Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: BaldEagl on November 20, 2009, 07:46:13 AM
-
I was just watching the CBS Early Show and the weather guy took a ride on an Air Force plane that can reportedly reach the highest altitude of any plane built; 70,000 feet.
Aside from the cool photos which looked more like they were taken from the space shuttle than an airplane (they clearly showed the curvature of the Earth) this got me to thinking about the 163 altitude challenge on these boards a few moths ago. I personally took the 163 to 94,000 feet during that challenge and if the plane hadn't dissapeared (it just totally went away at 90,000 feet) I likey would have gone higher. So I did some digging and found out on Century of Flight that the absolute ceiling of the Me 163 was 54,000 feet.
I understand this is a trivial matter and that practical application in the game makes this irrelevant but considering the quest for accuracy found in this forum in particular I thought it worth thowing out for consideration as a fix. What I don't know is if this is related to the 163's particular flight model or if it's related to AH's atmospheric modeling (if they even do that?). Maybe this was already fixed in one of the recent updates? It would be interesting to see more of the plane-set tested against absolute ceilings to see if there's a commonality here or if this is an isolated incedent.
-
Hey BE. I actually did SOME in game testing.
I took a few of the faster fighters up as high as I could and I tried to dive them to transonic/supersonic speeds. The ceilings seem approximately what they should be - around 30-50k (with a plane like the Ta152 coming in at around 50k). I did not test the 163 however.
Coincidentally, with the dive tests, the 152 was the only that went transonic. But I don't know if AH models transonic aero.
-
Sort of unrelated BE but did it say what the flight endurance was for a 163 from engine start to cutoff??? It seems to me that our 163's last too long before going to glide mode.
Just did a Google and it stated (by a pilot that flew them) 7 minutes of powered flight was the "tech spec" and 5 minutes was the rule, hardly the 163 we see in AH.
-
I believe the Me163 fuel burn was adjusted in a recent update.
Boomerlu I hope you started at the 30k field in the TA map.
-
Boomerlu I hope you started at the 30k field in the TA map.
LOL no, I was bored and had to do some studying but wanted to do some Aces High testing in the background. So while I read my book, I had my plane on autoclimb. Whenever I felt like taking a break from studying, I just dove my plane.
-
Have you done this since the Me-163 was updated?
I doubt many of you have tested it like this recently, its changed.
Strip
-
163 fuel consumption used to decrease with alt, like the jets did. This (and so many other things) were changed with the FM update.
It gets about 7 minutes now, and totally handles differently. Feels more like a kick in the pants for that 7 minutes.
-
Sort of unrelated BE but did it say what the flight endurance was for a 163 from engine start to cutoff??? It seems to me that our 163's last too long before going to glide mode.
Just did a Google and it stated (by a pilot that flew them) 7 minutes of powered flight was the "tech spec" and 5 minutes was the rule, hardly the 163 we see in AH.
According to Century of Flight it was 6 minutes so that seems about right. Here's the link:
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Messerschmitt%20Komet.htm
-
Six to seven minutes continuous at full power.....the real thing was throttle-able and restartable.
Strip
-
I was just watching the CBS Early Show and the weather guy took a ride on an Air Force plane that can reportedly reach the highest altitude of any plane built; 70,000 feet.
Guess he was in a YF-12A which could reach 80,000ft or maybe it was a Mikoyan/Gurevitch E-266M that reached 37,650 m.
-
Guess he was in a YF-12A which could reach 80,000ft or maybe it was a Mikoyan/Gurevitch E-266M that reached 37,650 m.
2-seater U-2 (whatever it's called)?
Saw a similar vid on youtoob or somewhere a little while back>
Six to seven minutes continuous at full power.....the real thing was throttle-able and restartable.
Strip
OK. Small problem....
7 minutes in the MA, right now, right? At 2x fuel burn, doesn't that mean the 163 is modeled with 14 minutes worth of fuel?
I'm sure it's a concession for gameplay in the MA, and I'm glad for it, but... Hmmmmmm.....
wrongway
-
HTC has hard-coded the fuel burn not to accept multipliers on the 163.
You can see this for yourself offline, as setting fuel burn to 0 will not increase the burn time.
So yes, that's a concession because of the already-short lifespan.
-
http://www.wimp.com/breathtakingfootage/ (http://www.wimp.com/breathtakingfootage/)
2-seater U-2 (whatever it's called)?
Saw a similar vid on youtoob or somewhere a little while back>
OK. Small problem....
7 minutes in the MA, right now, right? At 2x fuel burn, doesn't that mean the 163 is modeled with 14 minutes worth of fuel?
I'm sure it's a concession for gameplay in the MA, and I'm glad for it, but... Hmmmmmm.....
wrongway
-
I was just watching the CBS Early Show and the weather guy took a ride on an Air Force plane that can reportedly reach the highest altitude of any plane built; 70,000 feet.
I wonder where that show gets its facts, the SR-71 had an official ceiling of 85,000 feet, and pilots later said that the ceiling is closer to 115,000 feet.
-
I believe the plane in question might be the RQ-4 Global Hawk. If so, this Altitude Record is for Unmanned Probes/Flight (UAV's). The Global Hawk already holds the Trans-Pacific Crossing from Edwards AFB to Adelaide, Australia in 22 hours.
Just trying to shed some light, before some get carried away.
-
Considering the fact that the Me163 Komet had no provision for pressurisation, I wonder how many accidents were caused by pilot blackout in the steep climb? At the least, how many eardrums were perforated?
:cool:
-
163 fuel consumption used to decrease with alt, like the jets did. This (and so many other things) were changed with the FM update.
It gets about 7 minutes now, and totally handles differently. Feels more like a kick in the pants for that 7 minutes.
I like it better now. With proper throttle management you can probably get an extra 5 minutes of combat time. Sure it doesn't turn like a zero anymore, but I'd rather have more combat time.
-
I was just watching the CBS Early Show and the weather guy took a ride on an Air Force plane that can reportedly reach the highest altitude of any plane built; 70,000 feet.
Actually the U2 has a ceiling of 85,000+ and the Sr-71 is reported to fly as high as 100,000 ft.
-
Actually the U2 has a ceiling of 85,000+ and the Sr-71 is reported to fly as high as 100,000 ft.
There was a guy I met a few years ago. He had a friend who flew the SR-71. Now I dont have any proof, but he told me stories about this pilot that flew the SR-71. Based on his stories, no one really knows for a fact how fast the Blackbird can go. No one has ever tried to run on full power to see how much faster it can fly. Also, the SR-71 can fly much higher than 100,000 feet. The pilot had taken the plane so high up that the engines quit running because of lack of atmosphere for combustion in the engines.
Dont take my word on this, but what Im telling you guys is what the SR-71 pilot had spoken of.
-
I belive that before mentioned Russian plane MIG 25 ( E-155 OR E-266 not sure of the designation)
holds that official altitude record at 155 000 ft
-
There was a guy I met a few years ago. He had a friend who flew the SR-71. Now I dont have any proof, but he told me stories about this pilot that flew the SR-71. Based on his stories, no one really knows for a fact how fast the Blackbird can go. No one has ever tried to run on full power to see how much faster it can fly. Also, the SR-71 can fly much higher than 100,000 feet. The pilot had taken the plane so high up that the engines quit running because of lack of atmosphere for combustion in the engines.
Dont take my word on this, but what Im telling you guys is what the SR-71 pilot had spoken of.
Mach 3.5 is probably a pretty realistic number. The limiting factor is thermal, not drag. The windscreen frame and LE of the vertical tails hit some righteous temperatures at those speeds.
BTW, no one has mentioned the X-15. Granted it was rocket-powered and air-launched, with minimal endurance, but the records it set were absolutely staggering for it's time (and now ;) ) Looking strictly at Speed/Altitude performance, everything else that's ever flown (with the possible exception of the mythical "Aurora") is a Piper Cub by comparison.
-
I belive that before mentioned Russian plane MIG 25 ( E-155 OR E-266 not sure of the designation)
holds that official altitude record at 155 000 ft
If you'll check, you'll probably find that that's not a sustained altitude, but the result of a zoom climb to stall. Same method the F-104's and "Streak Eagle" used to employ. Still an extremely impressive number though. :aok
-
you where right looks like sustained altitude is 74,000ft but it is an awsome plane read the part about Iraqi use of them during first gulf war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig-25
-
takes some serious power to out run F15's !
-
I believe the plane in question might be the RQ-4 Global Hawk. If so, this Altitude Record is for Unmanned Probes/Flight (UAV's). The Global Hawk already holds the Trans-Pacific Crossing from Edwards AFB to Adelaide, Australia in 22 hours.
Just trying to shed some light, before some get carried away.
Um... are you implying that a CBS Early Show host took a ride IN a Global Hawk? :huh
-
Um... are you implying that a CBS Early Show host took a ride IN a Global Hawk? :huh
That's what I was thinking because they did actually showed him riding in it.
-
No he flew in a U-2.
-
Mach 3.5 is probably a pretty realistic number. The limiting factor is thermal, not drag. The windscreen frame and LE of the vertical tails hit some righteous temperatures at those speeds.
BTW, no one has mentioned the X-15. Granted it was rocket-powered and air-launched, with minimal endurance, but the records it set were absolutely staggering for it's time (and now ;) ) Looking strictly at Speed/Altitude performance, everything else that's ever flown (with the possible exception of the mythical "Aurora") is a Piper Cub by comparison.
The limiting factor is usually compressor inlet temperature, the maximum temperature being 427 degrees Celsius.
Very little is mentioned about airframe heating in the flight manual even...
Strip
-
I see this with alot of planes, i personally took a B17 to 37k once, at that atlitude the crew would be in very bad condition and unable to function.
But i dont think it i hight enought priority that HTC will fix this.
-
There was a guy I met a few years ago. He had a friend who flew the SR-71. Now I dont have any proof, but he told me stories about this pilot that flew the SR-71. Based on his stories, no one really knows for a fact how fast the Blackbird can go. No one has ever tried to run on full power to see how much faster it can fly. Also, the SR-71 can fly much higher than 100,000 feet. The pilot had taken the plane so high up that the engines quit running because of lack of atmosphere for combustion in the engines.
Dont take my word on this, but what Im telling you guys is what the SR-71 pilot had spoken of.
Oh I am sure it does fly higher than 100,000 ft , considering that space starts at 62 miles of the surface of earth and 100,000 ft is only about 18-19 miles . However the official altitude record is 85135 set by the SR-71, some accounts say 85068 ft but the record was set in 1976. I imagine that as long as the SR was able to have the record of speed and altitude that it did so to just out do the existing record and not to reveal it's true flight envelope.
-
I doubt that very much....
The SR-71 had very specific flight parameters, violating them usually meant loss of airframe.
There is no stall in the classic sense where an abrupt loss in lift would occur at critical angle of attack. (See Figure 6-2, Lift vs Angle of Attack.) Instead, a nose-up pitching moment develops as angle of attack increases, which becomes uncontrollable (even with full nose-down elevon) as the critical angle of attack boundary is reached. (See Figure 6-3, Subsonic Critical Angle of Attack Boundary.) An uncontrollable pitch-up will not occur until after limit angle of attack as given in Section V is reached. The SAS will tend to maintain apparent stability about all three axis until pitch-up occurs, then aircraft control is lost with little or no warning.
The AoA figures in Section V:
6 degrees with manual inlet above 70,000 feet
8 degrees supersonic
10 degrees subsonic, above FL250
14 degrees below FL250
The SR-71 was a very finicky aircraft, requiring gentle control inputs under very specific conditions. Things like a zoom climb would have been very risky, almost assuredly violating the AoA. This film on Youtube shows how easily the SR-71 can be upset, resulting in structural failure upon pitch up. Notice that once the AoA is exceeded the aircraft starts to disintegrate from aerodynamic forces.
Also, above about 85,000 feet the aircraft becomes thrust limited and cannot climb higher while maintaining speed.
Strip
-
I doubt that very much....
The SR-71 had very specific flight parameters, violating them usually meant loss of airframe.
The AoA figures in Section V:
The SR-71 was a very finicky aircraft, requiring gentle control inputs under very specific conditions. Things like a zoom climb would have been very risky, almost assuredly violating the AoA. This film on Youtube shows how easily the SR-71 can be upset, resulting in structural failure upon pitch up. Notice that once the AoA is exceeded the aircraft starts to disintegrate from aerodynamic forces.
Also, above about 85,000 feet the aircraft becomes thrust limited and cannot climb higher while maintaining speed.
Strip
few people relize that many crashed in the deserts around Edwards AFB. I have a number of fragments from SR and YF-12 crash sites. I have a friend who works for NASA as a photographer and he has a control panel from an SR that he found at a crash site.
-
I was just watching the CBS Early Show and the weather guy took a ride on an Air Force plane that can reportedly reach the highest altitude of any plane built; 70,000 feet.
Aside from the cool photos which looked more like they were taken from the space shuttle than an airplane (they clearly showed the curvature of the Earth) this got me to thinking about the 163 altitude challenge on these boards a few moths ago. I personally took the 163 to 94,000 feet during that challenge and if the plane hadn't dissapeared (it just totally went away at 90,000 feet) I likey would have gone higher. So I did some digging and found out on Century of Flight that the absolute ceiling of the Me 163 was 54,000 feet.
I understand this is a trivial matter and that practical application in the game makes this irrelevant but considering the quest for accuracy found in this forum in particular I thought it worth thowing out for consideration as a fix. What I don't know is if this is related to the 163's particular flight model or if it's related to AH's atmospheric modeling (if they even do that?). Maybe this was already fixed in one of the recent updates? It would be interesting to see more of the plane-set tested against absolute ceilings to see if there's a commonality here or if this is an isolated incedent.
didn't the blackbird cruise at 80,000?
-
The published limit was 85,000 feet without the base commanders prior approval.
80,000 would probably be a close estimate....
Strip
-
The published limit was 85,000 feet without the base commanders prior approval.
80,000 would probably be a close estimate....
Strip
There was no need to fly any higher. The speed it flew at that height was enough to defeat any sam the Russians had and have.
-
Um... are you implying that a CBS Early Show host took a ride IN a Global Hawk? :huh
Read my post, I never said such a thing. I merely provided a simple fact of clarity of the OP. He flew in a U-2 and was allowed access to the RQ-4 Command Center in question.
Whether or not he scratched his nuts while making pancakes is unknown. I don't know if he shot a kitten, used it for a wheel chock or a speed bump calculator.
The only person that implied anything, was yourself.
-
See Rule #4
-
.
-
Um... are you implying that a CBS Early Show host took a ride IN a Global Hawk? :huh
No. He's not.
He quoted me. He replied to my reply.
2-seater U-2 (whatever it's called)?
Saw a similar vid on youtoob or somewhere a little while back>
Did I imply what the aircraft was as well? I put a ? in there, after all.
Mash was answering the ? I left dangling.
If you can't be bothered to READ the entire flow of a thread, perhaps you shouldn't participate.
Feel better now?
wrongway
-
No. He's not.
He quoted me. He replied to my reply.
Hate to say it wrongway, but there is no quote there. I just double-checked.
-
No. He's not.
He quoted me. He replied to my reply.
Did I imply what the aircraft was as well? I put a ? in there, after all.
Mash was answering the ? I left dangling.
If you can't be bothered to READ the entire flow of a thread, perhaps you shouldn't participate.
Feel better now?
wrongway
It's his nature as a teenager. Yes, I was also answering your open ended question. Maybe he'll get mugged again and post up another testosterone laced lie, like the first one.
-
Hate to say it wrongway, but there is no quote there. I just double-checked.
OK. No quote. But how about context?
Makes sense to me.
wrongway
-
OK. No quote. But how about context?
Makes sense to me.
wrongway
Not seeing any context either. I see some random statement by someone I know to be a twit who likes to hear himself speak, having nothing to do with the thread, and the post leading up to his had nothing to do with a global hawk, nor was there a discussion into which the Global Hawk in any way fits. If we are talking context, yes, there was a discussion about altitude records for aircraft. In context, the only aircraft mentioned are manned aircraft, not drones or rockets, therefore even by slim margins the Global Hawk doesn't fit into context.
-
Not seeing any context either. I see some random statement by someone I know to be a twit who likes to hear himself speak, having nothing to do with the thread, and the post leading up to his had nothing to do with a global hawk, nor was there a discussion into which the Global Hawk in any way fits. If we are talking context, yes, there was a discussion about altitude records for aircraft. In context, the only aircraft mentioned are manned aircraft, not drones or rockets, therefore even by slim margins the Global Hawk doesn't fit into context.
The only "twit" is the proven liar.....yourself.
-
There was no need to fly any higher. The speed it flew at that height was enough to defeat any sam the Russians had and have. :confused:
You might want to avoid such broad statements. Given the proper engagement conditions, the SA-12 could kill an SR-71, and I doubt any sane Blackbird driver would knowingly get anywhere near one of the newer SA-21 systems. These systems are designed to kill high-speed/high-altitude targets, and they do it pretty well. The B-70 program wasn't cancelled just because we couldn't affort all that white paint. It was cancelled because the AF saw the hand writing on the wall. High altitude flight (unless you're able to go hypersonic at near exoatmospheric altitudes) has gotten just plain dangerous. :uhoh This is why stealth technology, especially for big strategic bomb trucks like the B-2, has become so crucial.
-
The only "twit" is the proven liar.....yourself.
Proven? Hah! I would love to see an ounce of proof that would stand for so much as a second in court. Your drug-scarred mind may have conjured some delusion as to who I am and what my intelligence level may be, but at the end of the day, it is just that: Delusion. Now, before I go on beating a child (well, a child in the mind though not in body) I will step out of this thread. I shall not keep such distasteful company, even on an internet forum.
-
Sereniy...tsk tsk tsk. Drug Scarred? Did you guys smoke together or what????
Anyway, that set aside, Is the SR-71 still in use as a recce? And were there incidents of the weapon systems Sa-12 and Sa-21 being trained upon them? Cthulhu....give us a bone will ya :pray
-
You might want to avoid such broad statements. Given the proper engagement conditions, the SA-12 could kill an SR-71, and I doubt any sane Blackbird driver would knowingly get anywhere near one of the newer SA-21 systems. These systems are designed to kill high-speed/high-altitude targets, and they do it pretty well. The B-70 program wasn't cancelled just because we couldn't affort all that white paint. It was cancelled because the AF saw the hand writing on the wall. High altitude flight (unless you're able to go hypersonic at near exoatmospheric altitudes) has gotten just plain dangerous. :uhoh This is why stealth technology, especially for big strategic bomb trucks like the B-2, has become so crucial.
Ummm wasn't the SR decommissioned back in the 90's . When it was flying recon it still was immune to SAMs.Much like the days of the cold war the Russians are a step behind in counter measures.
The XB-70 program was killed first because of it's expense I attended a XB-70 program and pilot's reunion a couple of years ago at Edwards AFB. A lot of the panel discussion was rather boring but the cancellation of said project was due to a few things. First cost was paramount. The plane was very expensive . Second the Russians put the MiG 25 in the mix. The MiG 25 was designed with the XB-70 in mind. The ultimate toolshedder Curtis Le may was not for the SR at all, he wanted the money to go to the XB-70 program.
The XB-70 had a huge part in the demise of the Soviet Union even though it wasn't produced. It cause the Russians to spend huge amounts of money to combat it. The MiG 25 program I believe was an extremely expensive one for the Russians. When it came down to it the MiG 25 was a huge wast of resources.
-
Proven? Hah! I would love to see an ounce of proof that would stand for so much as a second in court. Your drug-scarred mind may have conjured some delusion as to who I am and what my intelligence level may be, but at the end of the day, it is just that: Delusion. Now, before I go on beating a child (well, a child in the mind though not in body) I will step out of this thread. I shall not keep such distasteful company, even on an internet forum.
Alright, heres the background.
Last night, I was going to spend the night at my girlfriends house, and go to school with her in the morning. Well, I had to wait until her parents got home, (At 10:30) and I couldnt get a ride. So I had to take the bus. So, I grab my school bag for the next day and head down to the bus stop. At around 10:32(pm), I see these two big hawaiian guys walking towards me. Ive been in Hawaii long enough to know I was about to get mugged. So, as is my standard practice, I unzip the sleeve pocket of my leather jacket, remove the 5-inch thumb-assist knife I keep there, and move it to my side pocket for easy accesability. They get down there, and theyre acting friendly, but like I said, I know better. So with one hand on a knife and the other on my wallet I returned their small talk. Then, at around 10:34pm, it happened. He said "Nice to meet you", and shook my hand. I returned the hand shake, taking my hand off of my knife for a crucial second. As soon as our hands parted, he threw the first blow, connecting clearly with the right side of my face. Surprised me, as I wasnt expecting it QUITE then, but I wasn't hurt. In under a second I had my knife out, extended, and within centimeters of his throaght. I was ready to deliver a lethal blow, and would enjoy it SO much. But then my concience kicked in. "You want to get into the Air Force Academy! This MIGHT be self defence, but if it is considered excessive force, you will NEVER get in!" So, I retracted the knife, and attempted a retreat from the fight, knowing that while I would have NO problems leaving them both unconcious, I might just get annoyed enough to USE the knife. With the knife safely back in my pocket I made my retreat. As I attempted to, he put another blow to my face. Again, no pain. This guy was pretty stupid, he didnt realise that punching a guy in the cheeck would cause no pain, as it connects only with bone. I actually laughed in his face at this point, and again made a retreat. They thought to themselves "We've got a 15 year old, 140lb white kid here, late at night. Don't let him go, he should be EASY to take down". They were wrong. I looked over my left shoulder just in time to take a blow to the left cheeck, which knocked me forward over the railing in front of me. I realised I was now in a favorable position. With ever bit of strength I could muster, I launched my right foot back and connected solidly with his chest. Id swear I felt a rib crack, and he fell backwards over the bus stop bench and didnt get up. The second guy was just now joining the fight, and once more, I had my knife out, ready to strike. A quick slash to his throaght, and plunge it into his back... he'll be no concern and it will be so much fun! But once more, my concience kicked in. "Even if IT self-defense, you will still have killed two people" (If I had stabbed them, they WOULD die. Without question.) "And the Air Force Academy will STILL see that!" So, once more, I begrudgingly closed my blade and returned it to my pocket. I hopped over the afformentioned railing, and ran through a busy highway offramp to put some distance between me and them, just enough to call the police. I decided to trust the police to get there in time to apprehend the bast@rds. It didnt happen. The guy I kicked got up, and stumbled away, followed by his friend. On the way, they stopped to pickup my school bag, and my i-Pod, which I lost in the scuffle. I started to follow them, but realised if it came to blows again, it could be said I was following them with the intent to attack. So, I could only sit and watch as they escaped with my things.
In the end, the police have YET to find them, even though I gave a perfect description, and even one guys first name! They got away with my homework, (I'm serious!) and the Algebra II book I needed to study for a test today, as well as my i-Pod. Im fairly certain that guy cracked a rib, and I got out with a stiff neck, a busted blood vessle right next to my right eye, and a cut lip, but surprisingly absolutely NO pain.
So the question is: I KNOW you are going to tell me I did the right thing by simply exiting the area. But, would the airforce academy have looked down on me for killing two guys in self defense? If I HAD pursued them to see where they went, could I be brought up on aggravated assault, or some other charge if it came to blows again? Thanks.
Who's the kid now?
EDIT: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,215507.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,215507.0.html)
You even admitted you made it up. Which means, you're a "proven liar". Now go back to playing pick up sticks.
-
Ummm wasn't the SR decommissioned back in the 90's . When it was flying recon it still was immune to SAMs.Much like the days of the cold war the Russians are a step behind in counter measures.
The XB-70 program was killed first because of it's expense I attended a XB-70 program and pilot's reunion a couple of years ago at Edwards AFB. A lot of the panel discussion was rather boring but the cancellation of said project was due to a few things. First cost was paramount. The plane was very expensive . Second the Russians put the MiG 25 in the mix. The MiG 25 was designed with the XB-70 in mind. The ultimate toolshedder Curtis Le may was not for the SR at all, he wanted the money to go to the XB-70 program.
The XB-70 had a huge part in the demise of the Soviet Union even though it wasn't produced. It cause the Russians to spend huge amounts of money to combat it. The MiG 25 program I believe was an extremely expensive one for the Russians. When it came down to it the MiG 25 was a huge wast of resources.
This is what you said:
There was no need to fly any higher. The speed it flew at that height was enough to defeat any sam the Russians had and have.
Hence the reference to the SA-21.
The B-70's were indeed very expensive, with plenty of brazed CRES honeycomb panels and substantial titanium weldments (something that is not fun or cheap to do). But it also would have been a sitting duck against the next generation of Soviet SAMs. Had it actually been survivable, I dare say the AF would have sucked up the cost and put it into production, much as it did with the even more rediculously expensive , but supremely survivable, B-2.
You're correct that the Soviet's did pursue the MiG-25 program initially as a counter to the B-70, but with the quick demise of the B-70 program, the MiG-25 quickly became "the answer to a question nobody asked." Full scale production of Foxbat started 2 years after the only surviving B-70 was grounded for good. The Russians could have scrapped the program and given up very little in real capability (with the exception perhaps of the photo-recon variants). IMO they continued with the plane purely for the bragging rights vis a vis the endless "pissing contest" with the Americans. (and to export to surrogate states who also felt the need to "compensate" ;) )
:salute
-
And were there incidents of the weapon systems Sa-12 and Sa-21 being trained upon them? Cthulhu....give us a bone will ya :pray
Can't say Angus. You're a good guy. I'd really hate to have to kill you. :D
j/k
-
This is what you said:Hence the reference to the SA-21.
The B-70's were indeed very expensive, with plenty of brazed CRES honeycomb panels and substantial titanium weldments (something that is not fun or cheap to do). But it also would have been a sitting duck against the next generation of Soviet SAMs. Had it actually been survivable, I dare say the AF would have sucked up the cost and put it into production, much as it did with the even more rediculously expensive , but supremely survivable, B-2.
You're correct that the Soviet's did pursue the MiG-25 program initially as a counter to the B-70, but with the quick demise of the B-70 program, the MiG-25 quickly became "the answer to a question nobody asked." Full scale production of Foxbat started 2 years after the only surviving B-70 was grounded for good. The Russians could have scrapped the program and given up very little in real capability (with the exception perhaps of the photo-recon variants). IMO they continued with the plane purely for the bragging rights vis a vis the endless "pissing contest" with the Americans. (and to export to surrogate states who also felt the need to "compensate" ;) )
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I meant when it was in service not the present. I believe the main componet in the XB-70's skin was stainless steel.
:salute
-
Can't say Angus. You're a good guy. I'd really hate to have to kill you. :D
j/k
Well, "good" is perhaps the description. Looks like a " :devil" though :angel:
-
NP BigPlay. :salute
You're right, the B-70's skin was mostly stainless steel honeycomb panels (CRES = Corrosion Resistant Steel), not bonded like most current aluminum or phenolic core, but actually brazed steel core (to handle the temperatures). BIG $$$$
I recall seeing a video somewhere of a welder welding the stainless wing skins to the fuselage joint over the entire root chord (top & bottom I think) when they made the dihedral change to the second XB-70. How'd you like to weld the length of two football fields, one inch at a time?!? :cry
-
BTW, no one has mentioned the X-15. Granted it was rocket-powered and air-launched, with minimal endurance, but the records it set were absolutely staggering for it's time (and now ;) ) Looking strictly at Speed/Altitude performance, everything else that's ever flown (with the possible exception of the mythical "Aurora") is a Piper Cub by comparison.
If I ask what the Aurora is, will I end up in a body bag before dawn? :rolleyes:
-
If I ask what the Aurora is, will I end up in a body bag before dawn? :rolleyes:
I can tell you how the engines work, but it'll cost you most of your fingers. And you'll have to do it yourself, "Yakuza" style. :uhoh
Wanna know more? :D
-
I can tell you how the engines work, but it'll cost you most of your fingers. And you'll have to do it yourself, "Yakuza" style. :uhoh
Wanna know more? :D
If SgtPappy is the only one responsible for the payment, yeah I want to know more.
ack-ack
-
Ummm wasn't the SR decommissioned back in the 90's . When it was flying recon it still was immune to SAMs.Much like the days of the cold war the Russians are a step behind in counter measures.
...
The MiG 25 program I believe was an extremely expensive one for the Russians. When it came down to it the MiG 25 was a huge wast of resources.
Yup, I'd say SR-71 was about as immune to aerial defence systems as U-2 was. Until it wasn't.
How many times SR-71 flew over actual warzone? How many SAMs were fired on it?
Besides, MiG-25 program gave Soviet Union fast, efficient and reliable long range interceptor and a very capable tactical reconnaissance aircraft. Remember, in the first Gulf War it was a MiG-25 that scored the first aerial kill, shooting down a F-18.
-
If SgtPappy is the only one responsible for the payment, yeah I want to know more.
ack-ack
You know, not only would I take one for the team, but I could have THAT much extra time to write my future exams!
Alright, Cthulhu, go for it, tell us! :D
-
Yup, I'd say SR-71 was about as immune to aerial defence systems as U-2 was. Until it wasn't.
How many times SR-71 flew over actual warzone? How many SAMs were fired on it?
Besides, MiG-25 program gave Soviet Union fast, efficient and reliable long range interceptor and a very capable tactical reconnaissance aircraft. Remember, in the first Gulf War it was a MiG-25 that scored the first aerial kill, shooting down a F-18.
The SR-71 was decommissioned because satellites could do the mission cheaper.
Shooting down a F-18 is childs play compared to intercepting the SR-71. The SR-71 was easily twice as hard to shoot down or more, they are not even in the same league. The U-2 and Sr-71 usually flew within 10,000 feet of each other over hostile territory. The Sr-71 was traveling three time faster and could easily change its speed by hundreds of mph in a short time.
Perhaps maybe....
If the Mig was in position...
If the Mig engines could be written off...
If the missile could lock on and track at max range...
If the missile could maintain a solution up to Mach 8 closure rates....
The main air to air missiles at the time had only a .3 to 1.0 mach advantage, making a tail or side profile shot nearly impossible. In all the SR-71 was fired at hundreds (approaching 1,000) of times without a single successful attempt, save a few holes on a post inspection walk around.
Strip
-
I would like to see it able to up at the zone bases surrounding the strat city.
-
Yup, I'd say SR-71 was about as immune to aerial defence systems as U-2 was. Until it wasn't.
How many times SR-71 flew over actual warzone? How many SAMs were fired on it?
Besides, MiG-25 program gave Soviet Union fast, efficient and reliable long range interceptor and a very capable tactical reconnaissance aircraft. Remember, in the first Gulf War it was a MiG-25 that scored the first aerial kill, shooting down a F-18.
Your information is incorrect. First the SR-71 flew over many war zones Vietnam being one and all of the Arab -Israel wars. The Sr flew much much faster and higher then the U2 so it was within the firing window of sams much shorter then the U2. Also the SR carried the most sophisticated counter measures for said missiles at the time. I don't know how many sams were fired at the SR but my guess is many. To my knowledge I do not believe any were shot down. The SR was more of a tactical eye in the sky since satelites obtained most of the strategic intel. Also it only had a 2900 mile range so it would need refueling if it flew over the Soviet Union. My guess is it did do some airspace time over the Soviet Union but you and I may never know because many things pertaining to the Sr and it's capabilities are still classified.
If you read Gary Powers book you would come to understand the huge differences between the two aircraft.
The U-2 was a very lightly constructed aircraft that was slow flying in fact sub sonic if I remember correctly. Also at height the U2 suffered from constant flame out which was not that big a deal since it had a great glide ratio but contributed to more exposure time over it's target. At that time the U2 was impervious from fighter interception and considering that the thing was built so light that it didn't have an ejection seat my guess it it had little or no countermeasure systems to combat sams. Powers believes that when he was shot down it wasn't a direct missile strike to his aircraft. He observed many interceptors below him and upon hearing an explosion it was a few seconds before he realized that the plane was flying funny and then determined his aircraft had no tail. While hanging in his chute he noticed that there was someone else across from him hanging in a chute as well. He surmise that it was the Russian plane that was hit and the concussion was responsible for his tail being dislodged.
The Mig 25 was not considered a long range aircraft considering it only had about a 186 mile combat range and a 1000 mile internal flight range I would not consider it anything close to being long range.. Flying at the speed it was intended to cut that range considerably also flying at the speeds in excess of mach 2.5 reduced it's engine life in many cases to the one flight, so reliable was again not it's forte. It was for the most part obsolete when it came into service much to the fact that it was designed for a specialized role that soon became a non factor. It was then put into a service role where it played a small inept role .That being said it did become a good tactical recon plane of which it's high service ceiling provided. . The fact that it did shot down a F-18 means little in determining it's place in anyones air force. It was and still is an expensive plane to keep flying considering it's very limited combat capabilities.
-
The closest an SR-71 came to being shot down was a few small (less than 1") holes found on a stabilizer during the post flight walk around.
The amount of SAM's fired at the SR-71 is staggering by any measure, anywhere from 1,000 to 4,000 depending on the source.
Strip
-
The closest an SR-71 came to being shot down was a few small (less than 1") holes found on a stabilizer during the post flight walk around.
The amount of SAM's fired at the SR-71 is staggering by any measure, anywhere from 1,000 to 4,000 depending on the source.
Strip
sorry for the redundant info, I didn't see your previous post, all being true.
-
The closest an SR-71 came to being shot down was a few small (less than 1") holes found on a stabilizer during the post flight walk around.
The amount of SAM's fired at the SR-71 is staggering by any measure, anywhere from 1,000 to 4,000 depending on the source.
Strip
I remember back in the '80s when North Korea fired a bunch of SAMs at an SR-71, of course each of them missed.
ack-ack
-
Who's the kid now?
EDIT: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,215507.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,215507.0.html)
You even admitted you made it up. Which means, you're a "proven liar". Now go back to playing pick up sticks.
You have made my morning with that post K. I wasnt here in 07 so that's the first time I have read that and :rofl :rofl PRICELESS!
(http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g256/BloodyBandage/d4daa3a057411ee13f1f7dc0cbfe47a9.png)
-
You have made my morning with that post K. I wasnt here in 07 so that's the first time I have read that and :rofl :rofl PRICELESS!
(http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g256/BloodyBandage/d4daa3a057411ee13f1f7dc0cbfe47a9.png)
You're welcome. :rock
-
edit: thanks, got the PM
-
Who's the kid now?
EDIT: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,215507.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,215507.0.html)
You even admitted you made it up. Which means, you're a "proven liar". Now go back to playing pick up sticks.
One of the most hillarious threads ever on the BBS. I think I was in tears the 1st time I saw the below pic.
Needs to be added to that "best thread of 2009" thread just so others can enjoy it.
(http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i128/speed55/pineapple.jpg)
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl I think I still have the Avatar that Speed55 made.
-
One of the most hillarious threads ever on the BBS. I think I was in tears the 1st time I saw the below pic.
Needs to be added to that "best thread of 2009" thread just so others can enjoy it.
(http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i128/speed55/pineapple.jpg)
Ahh...The Story of How Serenity Saved the World from the Pineapple People. God, I loved that story.
ack-ack
-
re: Top of Thread Post
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aces High is just a game!
ME-163 was fueled by hydrazine.
Why not model the plane to reality?
Most of the ones that made it back to base, exploded on landing of the remaining fuel left in its tanks. Historical fact, I read it somewhere.
http://www.google.com/search?q=ME-163%2Bhydrazine&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw&tbo=0
Chuck Yeager almost suffered the same fate on one of the early rocket planes he flew, frantically shutting down valves behind him, trying to fly it, before he landed. That account in his 1st book.
For that matter, why not incorporate winds?
Similarily, planes with short fuselages are usually a very high strung plane to fly aerodynamically and tricky to fly. I question some of the planes in Aces High as being realistic flight models. I'm not a programmer. The effort put forth here is pretty cool despite reality checks. The nature of the ME-163's wing may make it more flyable as a true delta wing would.
Fun plane, though, as is the game.
-
ME-163 was fueled by hydrazine.
While this not incorrect its not as accurate as it could be.....
The M-163 was powered by the hypergolic (ignited on contact) propellants T-Stoff and C-Stoff.
T-Stoff consisted of a methanol and hydrazine mixture...
C-Stoff consisted of a concentrated hydrogen peroxide and oxyquinoline (80/20)....
Strip
-
Which all-too-often blew the Komet and all those near it into very small pieces when mishandled.
Never trust your life to a rubber suit unless you're a undersea diver.
:cool:
-
The closest an SR-71 came to being shot down was a few small (less than 1") holes found on a stabilizer during the post flight walk around.
The amount of SAM's fired at the SR-71 is staggering by any measure, anywhere from 1,000 to 4,000 depending on the source.
Strip
Had an SR make an emergency landing at a base I was stationed at. Of course they didn't have an extra deceleration (Drag)chute, so some general came over to our parachute shop, made everyone leave except me. I was the only one with a high enough security clearance. They had two cops stand there while I packed the drag chute. I thought it was over kill, but the entire aircraft & every bolt & screw were classified. Then a buddy of mine asked me to come up to the tower & watch it take off. I remember thinking, "Jeez, what an awkward, slow, nose high, pig." I must of had a sarcastic or bored look on my face, cause my Buddy said, "Just wait a minute. You'll see!" It disappeared like the Millennial Falcon leaving Tatooine with the storm trooper shooting at them.... Even made a little curl in a cloud when it skirted it. At that time he was radioing a commercial base to go above..... thousand feet. A few minutes chatting &, he was radioing a FAR distant base for landing instructions. :airplane: put put put
-
Takeoff procedure calls for a 400 knot climb out... I bet that thing was cooking once she built some steam.
:rock
Strip
-
auto climb works much better if you let some speed build up first 500 :airplane:+
-
No he flew in a U-2.
this is correct i saw the show he was in the 2 seat trainer of the U-2... it was a short segment and the people involved (the sho host's) had no clue as to anything about the aircraft except it flew high took pictures and frnacis powers was shot down in one who im sure they never herd of him befor lol