|
Here's David Ceniciotti's write-up on it, with an accompanying image Notice something interesting? No cockpit
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Page is completely slammed. Is this a real flying thing, or just a render of what they'd like to do if they get money? The model being proposed as a picture of SR-72 is actually a model of the HTV3-X Falcon test vehicle, which was supposed to have been built by now except for a budget cut (reduction) in 2009. Given that the previous parts of the HTV program weren't especially secretive, it's unlikely HTV3-X has flown without being reported on, and much more likely that they're just trying to go with the 'strategic reconnaissance' aspect to try and get additional funding. The actual craft is slightly bigger than the D-21 drone, so this isn't a giant awesome plane like the SR-71 was, even if it is the spiritual successor of the SR-71 and the D-21 program.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
That thing looks like it should transform into a robot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
Washington Post article about it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/01/this-is-the-successor-to-the-sr-71-blackbird-and-it-is-gorgeous/
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
wolrah posted:
This, however, is a stupid reason for lifting the ban. "It hasn't caused a problem yet!" has led to more preventable incidents in history than "Hold my beer and watch this!" If modern electronics in an aircraft are shielded to a sufficient degree that consumer electronics have no impact (which I believe to be the case), THAT'S a good reason. Rolling the dice because Mr. Sneakyphone McCandycrush hasn't brought down a Mad Dog isn't a good enough reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
THE RED MENACE posted:Phone posting so I can't link it but there's a SR-72 reveal up on aviation week I'm pretty sure you mean  I think Mr. Vimes is correct that they are piggybacking a new concept on existing research. The article says that the whole turbine + ramjet concept has been worked on for the past six years. God only knows if that means the basic engineering work has been done. Also, the SR-72 will apparently have a strike capacity, which means e: Another prototype of interest to the thread: Russia has released images of the next-gen strategic bomber they want to build to replace the Tu-95/147 and the Tu-160 Blackjack. Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
grover posted:This was in Air & Space Smithsonian a few years ago: The lowest two aero bands on that graph are the only two where signal interference is likely to cause problems - yes, it could interfere with DME, but it would simply mask the signal, and you'd need to be beyond the speced distance for DME to be working anyway for that kind of noise floor to be an issue. While it looks bad, bear in mind that the noise floor at VHF signals is measured by NOAA to be approximately 20-40dB above absolute minimum (-174dBm for a 1Hz bandwidth). For a 9KHz (rough basis for vocal audio for radio) SSB signal, noise floor for a signal is 10*log10 Bandwidth + Thermal Noise floor for 1Hz (-174dBm). We can substitute the NOAA measured noise floor for the thermal noise floor, and get 10 * log10 9000 + -150dBm (best case), giving us (approx) 38 + (approx) -150 or roughly -120dBm. This means that the cellphone signal is roughly 10dBm above the noise floor. That is an issue, but you'd be struggling to hear ATC out of the mush at that point anyway, it's about on par with trying to hear a whisper about 1m away from someone. If you're in a situation where you're trying to pick ATC out of background noise at that kind of level, the cellphone noise will hinder, but you're probably already SOL if you have master caution or GPWS yelling at you as well. And this is only if the cellphone is 1m from the radio equipment, put it 2m away and the signal will be below the noise floor of your radio equipment anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
quote:“After years of silence on the subject, Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works has revealed exclusively to AW&ST details of long-running plans for what it describes as an affordable hypersonic intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and strike platform that could enter development in demonstrator form as soon as 2018. Dubbed the SR-72, the twin-engine aircraft is designed for a Mach 6 cruise, around twice the speed of its forebear, and will have the optional capability to strike targets.” Really, Lockheed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Really, Lockheed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:"enter development in demonstrator form as soon as 2018" It's really just trolling for funding. I mean their claim that this could ever be anything you could describe as affordable without snickering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Well, if strike capability is added and satellites made the SR-71 obsolete, why would it be called the SR-72 instead of the B-3? (other then it being an obvious 'sequel' plane)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
drunkill posted:Well, if strike capability is added and satellites made the SR-71 obsolete, why would it be called the SR-72 instead of the B-3? (other then it being an obvious 'sequel' plane) SR-72 is an internal nickname judging by the article's phrasing. Also, "affordable hypersonic intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and strike platform". List of hypersonic platforms: Space shuttle Buran X-15 X-37 
hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:I mean their claim that this could ever be anything you could describe as affordable without snickering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
drunkill posted:Well, if strike capability is added and satellites made the SR-71 obsolete, why would it be called the SR-72 instead of the B-3? (other then it being an obvious 'sequel' plane) Probably because the end result is to dream up some kind of military use to fund further high-speed aircraft research. And associating it as a sequel to a 1/2 to 1 billion dollar, nowhere-near-as-cool-as-an-SR-71, white elephant wouldn't do that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
STOVL USMC version in 3... 2... 1...
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:e: Another prototype of interest to the thread: Russia has released images of the next-gen strategic bomber they want to build to replace the Tu-95/147 and the Tu-160 Blackjack. That's fanart. e: Although close to that Soviet paper project the name of which I've forgotten
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
Mistayke posted:I thought I'd share an experience I had yesterday. I know what you mean, I lived right by JFK (I could see the approach lights from my kitchen) in Howard Beach until April when I moved to Long Island. The biggest things out of ISP are the SWA 737s; I really miss the big stuff at JFK!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
two_beer_bishes posted:I know what you mean, I lived right by JFK (I could see the approach lights from my kitchen) in Howard Beach until April when I moved to Long Island. The biggest things out of ISP are the SWA 737s; I really miss the big stuff at JFK! I just found out that today is suppose to be the last day that SWA will be operating out of CAK. No more 737s, back to just CRJs and Mad Dogs flying over my home.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:STOVL USMC version in 3... 2... 1... USMC, hell, build it for X-Com (or the X-Men)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Strike capability too. Interesting. Also, wtf is happening to GBS?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Godholio posted:This, however, is a stupid reason for lifting the ban. "It hasn't caused a problem yet!" has led to more preventable incidents in history than "Hold my beer and watch this!" That's not what I said. I said that the fact that we're still allowed to carry such devices on the plane and simply asked to turn them off indicates that the rulemakers don't consider it a real threat anyways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
two_beer_bishes posted:I know what you mean, I lived right by JFK (I could see the approach lights from my kitchen) in Howard Beach until April when I moved to Long Island. The biggest things out of ISP are the SWA 737s; I really miss the big stuff at JFK! I'm still waiting to put my eyes on an A380, a 787, and someday an An-124 and the An-225. I had been fortunate to grow up around large airports but the last several years of my life have been away from any areas where those aircraft might operate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I'm still waiting to put my eyes on an A380, a 787, and someday an An-124 and the An-225. I've seen all of those. At MIA.  EditForContent: Fear the mighty Bahamian Defense For... Oh... I guess they're not flying today. 
MrYenko fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:The difference is that the normal EMI signatures inside the aircraft are known and tested for. Having people bring unknown fields with them and turn them on at random locations in the cabin is something aviation has been wary of, and I think rightfully so since it has in fact caused problems in the past. This is a dumb argument. ANY consumer device that sends or receives a wireless signal is regulated by the FCC. That label isn't some random sticker that manufacturers put on, it's a certification that the device has been tested and complies with FCC regulations. A plane drat well better at least follow those same specifications and regulations. And also the argument about "we drat well better not be depending on Billy-Bob in row C remembering to turn off his cell phone or we're all going down".
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Also, wtf is happening to GBS? I dunno, but thank god.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Strike capability too. Interesting. Well, at this point "building in strike capability" only costs them the pixels for the bullet point, and the putting the bomb bay doors on the rendering. I can't get over how not-news-at-all and no-airplane-in-sight this is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Just finished the ATA 24 (electrical power) for my 787 endorsement... Very very clever. Completely new architecture that the more you look at it the more you realize some very smart and talented engineers designed this thing. One of the things I found most interesting is how it effectively replaces the pneumatic systems of previous generation aircraft, and yet the way it load sheds for things like engine and APU start is functionally nearly identical to pneumatic systems. It's definitely the most interesting type course I've been on so far.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
Everyone here in Seattle is excited for the 787 although the delays leading up to it have been an ongoing joke. I know I will be excited to ride on one. In the short term I'm more likely to ride on a 747-8 though. I am curious how much those sawtooth nacelles help noise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Just finished the ATA 24 (electrical power) for my 787 endorsement... Very very clever. Completely new architecture that the more you look at it the more you realize some very smart and talented engineers designed this thing. I wrote a paper on the 87's bleedless architecture for school, and it's pretty remarkable especially considering Boeing pretty much rewrote from scratch what was the industry standard for turbine-powered commercial aircraft pneumatic and electrical design for the last 50-60 years. I definitely see this design being duplicated in future aircraft from all of the major manufacturers. Also considering the organic support for multiple (very) powerful generators per engine and robust power distribution built into the design, I wouldn't be surprised to see Boeing try to market an 87-based AEW or AWACS platform in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
brains posted:I wrote a paper on the 87's bleedless architecture for school, and it's pretty remarkable especially considering Boeing pretty much rewrote from scratch what was the industry standard for turbine-powered commercial aircraft pneumatic and electrical design for the last 50-60 years. I definitely see this design being duplicated in future aircraft from all of the major manufacturers. It's really amazing. This is my 6th endorsement course, and you learn pretty quickly that an aircraft is an aircraft regardless of who built it. Now you've got this thing, and it really is revolutionary. Like, up until this point aircraft were designed in pretty much the same way built on the same foundation that's been established for like you say, 50-60 years. Even the 777 is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. This one is like an entire generational shift, like a whole new load of engineers came on board and said "why do we do it like this, and why can't we do it like that?" and instead of being told "because we've always bloody done it this way" they were given free reign to design something completely different. And what really strikes me is how elegant it is. Somewhere some engineer who came up with this concept is sitting there very proud of his invention, and rightly so. If I ever meet him (I might get the chance when I'm in Seattle), I think I might shake his hand. Of course, I guess it helps that I'm avionics, so instead of yawning and nodding off while they're discussing muscle air and valve operation, I get to get my cone on and really get into this electrical system bollocks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
FWIW, manufacturing parts for the 787 is a huge generational change as well. I think something like a third of the metal parts we make are titanium for that program. We're just starting to get into the composite poo poo as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
Linedance posted:It's really amazing. This is my 6th endorsement course, and you learn pretty quickly that an aircraft is an aircraft regardless of who built it. Now you've got this thing, and it really is revolutionary. Like, up until this point aircraft were designed in pretty much the same way built on the same foundation that's been established for like you say, 50-60 years. Even the 777 is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. This one is like an entire generational shift, like a whole new load of engineers came on board and said "why do we do it like this, and why can't we do it like that?" and instead of being told "because we've always bloody done it this way" they were given free reign to design something completely different. And what really strikes me is how elegant it is. Somewhere some engineer who came up with this concept is sitting there very proud of his invention, and rightly so. If I ever meet him (I might get the chance when I'm in Seattle), I think I might shake his hand. I'd love for either of you to do a semi-layman's writeup of what's so innovative about the 787's bleedless architecture. I think most of us know that it's A Thing and that it helps to increase the fuel efficiency over a bleed air system, but what about it is well-engineered/thought out?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:I'd love for either of you to do a semi-layman's writeup of what's so innovative about the 787's bleedless architecture. I think most of us know that it's A Thing and that it helps to increase the fuel efficiency over a bleed air system, but what about it is well-engineered/thought out? I'd read this as well. I'd love to work on what I do for the dreamliner but my slated projects are all 737s and a320s 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
If I get some free time I'll see what I can manage, but I'm not sure how good a job I can do of conveying it. You kind of need a decent understanding of current aircraft electrical and pneumatic systems, and I don't think I'm that good an instructor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
Anyone remember the Time-Life 'Great Fighting Jets' series? Well I was at Wal-Mart tonight when I saw something unexpected and made a spur of the moment purchase. Long story short, I think I found a project to start working on this weekend. I just hope it works well enough for VHS quality video.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
Bad news everyone; tonight's infopost has been delayed. Aiming for Monday now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:That's the way they're supposed to work. You can't get very high at all before losing connectivity, and the higher through put data protocols go first. Sometimes. Other times not. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
Not pictured: Being in a six million dollar aircraft and using Apple's "Find My Friends" feature to relay coordinates because of crappy VHF coverage at altitudes less than a mile high.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The issue with cell phones (which are still forbidden according to the FCC) is that when you're at a few thousand feet up and have line of sight to every cell tower closer than the horizon you start grabbing channels/freqs on all of them, instead of just the one you're close to as you drive down the highway. You're sucking up all those channels on all those cells for as long as your call lasts, instead of just talking to one tower and then getting handed over to the next one as happens when you move around on the ground. It's not a safety issue for the plane, it just doesn't play nicely will the cellular network. More to the point, if PEDs did interfere with planes seriously enough to cause a safety issue we'd see them dropping out of the skies like bricks because you can guarantee a few people on every flight won't have turned them off. And if they're that dangerous then the cabin crew should go around with a lead-lined box before takeoff and force everyone to deposit them in there for safety.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Polymerized Cum posted:Sometimes. Other times not. That's still fairly low. I imagine it gets harder the higher you get. I tried in the bathroom on a few flights (can I admit this without getting arrested?  ) and saw a weak signal for a few seconds but not enough to be useful. At that point the seatbelt sign is off though and you're probably at least at 30,000feet. I figured I wouldn't crash the plane as I noticed plenty of people don't even bother to turn theirs off leaving the gate, they just stick in it their pocket...
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 05:21
|
|