02 Nov 2025, 18:25 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What Would Change on a 21st Century SR-71?  Posted: 12 Nov 2022, 12:43 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 05/06/14
Posts: 7265
Post Likes: +8906
Company: The French Tradition
Location: KCRQ - Carlsbad - KTOA
Aircraft: 89 A36 TN, 78 Tiger
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If Skunkworks were to design a replacement for the SR-71, with the same mission requirements it had in the 1960's, what would change? I'm not talking about the spy technology or drones; I'm asking from an aircraft engineering standpoint. A manned-aircraft capable of 80,000 feet-plus with a top speed of greater than Mach 3. Are there engines made today that would work better than the J58's they used in the 1960's? Would it still have titanium skin? How about the shape of the airplane - would there be a better, more efficient shape? Would it still leak like a sieve when parked?
The aircraft seemed so ahead of its time; I just wonder if it is a design upon which could be improved...? Just ask Musk to make this happen. And the caveat is that once he is done with it, he can take it to Mars right after...
_________________
Bonanza 89 A36 Turbo Norm
Grumman Tiger 78
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What Would Change on a 21st Century SR-71? Posted: 12 Nov 2022, 13:43 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 02/28/17
Posts: 1352
Post Likes: +1434
Location: Panama City, FL
Aircraft: Velocity XL-RG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It would take 100x longer to build, be 100x over budget, and only meet 1/100th of it's design goals. Are you thinking that they would put Raptor's Peter Muller in charge?
Just thinking how current military aircraft development has been going since the 60's.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What Would Change on a 21st Century SR-71? Posted: 12 Nov 2022, 15:13 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/21/11
Posts: 793
Post Likes: +1025
Location: Northside of Atlanta
Aircraft: RV-6 & RV-10
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Just thinking how current military aircraft development has been going since the 60's. Because there are a lot of people who want input along the way. Kelly Johnson was successful because he asked the customer what they needed, then shut them out until the product was more or less finished.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What Would Change on a 21st Century SR-71? Posted: 12 Nov 2022, 15:32 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 05/03/12
Posts: 2301
Post Likes: +716
Location: Wichita, KS
Aircraft: Mooney 201
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Just thinking how current military aircraft development has been going since the 60's. Because there are a lot of people who want input along the way. Kelly Johnson was successful because he asked the customer what they needed, then shut them out until the product was more or less finished.
Very true, and absolutely not done any longer!
I think we're behind on hypersonic vehicles. We have some tech in terms of airframe materials, but haven't industrialized it into a production-capable system thus far, at least as far as I understand it currently in the industry. Because of that, I think a 2022 SR-71 would still be very much like the original with a titanium structure. I also agree that we don't have an air-breathing engine more advanced that the original for such an application.
We need some leaps in high-temp composites to enable the next break-through in vehicle design IMO. They need to withstand the high temps of course, but also be durable and manufacturable in a production environment. That kind of solution would evolve us past a conventional airframe with ablative/heat-shield type temperature protection and make a more efficient and likely safer airframe.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What Would Change on a 21st Century SR-71? Posted: 12 Nov 2022, 16:00 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/21/11
Posts: 793
Post Likes: +1025
Location: Northside of Atlanta
Aircraft: RV-6 & RV-10
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I’m gonna say replacing the celestial navigation computer with gps Maybe. But it is hard to jam celestial bodies.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What Would Change on a 21st Century SR-71? Posted: 12 Nov 2022, 16:00 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/21/11
Posts: 793
Post Likes: +1025
Location: Northside of Atlanta
Aircraft: RV-6 & RV-10
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I’m gonna say replacing the celestial navigation computer with gps Maybe. But it is hard to jam celestial bodies.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What Would Change on a 21st Century SR-71? Posted: 14 Nov 2022, 21:47 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/29/13
Posts: 774
Post Likes: +547
Aircraft: C177RG, ATOS-VR
|
|
|
Better tires. With all the advanced aramid fibers they could make a tire that would hold up to a full fuel takeoff. They lost some planes to tire explosions trying to determine max takeoff weight. That's why they have to hit the tanker right after takeoff, they takeoff very low on fuel to save the tires. Same thing goes for the leaking wings. No need to engineer a pesky tank sealer when you could either print or wind a tank.
I never understood how the celestial navigation could work on the ground in broad daylight until I read that it used ultra violet light from the stars. With modern computing power I would guess that they could come up with a celestial navigation system about as accurate as GPS and pretty much unjamable.
From what I understand the speed limit of the '71 was how fast the computer could recover from an unstart. There are some rumors about pilots exceeding the Mach 3.1 speed limit, but the pilot would be doomed if an unstart occurred. Again with modern computer power and electronic actuators you could make the unstart a less dramatic event.
Vince
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What Would Change on a 21st Century SR-71? Posted: 14 Nov 2022, 22:04 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 05/01/14
Posts: 9709
Post Likes: +16597
Location: Операционный офис КГБ
Aircraft: TU-104
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I guess I'm breaking your rules, but it would never be manned. Just not a necessary risk any more. Exactly. There is no longer any practical use case for a hypersonic manned spy plane.
_________________
Be kinder than I am. It’s a low bar.
Flight suits = superior knowledge
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What Would Change on a 21st Century SR-71? Posted: 14 Nov 2022, 22:13 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/21/11
Posts: 793
Post Likes: +1025
Location: Northside of Atlanta
Aircraft: RV-6 & RV-10
|
|
Username Protected wrote: There is no longer any practical use case for a hypersonic manned spy plane. I think there is always a benefit from having the ability to "take a peek" at unexpected times. Whether you need speed, stealth, or both to accomplish that is another issue. With the advent of improved sensors, it might be that a hypersonic recon aircraft would be trackable by IR sensing satellites, rendering the aircraft less effective than it might be otherwise.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
