Top 50 Fastest Aircrafts - Page 2




 
--
 
May 5th, 2005  
behemoth79
 
 
yes but if you are flying at a constant speed, the g-forces dont affect you. the astronauts are only strapped in during those times because during actual space flight the speed is constant so the body is not affected. its like riding in a car or bus. you only feel the pressure during acceleration and stopping. so as long as the speed is constant, no worries.
May 5th, 2005  
Themrose89
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by behemoth79
Quote:
Originally Posted by RankIt
Isn't the SR-71 the fastest?
it was when it first came out. the X series is taking over now.

hasnt the SR-71 been retired?
Its back out
May 5th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by behemoth79
yes but if you are flying at a constant speed, the g-forces dont affect you. the astronauts are only strapped in during those times because during actual space flight the speed is constant so the body is not affected. its like riding in a car or bus. you only feel the pressure during acceleration and stopping. so as long as the speed is constant, no worries.
Plus the fact in space there are no G-Forces, or very minimal ones. I'm hardly an expert so if anyone knows different please correct me. Launching spacecraft in space will get round the big G's required to break the Earth's gravitational pull.
--
May 5th, 2005  
AussieNick
 
Quote:
G's required to break the Earth's gravitational pull.
The issue isn't G-forces in outer space. I mean there are more G-s being pulled to escape the earth's pull than a plane would use to accelerate to high speed.

The human body can travel at high speed, and regularly does. I probably pull more G's on my motorbike or in my ute than are required to get the plane up to speed
May 5th, 2005  
Trevor
 
X-43 is the scramjet if I'm not mistaken?
May 5th, 2005  
Shaan14
 
SR-71 getting old now they should be able to invent a better aircraft now. and it could no way top 9.8mach but it used to be the fastest for a long time. its a good spy plane
May 6th, 2005  
Jack_Mordino
 
 
Are you sure the SR71 managed only about 3.2 mach? The Mig25R Foxbat is also at 3.2 and outperforms the SR71 in altitude while retaining a conventional fighter airplane design, nothing like the exotic lines of the SR71.
May 6th, 2005  
WarMachine
 
 
yea but the foxbat isn't all that great for reconaissance whereas that's all the sr 71 did. Plus the blackbird was made earlier and bigger would make since given the technology

Btw, are you guys saying that g forces has nothing to do with a pliot's integrity? If they're moving at 10g's then they're gonna need a good system to make sure they don't pass out, why do you think sr 71 pilots wear spacesuits? Well, ok they wear them to survive in case of ejection, but still, those breathing tubes pilots wear is for sustaining themselves at high speeds.
May 6th, 2005  
Jack_Mordino
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarMachine
yea but the foxbat isn't all that great for reconaissance whereas that's all the sr 71 did. Plus the blackbird was made earlier and bigger would make since given the technology
Never said the opposite. The Foxbat, as well as its successor the Foxhound were interceptors, designed to down hostile strategic bombers at safe distances. They also had an anti-satellite role. My surprise was that the SR71 "only" made 3.2 mach, I thought it could do a lot more...
May 6th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack_Mordino
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarMachine
yea but the foxbat isn't all that great for reconaissance whereas that's all the sr 71 did. Plus the blackbird was made earlier and bigger would make since given the technology
Never said the opposite. The Foxbat, as well as its successor the Foxhound were interceptors, designed to down hostile strategic bombers at safe distances. They also had an anti-satellite role. My surprise was that the SR71 "only" made 3.2 mach, I thought it could do a lot more...
I think you will find that the SR71s mach 3.2 rating is only its "known/declared" speed it was in fact quicker than that.