Lockheed Blackbird Family

Guysmiley · by **Guysmiley** » 08 Oct 2010, 03:45

Also, the A-12 was slightly faster and could fly slightly higher than the SR-71 could thanks to it being lighter. As to the altitude, it could depend on the high altitude ambient temperature (no kidding). The temperature could vary by a lot depending on where the jet stream was, in very non-ideal conditions they'd struggle to maintain 60,000 feet.

As TEG said, anyone who's "in the know" wouldn't be able to talk about it anyway.

You can say that over and over and over, he'll be back asking the same thing again in a month.

mustang65 · by **mustang65** » 08 Oct 2010, 04:01

Well I guess i want to apologize for getting to rapped up in this thread won't happen again promise. Seriously.

TC · by TC » 09 Oct 2010, 07:56

Guysmiley wrote:You can say that over and over and over, he'll be back asking the same thing again in a month.

It's possible, but not when I use the "magic button". Mwhuhahaha! :twisted:

mustang65 · by **mustang65** » 12 Jan 2011, 22:34

Isn't the temperature constant above like 36000 feet? If the temperature is constant above a certain altitude then how can the temp change when an SR-71 is flying above that specific altitude were temp does not change? Apparently the unclassified material says that the SR-71 can fly mach 3.2 usually it goes a little faster or slower due to the temp but how can that be if the temp does not change above 36000 ft? Or it could go Mach 3.2 to Mach 3.3 when authorized by the commander even though it could probably routinely cruise at Mach 3.25 on standard day temps assuming the "unclassified" information is correct.

madrat · by **madrat** » 13 Jan 2011, 06:10

Air density.

johnwill · by **johnwill** » 11 Jun 2011, 14:29

As I recall, there is a range of high altitudes where the temp does not change with altitude, but it does change day to day. So we have hot day, standard day, and cold day temp standards.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 11 Jun 2011, 22:52

also, its only constant temp up to like 60,000 ft, then it rises again

mustachecachestache47 · by **mustachecachestache47** » 28 Jul 2011, 18:16

Actually, the Blackbird is one of my favorites. it is fast, slick, and nice-looking, and its big. I seen one in real life, and they are GIANT. Sometimes, i think that it should come back as a bomber instead of a recon. it's big, and just add a bomb bay and take away the recon equipment, and you have a bomber.

rgeary15 · by **rgeary15** » 25 Dec 2012, 16:48

I worked the SR-71 in the USAF 1979-1983

chris_win · by **chris_win** » 26 Dec 2012, 13:00

beautiful plane

aaam · by **aaam** » 13 Jun 2013, 01:13

mustachecachestache47 wrote:Actually, the Blackbird is one of my favorites. it is fast, slick, and nice-looking, and its big. I seen one in real life, and they are GIANT. Sometimes, i think that it should come back as a bomber instead of a recon. it's big, and just add a bomb bay and take away the recon equipment, and you have a bomber.

There was a strike version designed, the B-12. Weapons were in the chines, it had a radome similar to the AF-12. Lockheed promised Gen. LeMay they would not push for it, as he was still hoping the B-70 could be revived.

count_to_10 · by **count_to_10** » 13 Jun 2013, 23:04

aaam wrote:
mustachecachestache47 wrote:Actually, the Blackbird is one of my favorites. it is fast, slick, and nice-looking, and its big. I seen one in real life, and they are GIANT. Sometimes, i think that it should come back as a bomber instead of a recon. it's big, and just add a bomb bay and take away the recon equipment, and you have a bomber.

There was a strike version designed, the B-12. Weapons were in the chines, it had a radome similar to the AF-12. Lockheed promised Gen. LeMay they would not push for it, as he was still hoping the B-70 could be revived.

I had a plastic model of the interceptor version -- it had a single, off-center missile bay that held two Phoenix missiles head-to-tail. The bay wasn't in the chines, though.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 13 Jun 2013, 23:21

aaam · by **aaam** » 14 Jun 2013, 03:00

Spudman's picture shows one of the potential armament loads of the B-12. Another was with four SRAMs. to give you an idea of the benefits of speed and altitude, a SRAM launched form a B-12 would have five times the range it would have launched form a B-52. I'm including a cutaway showing that load.

Sorry, Elite, that model you remember is wrong. There's no place in the fuselage to put the missiles. Whoever designed the model was probably working from some photos, including one I've attached, where a designer who didn't do much research would have been fooled by the optical illusion of this angle looking like an off-center bay. As my other photo shows, the missiles were in the chines. I've also added another cutaway, showing one of the armament config.s of the production F-12B. This one is unusual in that it shows an M-61 in the forward port bay. I don't know if this was serious, implying that an F-12 would descend and try and force a target down by damaging it, or whether it was depicted to let potential customers know you could be macho and go mano a mano if you wanted.

The usual config discussed was four missiles (the YF-12A had three and the other bay was used for the fire control system).

Those missiles, BTW, were not the Phoenix. They were the AIM-47/GAR-9 enhanced and inherited from the F-108 program and came in both conventional and nuclear flavors. They gave birth to the AIM-54 Phoenix used by the F-14.

count_to_10 · by **count_to_10** » 14 Jun 2013, 23:37

The picture shows exactly what I meant -- the bays are under the curve of the fuselage, not in the narrow angled portion of the chines. As to the missile type -- no designation came with the model, and I didn't know of any missile that had the same form as the Phoenix.