenko was a traitor selling books, nothing more…
anyway i dont want to start that debate again, so you guys can think whatever you want :rolleyes:
djcross, dont be ridicoulus…..
over Gthe graphic is ridicoulus, great, so the M3 plane is incoming and only then the pilots remember to take off to cover the patrol areas :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
isnt sooo simple to fly at M3 and change the direction to avoid sams missiles, at big speeds althougt the trayectorie change is relative big -well not sooo big by the lower g limits and the energy loses- you still keep well inside the missile circle range, so a direct path to the sam isnt very wise, but always you can fly arround the sams limts
the air combat is difficult, some guys think that is only to press a button and problem solved especially to the fans -no matter if is western or not-
and the link is crap…belenko,belenko,belenko.. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
over Gwe don’t. But comparing the MiG-21’s intake with that of the A-12 series is ludicrous. The OXCART’s intake spikes are canted inward and downward, so are the intake lips. Yes, the intakes remain the primary reflectors
tssss, what you think???, pointing the radar with angled orientation will drecrease in big proportion the rcs of the 21s intake????, and especially will work in such huge symetric sr71 intakes???????? there are other reasons, like avoid aerodynamic interaction ot even shockwave-ride concepts, or reduce of sustainded drag, and again stabilization, tss a simmetric cone pointing down is stealth, yea sure… :rolleyes:
rcs is relative with the shape but also with the topo-surface and frontal size, all factors are combinated some are issues in the safe reflection other works in “weakening” the signal and intensity radar “peaks”
Sign In
