![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 15:12:30 +0100, Alan Dicey
wrote: As my news server doesn't let me post to a.b.p.aviation, this is the next best place I can think of for this reply. In answer to a question about pictures of the SR-71 showing a shock wave, several people have responded saying that the SR-71 is not supersonic at low level. Looking for confirmation, I found this URL http://www.wvi.com/~lelandh/exec12.jpg - a page from "The SR-71 Reconnaissance System Executive Handbook", written by Bill Majors (Lockheed ADP), which gives the performance envelope of the SR-71. And yes, it is subsonic to about 20,000 feet. I hate to tell you this, but 20,000 ft isn't "low level". Low level is a couple of hundred feet off the deck. I suppose you could stretch it to 10,000 ft or so, but the SR is still subsonic at that altitude. Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all." Anonymous US fighter pilot |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Performance Comparison Sheet | Ed Baker | Home Built | 6 | December 2nd 04 02:14 AM |
A36 performance Figures | Anthony Acri | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | December 1st 04 07:55 PM |
High performance homebuilt in the UK | NigelPocock | Home Built | 0 | August 18th 03 08:35 PM |
CUrtiss Hawk 75 performance debate | Jukka O. Kauppinen | Military Aviation | 3 | July 16th 03 10:45 AM |