I found SR-71 Blackbird's flight manual from internet. http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/index.htm Does anyone know manuals for other planes, tanks etc?
One of the all-time greatest planes, no planes (or missiles) have been able to catch up to it. I am not so sure if any "modern" superjets can catch this 40 years old "antique" even today.
That would be hard to say, official figures are 2,000+ mph but it is strongly believed it could do 2500(+) mph.
Last time I checked it was still classified. I believe at least a continuous Mach 3 - 3.5. However the Aurora is around, my guess, Mach 3 - 6. The reason I say that high is because when I watch these new tech shows on cutting edge aerotech they constantly state that any aircraft that approaches a little higher than Mach 6.0 experiences a melt down of the leading edges of any wing. This si just my deduction from waht is being said, in an indirect manner. The space shuttle uses the very expensive ceramic tiles to get past this aspect of launch speed and high heat along the leading wing edges.
Erm, 2000 mph is around mach 3. Edit: Even in those manuals they have specific range curves for cruise speed mach 3.2
that is simple,factor $$$$,. that is because the black bird uses a special fuel ( it is the only one that use that rare fuel) and also you can get a lot of info by satelite, spy ones .
also as it was noted before is already 40 years old, and ther is no way to get more spares to keep the bird on the air, i belive there are only 3 flying to this days, the rest has been retired, in 92 i went to mobile alabama and they had one, and it is nice :smok:
The F-22 might have caught up with it - it has supersonic cruising, so it doesn't need to use its afterburners to remain at supersonic for most of its time airborne.
Supersonic cruising (supercruise) was in use with the English Electric Lightning back in the 60s! The Blackbird can outrun the MiG25 & 31, both built for high-speed, high-altitude interception, and now used as high-speed, intercept proof recon. Does anyone know the F-22 Raptor's top speed? Or is that still classified?
Fas.org says mach 1.8, f22fighter.com says 921 mph level speed. Both look a bit low for 2x35,000 pounds of thrust, especially when SR-71 had 2x32500 pounds of thrust and double the weight of F-22 (according to fas.org).
True. SR-71 was optimised for low-drag, high-speed, whereas F-22 is optimised for stealth & manouver, with speed a lesser priority, provided it could make around Mach 1.4 (the speed most useful for combat, according to studies!) in supercruise. This might explain the difference, or the data could be lying to us!!
Just asked this from my friend (who is more interested in fighters than I) and according to his information, unofficially F-22 could do supercruise up to mach 1.7 and top speed maybe mach 2.2-2.5 (wild guess). Aerodynamics is optimised to transsonic area, around mach 0.8-1.2. An example about how aerodynamics, especially engine inlets, can affect an aircraft: Rockwell B-1A and B-1B have same engines but B-1B has simplified engine inlets and modified over-wing fairings and some other smaller external changes (internal changes are bigger but hardly affect aerodynamics). Yet B-1A can do 1,390 mph while B-1B can do only 900-plus mph (Mach 1.2 at sea level).
I used to read somewhere the the Sr-71 can pull off Mach-5 without breaking a sweat. The F-22, on the other hand, is not even as fast as the 30 year-old F-15 and the F-14's, none of the hot rods, not even the new Euro-fighter, can catch up to the SR-71.
That mach 5 from SR-71 might be a bit overstated but yet it is fastest aircraft ever build (except some rocket powered X-planes). Today you dont need very fast jet because missiles can catch even the fastest fighters ever produced. Good transition speed, acceleration, maneuverability(sp?), stealth, range, payload etc are more important than speed.
the soviets try to design a system of missiles able to shot down the black bird but not succese, the speed is the advantaje of tje sr 71 also the heigth
True, but I was referring to fighters, not strategic(sp?) recon planes. I didn't write it clearly enough, after first sentence I was writing about fighters althought I (accidentally) wrote about "jets".