ron@nbife.NBI.COM (Ron Schweikert) (03/10/89)
> My dates may be wrong (so please don't flame me) but I was told once > that the SR-71 first flew in 1962 and was known to the public until 1968. > An ex roommate's father who was an Air Force mechanic at the time said that the > flight line was always cleared on landing (always at night with no lights) > and as soon as it stopped a tarp was thrown over it. So secret that he > had no idea of what type of plane it was (i.e. boomer or recon). > I'm always amused by the rumors associated with the blackbird over the years, since I wasn't on the flightline in '62 I can't say if it's true, but since the plane is over 100' long (107'4" with the OBC nose if memory serves correctly) it seems strange. I served as a maintenence person/crew chief on the SR for 6 years and Beale and the FOLs. Some of the more interesting rumors: 'it has concrete tires because of the extreme heat.'. Wrong. The tires are painted silver (Goodyear silver crown's, 22 ply). Paint wears off the bottom taxiing for first flight.. Flies underwater because of it's periscope (seriously folks, heard this more than once). True, it does have a 'periscope'. It is a small one, about 4 in. long that the pilot uses to check alignment of the rudders since he can't see them. Also to confirm whether or not the drag chute released on landing if he is uncertain. Can't think of what else he'd use it for, perhaps for problems with refueling receptacle, who knows. At the FOL in Okinawa, we taxied the plane *underground* to the end of the runway for security. The basis for this was that from the main flightline you couldn't see it taxiing, it just 'appeared' at the end. The runway has a big hump in the center. Also sloped off towards our end. By the way, we weren't alone down there, there were other aircraft. We started the engines with the hanger doors closed until we were ready to go. YIKES, that would get warm!!!! WRONG. The only things we did 'secretively' with the hanger doors closed was uploading or downloading sensors. Most of the time was open for our comfort or safety(fueling etc). There were many other rumors. Heard any good ones you'd like me to comment on? Anyway, I was always confused about some of the security. Was pretty easy for Russians to know when we're coming, however I guess if you had something to 'cover up', the short time that it took us to get there probably wouldn't give them enough time. The one secret part of this that was strictly enforced was *when* we were flying a 'hot' mission. The map projectors the pilots used had a seal on their circuit breaker. It was not uncommon for us as we were fueling or something to preview the flight. Was very interesting. However NO ONE ever did when it was sealed. The SR-71 was and is still a fascinating airplane. I enjoyed learning it pretty much inside and out (mechanics-wise). It was ahead of it's time, but not any longer. Wouldn't surprise me in the least that there is something faster and better. With it's retirement, is kind of a passing of an era. Sad in a way...
NU052179@NDSUVM1.BITNET (03/14/89)
ron@nbife.NBI.COM (Ron Schweikert) writes: >There were many other rumors. Heard any good ones you'd like me to comment >on? You'll like this one. I heard that the skin of the aircraft was designed to allow for the expansion caused by fricion heating. Therefor the gap left between each panel was such that fuel would leak out while the "Bird" was on the ground. The plane had to be fueled and gotten into the air and up to speed to heat the skin and close the leaks! WOW! I would have ignored this one if I hadn't heard it from more than one "knowledgable" source. It sounds a bit dangerous ;-) NU052179@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Eric M. Priewe) ------- did i say that? GOOD-BUY #! rnews 1
rogers@falcon.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Brynn Rogers) (03/15/89)
In article <1993NU052179@NDSUVM1> NU052179@NDSUVM1.BITNET writes: >ron@nbife.NBI.COM (Ron Schweikert) writes: >>There were many other rumors. Heard any good ones you'd like me to comment >>on? > >You'll like this one. I heard that the skin of the aircraft was designed >to allow for the expansion caused by fricion heating. Therefor the gap >left between each panel was such that fuel would leak out while the >"Bird" was on the ground. The plane had to be fueled and gotten into >the air and up to speed to heat the skin and close the leaks! WOW! > I would have ignored this one if I hadn't heard it from more than >one "knowledgable" source. It sounds a bit dangerous ;-) > NU052179@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Eric M. Priewe) They plug the gaps in the skin with tar (or expensive equivalent) before flight so it does not leak. when the plane heats up it melts and goes away (leaving trailing flames???) It is when the plane lands that fuel leaks out. Every picture I have seen of the plane on the ground has a puddle under the plane. Brynn Rogers Honeywell S&RC rogers@src.honeywell.com also try this new address -> nic.MR.net!srcsip!rogers
robertb@june.cs.washington.edu (Robert Bedichek) (03/15/89)
ron@nbife.NBI.COM (Ron Schweikert) writes: >There were many other rumors. Heard any good ones you'd like me to comment >on? Yes, check this one out: when the SR-71 has been flying fast its skin glows red hot. This one was told to me by someone (I can't remember who) who insisted this was true. Another, much more believable, is that the SR-71 does not have fuel batters in the wings, like the B-1, and leaks when taxing. Once the wings are stressed by flight it stops leaking. Have they fixed the B-1 in this respect? Rob Bedichek (robertb@cs.washington.edu)
hinojosa@hp-sdd.hp.com (Daniel Hinojosa) (03/15/89)
In article <7593@june.cs.washington.edu> robertb@uw-june.UUCP (Robert Bedichek) writes: >ron@nbife.NBI.COM (Ron Schweikert) writes: >>There were many other rumors. Heard any good ones you'd like me to comment >>on? > >Yes, check this one out: when the SR-71 has been flying fast its skin >glows red hot. This one was told to me by someone (I can't remember >who) who insisted this was true. I find this whole discussion about the SR-71 totally fascinating. Peter Yee asked whether this had anything to do with the Space Shuttle. Well I'd say not directly, however the chaps who fly these pups are the next closest thing to Astronauts. On my wall here I have a poster of an SR-71 from Lockheed. It is taken while the bird is in flight. Looks like the photo was taken from a fuel tanker, looking out the back (do do do, looking out my back door) down to the left. I make note of this because you can see part of the pilot through the left portion of the cockpit. It is fairly clear. The 'pilot' is wearing a silver looking suit, much like the Mercury astronauts, and a helmet much the same. Too, looking at it from this angle, you get a better image of the wing span. Rather reminds me of the shuttle. I've got to believe like much of the rest of our progress in the arena of aviation, portions of this design found their way into the design of the shuttle. -- =dan=hinojosa========================================================= email - uunet!ucsd!hp-sdd!hinojosa \ / uunet!hplabs!hp-sdd!hinojosa ---------------------------- ---==(*o*)==--- ----------------------- Jesus saves... but Gretzky gets the rebound! He shoots. HE SCOOORES!!!
raveling@vaxb.isi.edu (Paul Raveling) (03/15/89)
In article <1993NU052179@NDSUVM1> NU052179@NDSUVM1.BITNET writes: >ron@nbife.NBI.COM (Ron Schweikert) writes: >>There were many other rumors. Heard any good ones you'd like me to comment >>on? > > >You'll like this one. I heard that the skin of the aircraft was designed >to allow for the expansion caused by fricion heating. Therefor the gap >left between each panel was such that fuel would leak out while the >"Bird" was on the ground. The plane had to be fueled and gotten into >the air and up to speed to heat the skin and close the leaks! WOW! > I would have ignored this one if I hadn't heard it from more than >one "knowledgable" source. It sounds a bit dangerous ;-) 1st part's true -- The only SR-71's I've seen on the ground had drip pans under them to collect the fuel. However, it's not dangerous. The fuel is JP-7, which has such a high flash point that it nearly requires an Act of God to ignite it. The SR-71 ignites it by injecting triethyl borane (TEB) into the combustion chambers, both for starting engines and for igniting afterburners. ---------------- Paul Raveling Raveling@isi.edu
macs%worke@Sun.COM (Manuel Cisneros) (03/16/89)
In article <1829@hp-sdd.hp.com> hinojosa@hp-sdd.hp.com.UUCP (Daniel Hinojosa) writes: > >It is fairly clear. The 'pilot' is wearing a silver looking suit, much >like the Mercury astronauts, and a helmet much the same. Too, looking As I understand it, the pilots wear some kind of pressure suit with environmental control included. This is probably due to the extreme temperatures encountered by the plane (600 F skin temperature?) as well as the pressure 'way up there'. >reminds me of the shuttle. I've got to believe like much of the rest of >our progress in the arena of aviation, portions of this design found >their way into the design of the shuttle. There was certainly a lot of accumulated knowledge put into the Shuttle, but as for the nature of the beast, I think that the Shuttle is considered more of a lifting body than a delta wing aircraft, which the Blackbird is. The very nature of the missions the Blackbird and the Shuttle are so different (SR-71= take off from a runway, go high, fly fast, land on a runway, Shuttle= TAKE OFF on top of a rocket, go really high, orbit the earth a few times, glide back (with no chance for a go-around), land on a runway) that it is very likely that the two don't share a whole lot of technology. Anyone out there want to agree/disagree? Manuel.
dtroup@carroll1.UUCP (Dave Troup) (03/16/89)
In article <1993NU052179@NDSUVM1> NU052179@NDSUVM1.BITNET writes: > >You'll like this one. I heard that the skin of the aircraft was designed >to allow for the expansion caused by fricion heating. Therefor the gap >left between each panel was such that fuel would leak out while the >"Bird" was on the ground. The plane had to be fueled and gotten into >the air and up to speed to heat the skin and close the leaks! WOW! You are correct, the skin of the '71 looks like a congrued surface. As the skin heats up during flight, it expands and smoothens out. Some of the designers had joked that they were attempting to make a Ford Tri-Motor do Mach 3. If you take a look at a '71 just after it has refuled, you will notice that the upper surfaces are wet, wet with fuel. Also when you see it on the ground, the 'wetmess' around the craft is also fuel. Danger is low being that the fuel has a real high flashpoint, and has to be mixed with another (very corrosive but nameless to this individual) substance for use in the engines. On another note, the concord also 'stretches' out when in a high speed, high altitude flight profile. If anyone wants anymore info on the '71 or other beasties, let me know, I have quite an extensive library on military aircraft. l8r... -- "We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, knowin' that ain't allowed"__ _______ _______________ |David C. Troup / Surf Rat _______)(______ | |dtroup@carroll1.cc.edu : mail ________________________________|414-524-6826 : voice______________________
ethiele@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Thiele) (03/16/89)
When I was attending Zoomie U. (the USAF Academy) the scuttlebutt was that the fuel tanks had expansion joints, which would leak on the ground. So SOP was to get airborne on 1/4 tank, make a high Mach run to the rendevous with the tanker, letting the expansion joints heat up, expanding & sealing the tank, and top off. Also, the titanium skin is stronger than at manufacture, due to the self-annealing process of attaining high Mach and heating the skin to 1500'F -- Eric Thiele ihlpf!ewt (312) 979-6425
dtroup@carroll1.UUCP (Dave Troup) (03/16/89)
In article <7593@june.cs.washington.edu> robertb@uw-june.UUCP (Robert Bedichek) writes: > >Another, much more believable, is that the SR-71 does not have fuel >batters in the wings, like the B-1, and leaks when taxing. Once the >wings are stressed by flight it stops leaking. Have they fixed the >B-1 in this respect? > > Rob Bedichek (robertb@cs.washington.edu) The '71 had to have a special fuel (mentioned in my other message) because they used the very walls of the internal wing structure to keep the fuel. Thus the need for a HIGH flashpoint. And whats the problem with the B-1? BTW, does anyone have a poster of the '71 @ the Paris Airshow when they had a fuel surge in the engine that they were using during an 'engine-out'(wing low, full opposite rudder) and the flame from the exhaust was about 40ft! Real impressive with the vortices and such... -- "We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, knowin' that ain't allowed"__ _______ _______________ |David C. Troup / Surf Rat _______)(______ | |dtroup@carroll1.cc.edu : mail ________________________________|414-524-6826 : voice______________________
bobs@vrdxhq.verdix.com (Bob Smart) (03/16/89)
In article <976@nbife.NBI.COM>, ron@nbife.NBI.COM (Ron Schweikert) writes: > > There were many other rumors. Heard any good ones you'd like me to comment > on? As an ex F-15 Eagle Keeper I have a rumor for you. I was told by an SR-71 pilot that unless they crossed an ocean it was considered a local flight? We were both at Andrews AFB for an airshow at the time. Was he BSing or is it true I always wondered. by the way what was your afsc? I was a 32672 (comm/nav/ecm) Bob Smart (bobs@verdix.com)
nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby) (03/16/89)
If the SR71 talk gets to be a problem, I vote we move it to
sci.military [moderated]. This rather than sqelch it.
In article <94193@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> macs@sun.UUCP (Manuel Cisneros) writes:
>In article <1829@hp-sdd.hp.com> hinojosa@hp-sdd.hp.com.UUCP (Daniel Hinojosa) writes:
>>
>>It is fairly clear. The 'pilot' is wearing a silver looking suit, much
>>like the Mercury astronauts, and a helmet much the same. Too, looking
>
>As I understand it, the pilots wear some kind of pressure suit with
>environmental control included. This is probably due to the extreme
>temperatures encountered by the plane (600 F skin temperature?) as well
>as the pressure 'way up there'.
Indeed this is so. They lost the climate control on a Blackbird a
number of years ago. The pilot called a mayday and asked for the
nearest place to put the beast. They put it in to Biloxi, I think.
When the fire crew popped the beast open, the cabin temp was a balmy
180F, and the pilot was most uncomfortable. I'm sure that he was saved
by his suit.
They let all the USAF airmen look at the beast, but they had a
cordon around the plane and curtains covering the sensor/camera area.
The fellow with the grim look and the loaded M16 made sure nobody got
too curious.
Neil Kirby
...cbsck!nakh16@homxc.ATT.COM (D.JACOBOWITZ) (03/16/89)
In article <9667@ihlpl.ATT.COM>, ethiele@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Thiele) writes: > When I was attending Zoomie U. (the USAF Academy) the scuttlebutt was > that the fuel tanks had expansion joints, which would leak on the > ground. So SOP was to get airborne on 1/4 tank, make a high Mach > run to the rendevous with the tanker, letting the expansion joints > heat up, expanding & sealing the tank, and top off. > I think the reason for taking off light on fuel (50-60% capacity, I thought), was to increase the safety margin in case of engine failure during takeoff. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dave J. ark2!dlj usual disclaimer implied
sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) (03/17/89)
In article <320@carroll1.UUCP> dtroup@carroll1.UUCP (Dave Troup) writes: > You are correct, the skin of the '71 looks like a congrued surface. As > the skin heats up during flight, it expands and smoothens out. [...] As the wing-span itself won't change much (it is mostly the skin which gets hot), the corrugations will actually get bigger as the skin expands! Perhaps another reason they exist is to increase the surface area available for radiating the heat away...but then again, more heat will be generated in the first place... Something else to ponder about - the SR71 is very dark coloured, and Concord is white for the same reason: to stay cool, so to speak! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "PENTAGON OFFICIALS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT | Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA AN ANTIMATTER SHORTAGE" ("WHAT'S NEW") | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw) -----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <-----------
dan@Apple.COM (Dan Allen) (03/17/89)
In article <94193@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> macs@sun.UUCP (Manuel Cisneros) writes: >As I understand it, the pilots wear some kind of pressure suit with >environmental control included. This is probably due to the extreme >temperatures encountered by the plane (600 F skin temperature?) as well >as the pressure 'way up there'. > >There was certainly a lot of accumulated knowledge put into the Shuttle, >but as for the nature of the beast, I think that the Shuttle is considered >more of a lifting body than a delta wing aircraft, which the Blackbird is. They are different, but when I went to Beale AFB last year and saw all of the pre-flight preparations for a "launch" as they call it, flying an SR-71 becomes more like the Shuttle than you would imagine. The pilots are treated just like astronauts. Pretty neat stuff. I got to poke around an SR-71 while there, and it was leaking fuel as people have mentioned. On the undersurfaces of the delta wing the wing is made of both titanium and some sort of plastic-synthetic material. This material is most-likely a stealth material. As we talked with the pilots we found out that they heat their food by simply pressing it to the side of the plane inside the cockpit, which nicely cooks their food, i.e., the skin of the SR is HOT! By comparison, a special food warmer is provided in the U-2/TR-1 because their skin temperatures are normal by comparison. Dan Allen Apple Computer
dan@Apple.COM (Dan Allen) (03/17/89)
In article <4892@cbnews.ATT.COM> nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby) writes: > Indeed this is so. They lost the climate control on a Blackbird a > number of years ago. The pilot called a mayday and asked for the > nearest place to put the beast. They put it in to Biloxi, I think. > When the fire crew popped the beast open, the cabin temp was a balmy > 180F, and the pilot was most uncomfortable. I'm sure that he was saved > by his suit. Incidentally, each pilot has two suits (so one can be at the cleaners while using the other), and one helmet. A full suit and helmet cost approximately $45,000. They are ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL to those suits used by astronauts. In fact, Shuttle people visit Beale AFB in order to be fitted for their suits. Dan Allen Apple Computer
sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) (03/17/89)
In article <5983@homxc.ATT.COM> h16@homxc.ATT.COM (D.JACOBOWITZ) writes: >I think the reason for taking off light on fuel (50-60% capacity, >I thought), was to increase the safety margin in case of engine >failure during takeoff. Talking about engine failure, if this happens during a high-Mach run, the resulting asymmetrical drag yaws the aircraft around so fast that the crew's heads (or rather, their helmets!) are banged against the cockpit's windows. [The engines can flame out at supersonic speeds if the inlet shock-cones are not set to the correct position for that particular speed...] (I read about the above many years ago in some aviation magazine.) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "PENTAGON OFFICIALS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT | Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA AN ANTIMATTER SHORTAGE" ("WHAT'S NEW") | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw) -----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <-----------
roberts@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Timothy Roberts) (03/17/89)
Gentlemen, I am not a hater of Soviets nor Communist Chinese but I do Believe in discipline and state secrets. While in the Marine Corps, I was based on a military station with plenty of "secrets" as my everyday surroundings. I am now a student of astrophysics and a little disgusted by SDI research. However, I do Not and will never reveal information to public access that (while hurting SDI) would reveal secrets or just little known facts that any fool could tell were damaging to U.S. Security. Think twice if you were ground crew or involved with the SR-71 program before you set us straight about our whimsicle rumors. This aircraft is for recon purposes and thus a military man with constant exposure to it might forget that what he knows, he knows because at one time someone thought he wasn't a risk. Don't throw away your secret status by foolishly blabbing on the network. Now, I am not directing this at any indiviual that has already posted something, I think, but don't prove me wrong. Practice thought before speech. Please write me for more, Timothy P. P. Roberts roberts@csd4.milw.wisc.edu P.S. Go ahead and say something and I bet you a trip to Kennedy Space Center that someone wearing sunglasses andd rubber soled shoes comes to ask you "A few quick questions!"
hogg@db.toronto.edu (John Hogg) (03/17/89)
In article <1596@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> roberts@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Timothy P. P. Roberts) writes: >Gentlemen, > I am not a hater of Soviets nor Communist Chinese but I do Believe in >discipline and state secrets... > ...Think twice if you were ground crew or involved with the SR-71 program >before you set us straight about our whimsicle rumors. This aircraft is for >recon and thus a military man with constant exposure to it might forget >that what he knows, he knows because at one time someone thought he wasn't a >risk. Don't throw away your secret status by foolishly blabbing on the network. > Now, I am not directing this at any indiviual that has already posted >something, I think, but don't prove me wrong. Practice thought before speech. Apart from the various errors, I haven't seen any data here that didn't appear in AW&ST *many* years ago. (I'm sure that Henry Spencer could give us the exact volume and number.) Your dictum has certainly been followed. Military secrets should remain secrets. Military common knowledge is another matter, though, and Aviation Week has scooped all posters to date---except, perhaps, for the most interesting and imaginative ones. Did you know that radiative cooling is insufficient at the SR-71's top speed of Mach 7? It must be supplemented by evaporative cooling. JP-7 is released along the leading edges of the wings, and boils off as it streams back. This, of course, drastically reduces the Blackbird's flat-out range, and the recon bird must be accompanied by a SK-71 tanker for supersonic refuelling. When the B-2 was rolled out, its leading edge was covered. That was to conceal an advanced version of the same principle, which uses a mixture of JP-4 and LOX for added cooling. Take it from me---I maintain all the Department's SR-71s, and CSIS has never refused me a security clearance... -- John Hogg hogg@csri.utoronto.ca Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
jrs2@abcom.ATT.COM (6991 2301 Maitland Ctr Maitland) (03/17/89)
In article <1596@csd4.milw.wisc.edu>, roberts@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Timothy Roberts) writes: > Gentlemen, > I am not a hater of Soviets nor Communist Chinese but I do Believe in > discipline and state secrets. While in the Marine Corps, I was based on a > military station with plenty of "secrets" as my everyday surroundings. I am >. . . > P.S. Go ahead and say something and I bet you a trip to Kennedy Space Center > that someone wearing sunglasses andd rubber soled shoes comes to ask you "A > few quick questions!" Not too paranoid, are we???
craig@.COM (Craig Stanfill) (03/17/89)
The rumor I have heard about the SR-71 is that the fuel is used to cool the skin. This would, I suppose, explain why they use highly viscous JP-7 (so it doesn't boil in the skin), and why fuel leaks out from the expansion joints. The other rumor I have heard is from someone who claims to have seen an SR-71 being readied for flight, and claims that the skin was frosted over (the implication being that the Blackbird used some sort of cryogenic fuel). I sort of believe the first, and a don't believe the second. - Craig Craig Stanfill Advanced Information Systems Thinking Machines Corporation (617) 876-1111
macs%worke@Sun.COM (Manuel Cisneros) (03/18/89)
In article <1596@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> roberts@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Timothy P. P. Roberts) writes: >I do Not and will never reveal information to public access that (while hurting >SDI) would reveal secrets or just little known facts that any fool could tell >were damaging to U.S. Security. I don't think anyone who was originally given the clearance to work intimately with anything of this nature is going to be dumb/fool enough to give away really important stuff. The Blackbird is by todays standards/ technologies not on the cutting edge anymore even thou it is still the hottest thing around (that we know of) and has been so documented, photographed, analyzed, and in general talked about that I don' think that there are too many things left about it that would really cause any problems if they were known, although I'm sure somebody will contradict me on this. So far everything that has been posted I've read in one of several books on the Blackbird, have heard/deduced from news reports on Stealth aircraft, or found on the instructions to my 1/48 model of the SR-71. Some of the explanations/'facts' I am not entirely convinced are correct, while some others I am pretty sure are way off, but its fun reading all this and I hope it doesn't stop. Manuel.
prl3546@tahoma.UUCP (Philip R. Lindberg) (03/18/89)
>>There were many other rumors. Heard any good ones you'd like me to comment >>on? > > You'll like this one. I heard that the skin of the aircraft was designed > to allow for the expansion caused by fricion heating. Therefore the gap > left between each panel was such that fuel would leak out while the > "Bird" was on the ground. This is correct. In fact I watch one, prior to take off, with fuel pouring out all over the runway. (Note, they only put in enough fuel to get up to alt. then they immediately refuel.) Phil Lindberg UUCP: ..!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!shuksan!tahoma!prl3546
velasco@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Gabriel Velasco) (03/18/89)
I remember reading , somewhere, that the surface on the SR71 was corrugated because of the brittleness of very thin titanium. It improves it's stiffness just like the corrugations in a cardboard box. I read this a long time ago and I don't remember the source so there's a chance that I am wrong. I am curious now as to how correct this is. Gabriel Velasco UCSD San Diego
steve@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Steve DeJarnett) (03/18/89)
sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes: >> You are correct, the skin of the '71 looks like a congrued surface. As >> the skin heats up during flight, it expands and smoothens out. [...] >Something else to ponder about - the SR71 is very dark coloured, and Concord is >white for the same reason: to stay cool, so to speak! Uh, I do not think that heat radiation played much (if any) part in the color scheme of either the Concorde or the SR-71. The Concorde MIGHT be white to help it NOT absorb as much heat, but the vast majority of the heat that is generated by either of these planes is in the form of friction, and the color of the plane does not make any difference in how much friction there is (unless the paint is really rough :-). The SR-71 is black mostly because it flies up in the upper-reaches of the atmosphere, and will blend in (more) against the backdrop of space (if you ever see one, you will notice there are NO markings on the underside). The color may have something to do with the RAM (radar absorbent material) and other Stealthy-stuff associated with it. I suspect, however, that most of the reason is to make it blend into the backdrop of space (when this plane first flew, no Soviet planes could fly as high as it could, and with the black backdrop, it would be a lot harder to site visually). >"PENTAGON OFFICIALS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT | Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA >AN ANTIMATTER SHORTAGE" ("WHAT'S NEW") | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Steve DeJarnett | Smart Mailers -> steve@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU | | Computer Systems Lab | Dumb Mailers -> ..!ucbvax!voder!polyslo!steve | | Cal Poly State Univ. |------------------------------------------------| | San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 | BITNET = Because Idiots Type NETwork | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ron@nbife.NBI.COM (Ron Schweikert) (03/20/89)
In article <281@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>, sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes: > In article <5983@homxc.ATT.COM> h16@homxc.ATT.COM (D.JACOBOWITZ) writes: > >I think the reason for taking off light on fuel (50-60% capacity, > >I thought), was to increase the safety margin in case of engine > >failure during takeoff. Structural reasons only. Like many aircraft, it can't land with it's max fuel load. Also, it took off only with enough to hit the tanker. No need for more for majority of missions. > > Talking about engine failure, if this happens during a high-Mach run, the > resulting asymmetrical drag yaws the aircraft around so fast that the crew's > heads (or rather, their helmets!) are banged against the cockpit's windows. > [The engines can flame out at supersonic speeds if the inlet shock-cones are > not set to the correct position for that particular speed...] > > (I read about the above many years ago in some aviation magazine.) > -- The banging of heads is true, even saw a cracked helmet. As far as the 'flame out' causing that, it wasn't a true flameout, although those did happen and would cause same symptoms. Most of these asymetrical gyrations were caused by 'unstarts', where for some reason or another, usually though by the computers that control the spike, the inlet lost control of the shock wave. The J-58 was not a supersonic engine, besides a majority of the thrust was caused by bypassing the shockwave around the engine and redirecting into the afterburner section, so loss of the shock wave effectively 'flamed out' that engine for the purposes of thrust. When this happened, the spike would go to full forward position, then the computer would retract it to proper position for shock wave control. BTW, let me make a brief comment on one poster's conern about military secrets. Everything that I've posted, or seen posted that was correct, is public knowledge. Maybe not wide public knowledge, but public nevertheless. Certainly there are things that are not to be discussed, but as for my part as I said before, I haven't read anything on the net that couldn't be found in Janes, Aviation Leak or Air Progress in some issue or another. Your point however is well taken. Rest assured... By the way, talked to an old SR buddy last night. He'll let me know when he hears of any retirement ceremonies at Beale. I'll post when I hear. Ron Schweikert
ron@nbife.NBI.COM (Ron Schweikert) (03/20/89)
> scooped all posters to date---except, perhaps, for the most interesting > and imaginative ones. > > Did you know that radiative cooling is insufficient at the SR-71's > top speed of Mach 7? It must be supplemented by evaporative > cooling. JP-7 is released along the leading edges of the wings, > and boils off as it streams back. This, of course, drastically > I'm sorry, did I miss something. This was a joke right? An example of how they get it wrong? The leading edges of the Blackbird are usually covered with RTV! Plastic leading edges. Guaranteed, no fuel release anywhere (except normal sieve-like leakeage :-)) except out the tail.
arg@warwick.UUCP (A Ruaraidh Gillies) (03/21/89)
In article <1993NU052179@NDSUVM1> NU052179@NDSUVM1.BITNET writes: >ron@nbife.NBI.COM (Ron Schweikert) writes: >You'll like this one. I heard that the skin of the aircraft was designed >to allow for the expansion caused by fricion heating. Therefor the gap >left between each panel was such that fuel would leak out while the >"Bird" was on the ground. The plane had to be fueled and gotten into >the air and up to speed to heat the skin and close the leaks! WOW! > I would have ignored this one if I hadn't heard it from more than >one "knowledgable" source. It sounds a bit dangerous ;-) Well it would be wouldn't be? But then again, they don't use regular Four star (or whatever the usual name for high grade petrol is in the States). I realise that the guy who asked for rumours will have replied to you before this article gets to you, but then, there'll probably be a whole host of people following-up to you telling you that THIS IS PERFECTLY TRUE! My memory tells me that they use JP-5 low-flashpoint fuel - you can drop a lit match in a pool of the stuff and the match goes out. And I don't work at Mildenhall (the USAF airbase in England where a Blackbird flies from) (Maybe the question for rumours was put out just to see how much *true* stuff about the Blackbird was disbelieved? :-) Question unrelated to the fuel issue: Why is this conversation in sci.space.shuttle? Sure, I like it, but why was it put in here in the first place? +============================================================================+ Contact me on: | Ruaraidh Gillies | "Many men have tried." arg@uk.ac.warwick | 2nd year Comp Sci | "They tried and failed?" or | Warwick University | "They tried and died." arg@warwick.UUCP | Coventry CV4 7AL | (Rev Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam & | Great Britain | Paul Atreides -- Dune) +============================================================================+
art@buengc.BU.EDU (A. R. Thompson) (03/21/89)
In article <349@tahoma.UUCP> prl3546@tahoma.UUCP (Philip R. Lindberg) writes: >>>There were many other rumors. Heard any good ones you'd like me to comment >>>on? Not a rumor, but a question: I've seen it mentioned that either the original drawings or the tooling was destroyed on orders of Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara. Does anyone know the details on this? Is this really what happened? Why would he do such a thing?
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (03/21/89)
In article <278@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>, sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes: > In article <320@carroll1.UUCP> dtroup@carroll1.UUCP (Dave Troup) writes: >> You are correct, the skin of the '71 looks like a congrued surface. As >> the skin heats up during flight, it expands and smoothens out. [...] > > As the wing-span itself won't change much (it is mostly the skin which gets hot), > the corrugations will actually get bigger as the skin expands! > Perhaps another reason they exist is to increase the surface area available for > radiating the heat away...but then again, more heat will be generated in the first > place... (From an article about Kelly Johnson read long ago and far away...) The corrugated skin on the SR-71 came about when Johnson (or one of his team) noticed an odd castiron stove with a corrugated surface. When he asked why it was made that way, the manufacturer said that if they didn't do it, the sides of the stove would warp as it heated and cooled...it kept flat sections flat at whatever temperatures. They were having this same problem at the time with the SR-71's design. > Something else to ponder about - the SR71 is very dark coloured, and Concord is > white for the same reason: to stay cool, so to speak! At the time, there were only two paint color available that would stand the heat expected during the plane's operation. The XB-70 got white, the SR-71 got black, and Lockheed spent something like $1M getting a pint developed that would allow painting US insignia on the aircraft, and not have to repaint after each flight. (Or so goes the tale.)
miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) (03/25/89)
In article <18674@srcsip.UUCP>, rogers@falcon.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Brynn Rogers) writes: > They plug the gaps in the skin with tar (or expensive equivalent) before > flight so it does not leak. when the plane heats up it melts and goes > away (leaving trailing flames???) It is when the plane lands that > fuel leaks out. Every picture I have seen of the plane on the ground > has a puddle under the plane. Something I've noticed every time I've seen an SR-71 at an air show is the large pile of kitty litter under the plane, presumably to sop up excess fuel. I've heard tales that the fuel's so difficult to ignite that ground crews will terrify neophytes by grinding out lit cigarettes in SR-71 fuel puddles. -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson
gfk@bridge2.3Com.Com (Gregory Kendall) (03/26/89)
In article <5628@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes: ... stuff deleted >I've heard tales that the fuel's so difficult to ignite that ground crews will >terrify neophytes by grinding out lit cigarettes in SR-71 fuel puddles. Listen up, folks. Cigarettes are not very hot, when it comes to igniting fuel. I have, repeatedly, dropped lit cirarettes into buckets of gasoline (that's right, mogas, autogas). NO ignition! A cigarettes won't even ignite gasoline, let alone kerosine/jet fuel. This trick is, I'll admit, a good one to scare the shit out of the naive.
dep@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) (03/27/89)
In article <540@bridge2.3Com.Com> gfk@vision.3Com.com (Gregory F. Kendall) writes: >Listen up, folks. Cigarettes are not very hot, when it comes to igniting fuel. >I have, repeatedly, dropped lit cigarettes into buckets of gasoline (that's >right, mogas, autogas). NO ignition! I'd be rather careful doing this. If you try it with a partially full bucket that has sat around for awhile, you may get a rather large explosion. A cigarette may not ignite liquid gasoline, but I'd be surprised if it couldn't touch off gasoline vapors. -- Never be angry when a fool acts like a David Pugh fool. It's better when fools identify ....!seismo!cmucspt!cat!dep themselves...it removes so much uncertainty. --Lord Peace --
raveling@venera.isi.edu (Paul Raveling) (03/28/89)
In article <540@bridge2.3Com.Com> gfk@vision.3Com.com (Gregory F. Kendall) writes: >In article <5628@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes: >... stuff deleted >>I've heard tales that the fuel's so difficult to ignite that ground crews will >>terrify neophytes by grinding out lit cigarettes in SR-71 fuel puddles. > >Listen up, folks. Cigarettes are not very hot, when it comes to igniting fuel. >I have, repeatedly, dropped lit cirarettes into buckets of gasoline (that's >right, mogas, autogas). NO ignition! A cigarettes won't even ignite gasoline, >let alone kerosine/jet fuel. This trick is, I'll admit, a good one to scare >the shit out of the naive. The real danger isn't the liquid, but vapors. Although most fuels are more benign, watch out for JP-5 -- it's volatile and the vapors are heavier than air; it'll lie on the ground and wait for your cigarette instead of dissipating quickly. This problem is why only the military uses JP-5, and I'm not sure how much they still use it. As for buckets of gasoline, that may be safe, but I'd prefer not to be close if you chuck a cigarette into a nearly-empty gas tank. ---------------- Paul Raveling Raveling@isi.edu
ron@nbife.NBI.COM (Ron Schweikert) (03/28/89)
> >> You are correct, the skin of the '71 looks like a congrued surface. As > >> the skin heats up during flight, it expands and smoothens out. [...] I pulled off *many* wing panels, top and bottom. It's impossible for them to smooth out. They have ribs perpendicular to those 'congruences'. One other poster correctly stated that design is for strength. > >Something else to ponder about - the SR71 is very dark coloured, and Concord is > >white for the same reason: to stay cool, so to speak! The black paint is a special mixture, helps to expel heat from the metal surfaces. What the Lockheed folks told us was that the black absorbed more heat from the metal than it absorbed from the sun. > > The SR-71 is black mostly because it flies up in the upper-reaches of > the atmosphere, and will blend in (more) against the backdrop of space (if you > ever see one, you will notice there are NO markings on the underside). There are markings on the top and bottom of the SR, like any other Air Force jet. It has the USAF as well as the star. Additionally, the jets that did the speed runs have a long, wide white stripe down the bottom of the fuselage. When I left Beale, they hadn't repainted them.
gfk@bridge2.3Com.Com (Gregory Kendall) (03/28/89)
In article <4575@pt.cs.cmu.edu> dep@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes: stuff deleted >I'd be rather careful doing this. If you try it with a partially full >bucket that has sat around for awhile, you may get a rather large explosion. >A cigarette may not ignite liquid gasoline, but I'd be surprised if it >couldn't touch off gasoline vapors. Every time I have done this (thrown a lit cigarette into a bucket of gas) it has been outside, sitting in the sun, sometimes for hours. The gasoline still does not ignite.
bobs@vrdxhq.verdix.com (Bob Smart) (04/01/89)
In article <7855@venera.isi.edu>, raveling@venera.isi.edu (Paul Raveling) writes: > > The real danger isn't the liquid, but vapors. Although > most fuels are more benign, watch out for JP-5 -- it's > volatile and the vapors are heavier than air; it'll > lie on the ground and wait for your cigarette instead of > dissipating quickly. > > This problem is why only the military uses JP-5, and I'm > not sure how much they still use it. As for buckets of > gasoline, that may be safe, but I'd prefer not to be close > if you chuck a cigarette into a nearly-empty gas tank. You are thinking of JP-4. The Air Force uses JP-4 which is very vaporous. It ie what is called a wide cut distallate. The Navy uses JP-5 which is a narrow cut distallate and therefor has a much lower vapor problem. That is specifically why they use it They have an aversion to vapors building up on confined hanger decks. I believe JP-5 is much closer to civilian Jet-A but being an ex AF type I only dealt with it in annual safety bbriefings and when one of our planes refueled at a Naval Base that didn't have JP-4 (some have a limmited supply for tenant units. The difference for us is the fuel gages read differntly on the two (different specific gravity). The Navy was real touchy though. If any JP-4 got into their fuel system they had to completly purge the system. To complicate the matter further NATO uses an even different fuel. They refer to it as F-?? (I think JP-4 is F-41 and their standard is F-40 but its been a long while) That we call JP-8 ( I always got that one and SR-71 fuel mixed up is SR-71 fuel JP-7? or am I reversed again(:-)) Oh well enough dissertation on jet fuel last comment though- when unleaded mogas was 1.00 a gallon in tidewater Virginia our squadron payed 1.55 a gallon for JP-4 to Base Fuels and we used ~3600 gal for each F-15 flight. Bob Smart (bobs@verdix.com)
maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu (George W. Herbert) (04/04/89)
In article <543@bridge2.3Com.Com> gfk@vision.3Com.com (Gregory F. Kendall) writes: [re fuel explosions] >Every time I have done this (thrown a lit cigarette into a bucket of gas) >it has been outside, sitting in the sun, sometimes for hours. >The gasoline still does not ignite. I don't know what angel is looking over Your health, but the last FEW times i tried stunts like this i blew up whatever it was, and once or twice myself. Kids, replecate only with clear knowledge that you may die and almost certainly will get burned. It's still fun, tho... ;-) ps-what's this still doing under 'sr-71...'??? george william herbert maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu
phillip@bartal.CRLABS.COM (Phillip M. Vogel) (04/05/89)
In article <22583@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu (George W. Herbert) writes: >In article <543@bridge2.3Com.Com> gfk@vision.3Com.com (Gregory F. Kendall) writes: >[re fuel explosions] [stuff deleted about blowing yourself up and how much fun it is] >ps-what's this still doing under 'sr-71...'??? And what, in the name of the Net.God is this doing in sci.space.shuttle? The SR-71 stuff is interesting enough, but jeez, let's leave the self-immolation stuff in alt.sex :-) -- Phillip M. Vogel, President | #include <standard_disclaimer.h> Bartal Design Group, Inc. Englewood, NJ | (201)567-1343 FAX:(201)568-2891 UUCP: killer!crlabs!bartal!phillip | Domain: phillip@bartal.crlabs.com
miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) (04/08/89)
In article <9552@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, steve@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Steve DeJarnett) writes: > The SR-71 is black mostly because it flies up in the upper-reaches of > the atmosphere, and will blend in (more) against the backdrop of space (if you > ever see one, you will notice there are NO markings on the underside). The last couple I've seen have had no markings at all, top or bottom. Not even a tail serial number. I'm assuming there must be a serial number SOMEWHERE (maybe inside landing gear doors or someplace like that), but all topside national and identification markings seem to have been removed over the last few years. Anbody know why? Oops, sorry! I forgot--I'm not supposed to mention this! Now the Commies are gonna shoot down our SR-71s for sure! I'd better stop typing now, so I can go and turn myself in to the NSA. After all, if the inquiry on the destruction of the USS _Maine_ is still classified, SR-71 marking info is BOUND to be top secret.. -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson