Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Equipment Discussions
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average.
  #21  
Old 02-02-2012, 02:22 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
I have been trying to dig up some info on this lens, I haven't come up with much other than the design was by James Gilbert Baker.

The field is supposed to be highly corrected over a large angle with minimal vignetting, but I can find no reference to it being apochromatic. Some aerial lens designs had their seidel aberrations optimised at the expense of achromatism, and so required the use of a coloured filter to keep them sharp.
It is not suggested that this lens is of that variety though.

An interesting and highly desirable piece of optical history.

fwiw) Here are a few more pictures.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/50231105@N03/
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-02-2012, 02:42 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
Did not Perkin Elmer make the stuff up with the Hubble?

Bert
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-02-2012, 03:08 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
I'm not quite sure I understand the question?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-02-2012, 07:02 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 18,183
Perkin Elmer made the Hubble Space Telescope and ground the mirrors to the wrong focal length requiring a NASA mission to insert some corrective optics. This is the same company that made this 36 inch lens.

Greg.

Last edited by gregbradley; 02-02-2012 at 10:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-02-2012, 07:32 PM
FlashDrive's Avatar
FlashDrive (Poppy)
Senior Citizen

FlashDrive is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bribie Island
Posts: 5,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by mswhin63 View Post
Loved that aircraft when I was a kid, found out recently it was taken away because the expansion and contraction caused it to leak fuel ever trip.
They were designed to leak fuel at ' Ground Level ' . The leading edge of the fuselage ... made of ' thin titanium ' ... would gradually ' close ' at high altitude ... and ' military high speed runs ' .... this would make the leading edge ' glow red hot ' ... even in the upper atmosphere's thin air.... enormous amount of friction.

The Fuel had a ' high flash point ' ... much higher than Jet A1 ( fuel for the F111C ).
( fact ) You could light a match while standing near the SR71 and not pose a fire risk ..... The SR71 has a ceiling of well over 20 miles up.... could out accelerate the Russian FOXBAT ( MIG 25 ) which had a Top Speed 3 x Speed of Sound ... and if the SR71 could fire off a Sidewinder Air to Air Missile ... it could " outrun " the missile in a straight out ' speed dash '

Some Pilot's who flew enough hours in this Aircraft were awarded their ' Astronaut Wings " .... why wouldn't they ...their on the edge of Space most of the time.
Not uncommon for them to see the " curvature " of the earth on normal missions.

They may not want to admit it ... but the CIA " borrowed " this plane at times ... to further their " intelligence " on Soviet Propaganda.

Impressive Aircraft for it's time.

Flash

Last edited by FlashDrive; 03-02-2012 at 09:03 AM. Reason: added text
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-02-2012, 08:46 PM
koputai's Avatar
koputai (Jason)
Registered User

koputai is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,648
And it was initially designed as an interceptor, not a recon aircraft, according to the Aerofax Minigraph I bought about it in 1987.

It's a great little book, tons of photo's taken during the R&D and build process. They also developed the D-21 drone that could be carried up by the A-12 (SR-71) and launched into hostile areas. The D-21 was powered by a ramjet.

Cheers,
Jason.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-02-2012, 08:56 PM
marki's Avatar
marki
Waiting for next electron

marki is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese View Post
It was the most beautiful aircraft ever designed. Elegant and with high speed.
Certainly was and the tewchnical achievements made to get it flying were staggering. Still the most advanced airframe ever built and will remain so for some time.

Mark
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-02-2012, 12:01 AM
Shano592's Avatar
Shano592 (Shane)
#6363

Shano592 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Central Coast NSW
Posts: 1,267
Yeah, look at this plane, and the era it was launched in, and then tell me a human designed it.

A definite product of Area 51.






What? You were all thinking it!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-02-2012, 04:28 AM
ausastronomer (John Bambury)
Registered User

ausastronomer is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Shoalhaven Heads, NSW
Posts: 2,620
Hi Guys,

Please note the plane in the photograph is a Lockheed A-12 which was originally built for the CIA in about 1962. It is not an SR-71 Blackbird, although they look very very similar. This design by Lockheed's Kelly Johnson was the precursor to the YF-12 and subsequently the SR-71 Blackbird. The Lockheed A-12 was taken out of service in 1968. The SR-71 Blackbird was taken out of service in 1998.

Cheers,
John B
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-02-2012, 09:00 AM
traveller's Avatar
traveller (Bo)
Not enough time and money

traveller is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shano592 View Post
Yeah, look at this plane, and the era it was launched in, and then tell me a human designed it.

A definite product of Area 51.
Actually its made by the Skunk Works

Quote:
Originally Posted by ausastronomer View Post
Hi Guys,

Please note the plane in the photograph is a Lockheed A-12 which was originally built for the CIA in about 1962. It is not an SR-71 Blackbird, although they look very very similar. This design by Lockheed's Kelly Johnson was the precursor to the YF-12 and subsequently the SR-71 Blackbird. The Lockheed A-12 was taken out of service in 1968. The SR-71 Blackbird was taken out of service in 1998.
John B
Yep its an A-12, the interceptor verison, single seater, SR71 is a twin seater.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-02-2012, 11:46 AM
cventer's Avatar
cventer
Registered User

cventer is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 957
There is an excellent book called "Skunk Works" which goes into the history of the buid of this aircraft and the first forays into stealth technology. Fantastic read if this kind of thing floats your boat.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-02-2012, 04:34 PM
multiweb's Avatar
multiweb (Marc)
ze frogginator

multiweb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 22,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by ausastronomer View Post
Hi Guys,

Please note the plane in the photograph is a Lockheed A-12 which was originally built for the CIA in about 1962. It is not an SR-71 Blackbird, although they look very very similar. This design by Lockheed's Kelly Johnson was the precursor to the YF-12 and subsequently the SR-71 Blackbird. The Lockheed A-12 was taken out of service in 1968. The SR-71 Blackbird was taken out of service in 1998.

Cheers,
John B
Geez... when you see what was flying up there in 62 you're just wondering what's flying up there now.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-02-2012, 04:52 PM
DavidTrap's Avatar
DavidTrap (David)
Really just a beginner

DavidTrap is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 3,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by multiweb View Post
Geez... when you see what was flying up there in 62 you're just wondering what's flying up there now.
UAVs. Far less political fallout if one goes down compared to the Garry Powers' saga.

It's really quite amazing what was done with the technology available at the time.

DT
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 16-02-2012, 07:02 PM
Scopie (Brad)
Registered User

Scopie is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, SOR
Posts: 55
"It's really quite amazing what was done with the technology available at the time."

I'd have to counter this with the comment that, in my opinion, these days there is far more "can't do" than there was 50 years ago.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 10:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement