Sr 71 greatest aircraft?

[Moeman]

Worth the read https://newatlas.com/how-to-fly-sr-71-blackbird/46366/

[Suspect Unknown]

It is one heck of an aircraft, and it was way ahead of its time, I don't think that it can be matched in some ways.

[Dric902]

For the mission it was designed for, it was a huge technological leap ahead for its time.

and they used slide rules and pencils.

 

i hear tous was deeply involved in the development

 

.

[AK_Stick]

Was a phenomenal aircraft. But I don’t know about greatest. 

[tous]

And graph paper.

If McDonnell Douglas had made it, it would have  been better.

Mebbe.

After all, we came up with the mighty A-12  Avenger II. 

No one else could make a frying pan fly.

[Moeman]

4 minutes ago, AK_Stick said:

Was a phenomenal aircraft. But I don’t know about greatest. 

Well the DC 3 is in contention 

[Silentpoet]

Think about what must have replaced it.

[janice6]

The DC-3 is still in active status in other parts of the world.

I was reading about it some time ago, and they said that one of it's claims to fame for longevity, was due to the lack of computers in it's design.

The calculations were not as precise as today, so the engineers simply added more to the structure/skin thickness in case they had slipped up along the way.  I read that the skin was 1/8" thick on the DC-3.  It didn't need to be that strong, but safety was paramount and it was increased "just in case".  That is not done today.

 

Now companies like mine can run computer analysis of almost everything, and carry the calculation out many places.  This results in such a precision in the design criteria, that it is now based on "How long do we want this aircraft to last for?". And it can be designed for a relatively predictable lifetime.

The Computer also allows them to via software, exercise the components to such an extent, that even the hours of maintenance versus flight hours, are pretty predictable.  Incidentally, this is a Military contract requirement expressed in the Request for Proposal (RFP).

 

 The customer (Military) will not pay for performance in excess of the requirements, and the contractor will not lessen his profit by absorbing excess cost over that specified in the requirements.  You cannot build to exceed the requirements, since all the multitudes of support for the platform are built to the requirement also. 

Therefore, no one will be able to utilize the excess performance even if it is there.  You build strictly to the requirement!  The old days of excess are gone forever.  Today the cost is in the performance and avionics.

 

The ability of the computer to simulate highly complex interactions in both the hardware and the software have revolutionized aircraft design to the degree that if the prediction doesn't fit the real life performance, they look for the problem in the construction first, before the design.

Edited November 24, 2018 by janice6

[Moeman]

10 minutes ago, janice6 said:

The DC-3 is still in active status in other parts of the world.

I was reading about it some time ago, and they said that one of it's claims to fame for longevity, was due to the lack of computers in it's design.

The calculations were not as precise as today, so the engineers simply added more to the structure/skin thickness in case they had slipped up along the way.  I read that the skin was 1/8" thick on the DC-3.  It didn't need to be that strong, but safety was paramount and it was increased "just in case".  That is not done today.

 

Now companies like mine can run computer analysis of almost everything, and carry the calculation out many places.  This results in such a precision in the design criteria, that it is now based on "How long do we want this aircraft to last for?". And it can be designed for a relatively predictable lifetime.

The Computer also allows them to via software, exercise the components to such an extent, that even the hours of maintenance versus flight hours, are pretty predictable.  Incidentally, this is a Military contract requirement expressed in the Request for Proposal (RFP).

 

 The customer (Military) will not pay for performance in excess of the requirements, and the contractor will not lessen his profit by absorbing excess cost over that specified in the requirements.  You cannot build to exceed the requirements, since all the multitudes of support for the platform are built to the requirement also. 

Therefore, no one will be able to utilize the excess performance even if it is there.  You build strictly to the requirement!  The old days of excess are gone forever.  Today the cost is in the performance and avionics.

 

The ability of the computer to simulate highly complex interactions in both the hardware and the software have revolutionized aircraft design to the degree that if the prediction doesn't fit the real life performance, they look for the problem in the construction first, before the design.

Didn’t Grumen in the iron works period have a rule if a part fails test just double the strength? And they went up and down on aircraft carriers

[Paul53]

Greatest? Depends on your definition, really. I see planes as tools for a certain mission. For a small runway surrounded by trees, the SR-71 is the wrong tool. For real time reconnaissance over hostile countries, using ultra high speed ultra high altitude to drive Soviet air defenses ape ****, a J-3 Cub wouldn't be high on the list.

Within those definitions, what it did for it's mission, there's just no comparison.

 

For other aircraft that are extraordinary in their class, I nominate the A-10 warthog, the gull wing corsair, B-52H, Piper J-3 Cub, Windecker Eagle, Lake amphibian, Beech D-18, C-47/DC-3, and the space shuttle fleet.

[Dric902]

23 minutes ago, Silentpoet said:

Think about what must have replaced it.

Satellites, nothing else could do it

 

.

[janice6]

4 minutes ago, Moeman said:

Didn’t Grumen in the iron works period have a rule if a part fails test just double the strength? And they went up and down on aircraft carriers

I am not qualified to say for certain, since my company only built land based planes.  However, I would agree with you, since at the time it would be the prudent thing to do.

You did what you could to ensure that the pilot came back intact.

[janice6]

3 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

Satellites, nothing else could do it

 

.

Satellites have the problem that they are many times not in the position to answer your question.  To maneuver them to a new location takes time.  A/C is closer to real time intelligence.

[tous]

2 hours ago, Paul53 said:

Greatest? Depends on your definition, really.

For other aircraft that are extraordinary in their class, I nominate the A-10 warthog, the gull wing corsair, B-52H, Piper J-3 Cub, Windecker Eagle, Lake amphibian, Beech D-18, C-47/DC-3, and the space shuttle fleet.

You missed it by that much, amigo. 

The aircraft you mentioned, aside from the DC-3, all have limited missions that benefit only a select population.

For the aircraft that had the biggest influence on the greatest number, I nominate, in order,  the aforementioned Douglas DC-3, the Boeing 707 and the Boeing 737.

The DC-3 made airline service available to more than the wealthy and more important, it made airline service reasonably safe and dependable.

The Boeing 707, second runner-up would be the Douglas DC-8, made transatlantic and long haul airline service not only feasible, but common and again, safe and dependable.

The Boeing 737, second runner-up, the DC-9/MD-80 made safe and dependable airline service available to -- well, everybody.  These are the aircraft responsible for the fat guy in flip-flops whose carry-on is a trash bag.  Short-haul,,  efficient airline service cheap and plentiful.

Edited November 25, 2018 by tous

[Silentpoet]

51 minutes ago, tous said:

The Boeing 737, second runner-up, the DC-9/MD-80 made safe and dependable airline service available to -- well, everybody.  These are the aircraft responsible for the fat guy in flip-flops whose carry-on is a trash bag.  Short-haul,,  efficient airline service cheap and plentiful.

I'm picturing a guy in cut off Daisy Dukes who shouldn't be.  And a who farted shirt.  With a trash bag full of condoms. 

[Al Czervik]

Right now, I'd give that honor to the B-52.  It is expected to still be in service 100 years after its first flight.

[Paul53]

JUST A DRIVE BYE POST;

 

[tadbart]

For a plane to keep its pilot alive and flying at the parameters that the SR71 required, for sure, it's up there in awesomeness.

But satellites are the answer to the Blackbird question. Put enough of them up there, and everything is covered, all the time. Plus, no pilot to worry about. There's still a place for the Blackbird and U-2, but it's limited.

The A-10 is a beast. and with the new fuel tube problems of the F-35, the A-10 will probably be around a while.

I agree that the B-52 does what nothing else does, at a decreased cost, assuming we already have air superiority.

 

But alas, except for CAS, I bet that in our lifetime, space-based weapons will rule the roost.

[kerbie18]

13 hours ago, Silentpoet said:

Think about what must have replaced it.

I've always thought there must be some amazing black project aircraft/spacecraft that we don't know about. I mean, lots of aircraft we know today originally existed in total secrecy. It makes you wonder...(and I don't wear tin foil)

[janice6]

13 hours ago, kerbie18 said:

I've always thought there must be some amazing black project aircraft/spacecraft that we don't know about. I mean, lots of aircraft we know today originally existed in total secrecy. It makes you wonder...(and I don't wear tin foil)

The rule for the military is that, "you never want to fight the new war with the last war's weapons".  Just as in surveillance aircraft, there is a working lifetime to the A/C, and during that time the "enemy" is learning how to defeat your spy plane.  The only solution is to keep coming up with new and more effective spy planes.

When the public is knowledgeable about a platform, a new one is already at work. 

Edited November 26, 2018 by janice6

[kerbie18]

8 hours ago, janice6 said:

The rule for the military is that, "you never want to fight the new war with the last war's weapons".  Just as in surveillance aircraft, there is a working lifetime to the A/C, and during that time the "enemy" is learning how to defeat your spy plane.  The only solution is to keep coming up with new and more effective spy planes.

When the public is knowledgeable about a platform, a new on is already at work. 

Sooo, you agree that impressive new toys likely are in existence?

Edited November 26, 2018 by kerbie18

[janice6]

1 minute ago, kerbie18 said:

Sooo, you agree that expressive new toys likely are in existence?

OH Absolutely! Only they cease to be useful when everybody hears of them.

[GeorgiaGlocker]

This one should be an honorable mention.