tartare
8th Aug 2013, 05:23
This seemed to be the best forum to canvas opinions.
In the 1950s it took Lockheed just three years from first learning of the need for a high altitude spyplane in 1952 to having four working examples of the U2 on the flightline at Groom in 1955.
They did it again - taking just two years from first inking a contract for the
SR-71 in 1964 to delivering the first prototype article in 1966.
Two truly revolutionary aircraft that were a quantum leap in performance in two regimes (service ceiling and speed) on those that had preceded them - and using the technology of the day.
Heck - the Americans went to the moon in under a decade.
Yet we're going to have to wait til 2020 at least for the first full size Sabre engine - and then til god knows when to see Skylon actually fly if it ever does at all.
Accepting that:
a) there was a war on back then (albeit a cold one)
b) the materials science and aerodynamics challenges increase exponentially as one progresses up the Mach speed curve
...are there additional factors at play here in the ever increasing time to develop truly innovative aircraft?
Such as pure aversion to risk, increased bureaucracy, over inflated importance of HSEQ?
From watching the doco on Alan Bond et al - it would seem we have most of the technologies needed for Sabre and Skylon now.
Would Kelly Johnson have got it done a lot faster...?
In the 1950s it took Lockheed just three years from first learning of the need for a high altitude spyplane in 1952 to having four working examples of the U2 on the flightline at Groom in 1955.
They did it again - taking just two years from first inking a contract for the
SR-71 in 1964 to delivering the first prototype article in 1966.
Two truly revolutionary aircraft that were a quantum leap in performance in two regimes (service ceiling and speed) on those that had preceded them - and using the technology of the day.
Heck - the Americans went to the moon in under a decade.
Yet we're going to have to wait til 2020 at least for the first full size Sabre engine - and then til god knows when to see Skylon actually fly if it ever does at all.
Accepting that:
a) there was a war on back then (albeit a cold one)
b) the materials science and aerodynamics challenges increase exponentially as one progresses up the Mach speed curve
...are there additional factors at play here in the ever increasing time to develop truly innovative aircraft?
Such as pure aversion to risk, increased bureaucracy, over inflated importance of HSEQ?
From watching the doco on Alan Bond et al - it would seem we have most of the technologies needed for Sabre and Skylon now.
Would Kelly Johnson have got it done a lot faster...?