Viking 0 #1 November 29, 2006 If the internal structure had been made of Titanium instead of aluminium? I'v been reading several books about the U2 and the SR-71. In the books they always talk about weight savings to get the max combat cieling up. It kinda makes me wonder if they could have gotten higher than 80,000 feet. I remmber reading that at that altitude the engine creates less than a 1000lbs of thrust.I swear you must have footprints on the back of your helmet - chicagoskydiver My God has a bigger dick than your god -George Carlin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2fat2fly 0 #2 November 29, 2006 Very interesting question, but it still doesn't make up for the fact that your thread title has gotten that "How much wood could a woodchuck" rhyme stuck in my head nowI am not the man. But the man knows my name...and he's worried Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,427 #3 November 29, 2006 >If the internal structure had been made of Titanium instead of aluminium? At those altitudes, the speed of sound is very, very close to the stall speed of the airplane - and the U2 could not go supersonic. So I doubt you'd get much benefit. You'd get some, since stall speed drops a bit with reduction in weight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kid_Icarus 0 #4 November 29, 2006 80,000 ft is the ceiling they TOLD you.... I highly doubt any figures they publish for any current plane are accurate ________________________________________ "What What..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viking 0 #5 November 29, 2006 Ya that was something that shocked me was that it was about a 10knot window between stall and overspeed. I didn't think about the supersonic aspect of things. What about sweeping the wings back a couple degrees or would that reduce lift and kill the ceiling?I swear you must have footprints on the back of your helmet - chicagoskydiver My God has a bigger dick than your god -George Carlin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viking 0 #6 November 29, 2006 Quote80,000 ft is the ceiling they TOLD you.... I highly doubt any figures they publish for any current plane are accurate dude the plane first started flying 1954...........its not current.I swear you must have footprints on the back of your helmet - chicagoskydiver My God has a bigger dick than your god -George Carlin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #7 November 29, 2006 I've also read where they can shut down the engine and glide for awhile to conserve fuel, with no discernable drop in performance...Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viking 0 #8 November 29, 2006 Ya They can glide for several hundred miles. The last book i read mentioned how the first batch of CIA pilots couldn't go farther than 200 miles away from Area 51 incase they had a flame out (common problem before they fixed the J-57 engine)I swear you must have footprints on the back of your helmet - chicagoskydiver My God has a bigger dick than your god -George Carlin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
McBeth 0 #9 November 29, 2006 QuoteVery interesting question, but it still doesn't make up for the fact that your thread title has gotten that "How much wood could a woodchuck" rhyme stuck in my head nowWell now it's your fault that I have it in my head Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #10 November 29, 2006 The thing is, it was designed to fly above a specific altitude to avoid specific missle defenses available at the time. Like anything in aviation, the engineering is pushed to a very fine edge and my guess that the materials engineering were just about at their limits as well. Titanium was a horrible material to work with at that time and my -guess- is that just using it would have at least doubled or trippled the cost of the entire project for very little benefit. If it would have been that big of a benefit, then I'm pretty sure Kelly Johnson and the boys would have done it to begin with.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gremlin 0 #11 November 29, 2006 Quotedude the plane first started flying 1954...........its not current. It is still current, I used the information from one many times in Iraq.I'm drunk, you're drunk, lets go back to mine.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swedishcelt 0 #12 November 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteVery interesting question, but it still doesn't make up for the fact that your thread title has gotten that "How much wood could a woodchuck" rhyme stuck in my head nowWell now it's your fault that I have it in my head bwaaahhhaaaahahaha!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sockpuppet 0 #13 November 29, 2006 QuoteQuote80,000 ft is the ceiling they TOLD you.... I highly doubt any figures they publish for any current plane are accurate dude the plane first started flying 1954...........its not current. They are often called the "janes version of figures" i.e. what they tell Janes Defence weekly. We have to do it all the time with our radio kit "whats the range." .... "a couple of k"... ------ Two of the three voices in my head agree with you. It might actually be unanimous but voice three only speaks Welsh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viking 0 #14 November 29, 2006 QuoteQuotedude the plane first started flying 1954...........its not current. It is still current, I used the information from one many times in Iraq. It is currently still flying yes, but the plane itself is not current. It still is an awsome plane but it stopped being current on May 1st 1960 with a lucky missile shot.I swear you must have footprints on the back of your helmet - chicagoskydiver My God has a bigger dick than your god -George Carlin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #15 November 29, 2006 Quote it stopped being current on May 1st 1960 with a lucky missile shot. It was still current, but it wasn't invencible (sp?). As for how much higher it would go *AggieDaves holds his arms out wide and says "this much higher"*--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #16 November 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuotedude the plane first started flying 1954...........its not current. It is still current, I used the information from one many times in Iraq. It is currently still flying yes, but the plane itself is not current. It still is an awsome plane but it stopped being current on May 1st 1960 with a lucky missile shot. Every modern warplane is obsolete by the time it enters service. Also, the U-2 that flies today is not the U-2 that got shot down in 1960Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #17 November 29, 2006 Quotedude the plane first started flying 1954...........its not current. Gee kinda like the B-52.. many of the kids flying them are younger than the plane... BUT that said... with upgraded systems.. they do what they are supposed to do.. just like the U-2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindercles 0 #18 November 29, 2006 QuoteEvery modern warplane is obsolete by the time it enters service. Yeah, that makes sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #19 November 29, 2006 Still not as high as an AN-2 Not sure where that got started or what it means but blindly jumping on the bandwagon. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #20 November 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteEvery modern warplane is obsolete by the time it enters service. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, I was trying to figure out a way to word it better. A modern warplane takes 10-15 years from conception to active service. The aerodynamic theory, electronics, systems, weaponry, materials, manufacturing techniques - every individual thing that goes into the design will have been surpassed by the time the aircraft makes it onto the front line.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,427 #21 November 29, 2006 >What about sweeping the wings back a couple degrees or would that >reduce lift and kill the ceiling? No, that would work. You'd probably need larger engines to give effective thrust at those altitudes, though. Go down that road and you'd end up with an SR-71. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viking 0 #22 November 29, 2006 well i just looked it up and they currently have a General Electric F-118-101 that puts out 17k of thrust. its the same engine thats in the B2I swear you must have footprints on the back of your helmet - chicagoskydiver My God has a bigger dick than your god -George Carlin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
