Slashdot Mirror

Hyperloop's maximum speed is projected to be 760 MPH, Mach I at sea level is 761, and Mach numbers go down as elevation goes up.

You either want an A-37 or an FB-111.

The A-37 is a "buff" T-37 trainer. It's not so much that you need the weapons, but the stronger engines, larger fuel tanks, and the hard points for luggage (pilots used a have a pod for assignment changes). Strip the armor during a refurb and the performance should be better, too. Lots of them sold into South America and Southeast Asia.

http://www.a-37.org/a37.htm

The FB-111 gets you supersonics. It was the first US jet to do at (well, near) sea level in sustained flight. Has a pressurized cockpit, too. Might be able to get one from the Aussies.

http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f111_aardvark.htm

The most interesting thing about B-2 is that it purportedly uses electrogravitics and that it also charges its leading sections of wings to reduce the drag.

Here's what Bill Gunston, one of the most respected aviation journalists has to say on the topic (his bio is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gunston )

I have numerous documents, all published openly in the United States, which purport to explain how the B-2 is even stranger - far stranger - than it appears. Most are articles published in commercial magazines, some are openly published US Patents, while a few are open USAF publications by Wright Aeronautical Laboratory and Air Force Systems Command's Astronautics Laboratory. They deal with such topics as electric-field propulsion, and electrogravitics (or anti-gravity), the transient alteration of not only thrust but also a body's weight. Sci-Fi has nothing on this stuff.

The literature goes back to Faraday, but the idea of electrogravitics really took off in the 1920s when an American physicist, Townsend T. Brown, carried out extensive experiments. He may have been the first to recognize that a capacitor (a dielectric material sandwiched between positive and negative plates) experiences a force tending to move it in the direction of the positive face. He found that the electrostatic charge induced a gravity field between the two plates. Soon he was making capacitors rotate on whirling arms, and measuring the loss in weight of capacitors with the positive face turned uppermost.

In 1953, Brown demonstrated to the USAF a whirling rig of 50ft (15.2m) diameter, which at 150,000 volts (150kV) became a mere blur. The subject was immediately classified, and for the next 40 years, while 'black' research in this field made astonishing progress, it was not reported. Though private individuals continued to experiment, and to take out unclassified patents, not much surfaced. Exceptions were Electrogravitics Systems (February 1956) and The Gravitics Situation (December 1956), published for subscribers only by Aviation Studies (International). This was a London-based 'think tank' run by two very bright young men: R G 'Dicky' Worcester and John Longhurst. Unlike the established journals, they published reports and informed comment without the slightest regard for questions of 'security'. The only time they were taken to court, they won their case and collected heavy damages.

More here: http://engines.fighter-planes.com/jet_engine.htm

Actually they brought the SR-71 out of retirement... Back in 1995...
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/sr71.htm
"The SR-71 entered service in 1968 and was retired in 1990, but in 1994 the US Congress directed that the SR-71 should be re-instated to operational readiness and deployed to meet the need for a broad area coverage reconnaissance platform. The aircraft were brought out of retirement and two aircraft were mission ready by the third quarter of 1995. "

NASA also owns and operates two SR-71's still to this day for scientific testing.

State your source? The F-35 is built upon many proven platforms and the US is the leader in stealth technology. Check out the typhoon Eurofighter:
http://www.eurofighter.com/
and a link to a comparison between the F-35 and Eurofighter:
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/jsf.htm

While I don't know if there's a "story" to the similarities between the two aircraft, there were not too many ways to build a supersonic swing-wing bomber in the 70's - 80's.

One might speculate that the TU-160 was inspired by the B1-A (which had its first flight in 1974, the year before the TU-160 started development), and that the B1-B was inspired by the flight of the TU-160 (the B1-B project started in 1981, the same year the TU-160 first flew). Of course the US and the USSR often looked at each others programs for "inspiration" ;)

Here's a couple of links to the TU-160 from the manufacturer and from some Internet site. The B1-B from the manufacturer and from wikipedia.

The majority of fighters are single seaters with no room to bring along an instructor.

Given the cost of modern fighter aircraft, I'd much prefer my tax dollars pay for a couple of simulators you can crash again and again.

What about MiG 1.42 MFI Cheaper and better than F-22.

MiG 1.42 MFI

No, that's still wrong. The F-16 is just a specific model. The F-16 Falcon is made by General Dynamics, but the F-15 Eagle (made 3 years earlier and having similar armament) is made by McDonnell Douglas.

The truth is, the government almost never contracts the same company for their next fighter in line. If one company can't come through, the predecessor can take up the slack until the successor comes along.

And anyone who knows about experimental aircraft knows that (until recently) the government would pit 2 or more companies against each other to see who came up with the best aircraft. This helps in a few ways, as if one design turns out to be unusable, they always have a second...and the "loosing" company already has infrastructure in place in case production needs to be stepped up.

In fact, Studebaker, GM, and Ford all made aircraft during WWII. And IBM, Winchester, Rock-Ola, Underwood, Inland, Saginaw, and National Postal Meter all made versions of the M1 Carbine during WWII.

No, that's still wrong. The F-16 is just a specific model. The F-16 Falcon is made by General Dynamics, but the F-15 Eagle (made 3 years earlier and having similar armament) is made by McDonnell Douglas.

The truth is, the government almost never contracts the same company for their next fighter in line. If one company can't come through, the predecessor can take up the slack until the successor comes along.

And anyone who knows about experimental aircraft knows that (until recently) the government would pit 2 or more companies against each other to see who came up with the best aircraft. This helps in a few ways, as if one design turns out to be unusable, they always have a second...and the "loosing" company already has infrastructure in place in case production needs to be stepped up.

In fact, Studebaker, GM, and Ford all made aircraft during WWII. And IBM, Winchester, Rock-Ola, Underwood, Inland, Saginaw, and National Postal Meter all made versions of the M1 Carbine during WWII.