home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!male.EBay.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!concertina.Eng.Sun.COM!fiddler
- From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
- Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
- Subject: Re: MACH 8
- Date: 23 Dec 1992 19:53:08 GMT
- Organization: Sun
- Lines: 28
- Message-ID: <ljhgt4INNimg@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
- References: <10302@ncrwat.Waterloo.NCR.COM> <alien.020z@acheron.amigans.gen.nz> <1992Dec23.173753.14938@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina
-
- In article <1992Dec23.173753.14938@mksol.dseg.ti.com> martinn@mksol.dseg.ti.com (niels r martin) writes:
- >
- >If the point of the question is: "can you go faster at Mach 1 at sea level
- >or at high altitude?" The answer is probably not yes or no, but rather
- >gets into the max dynamic air pressure that the structure can handle
-
- and various airframe and engine heat limits
-
- >--for example, the SR-71 could apparently not go much faster than 200 mph at sea
- >level because of the dense air causing structural damage if it exceeded that
- >speed--
-
- In 1968 on Armed Forces Day, I was a guest of the father of a high-school friend
- at the air show at Pt. Mugu NAS.
-
- *The* highlight of the day was a flyby (suprise!) by an SR-71. Two, actually:
- The first with everything hanging out at a bit over 200 mph.
-
- The second was better: cleaned up, just barely sub-Mach 1 until it passed over
- the beach, went into afterburner and climbed away and out of sight in a few
- seconds. Took hours for the grins to dissipate. (Huge noise as the throttles
- went forward, too.)
-
- --
- -------------------------------------------------------
- | Some things are too important not to give away |
- | to everybody else and have none left for yourself. |
- |------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|
-