bruce@saturn.cs.swin.oz.au (Bruce Donaldson) (09/27/90)
From: bruce@saturn.cs.swin.oz.au (Bruce Donaldson) I am not totally familiar with aircraft capabilities, atmosphere conditions and the like and was hoping you could satisfy my curiosity. I once heard a story that the Blackbird could literally undergo a "burn up on re-entry" type accident. At first I thought this extremely far fetched, but upon hearing of the plane's fantastic altitude (80,000 ft plus ?) and speed (literally faster than a lee-enfield Mk4 bullet) I began to wonder. Then I discovered that the pilots suits are not your average G-suit, but are so over designed you could probably use them for space suits (though not Extra Vehicular Activity). By now I'm really doubting my original assumptions. A shallow dive could presuamably build up sufficient energy so that a rapid climb could convert this to additional height. I know that you don't have to reach vacuum to "burn up on re-entry" so the plane needn't be space-capable. Any thoughts or facts ? Thanx for any replies - Bruce.
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (09/29/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> I think it's a little late to begin asking questions about the SR-71 since the USAF has sadly put them all in museums or in storage. --Allan ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIDN 3/C (PLCJR) Allan Bourdius Carnegie Mellon University NROTC "Retreat hell! We just got here!" ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu Box 4719 5125 Margaret Morrison St. Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (412) 268-4632 The opinons expressed in this letter/posting do not, nor are in any way intended to, represent the official policies and positions of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, the United States Marine Corps or the United States Navy; so there!
jt@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (James Tuller) (09/29/90)
From: jt@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (James Tuller) Even during normal operation, the SR-71 generated extremely high heat loads which were controlled by refrigerating vital components, by using the JP-7 fuel supply as a heat sink, and of course, with that famous black heat-emitting paint. Presumably, a pilot could overtax the ability of the aircraft to get rid of its heat, to the point where things would start igniting.
military-request@att.att.com (09/29/90)
From: texbell!letni!digi!digi.lonestar.org!user1 ("USER1")
In article <1990Sep27.031756.7889@cbnews.att.com> bruce@saturn.cs.swin.oz.au (Bruce Donaldson) writes:
>
>Any thoughts or facts ?
>
I am not sure about the re-entry burn up thing but I will tell you
what I heard:
A friend of mine in school knew a guy who used to fly the SR-71 or at
least had gone through the program.
The guy said that the skin got so hot on the plane that the wing
span was three feet wider when it was flying at its operational
height and conditions.
The fuel is so inflamable that it can not be lit by a match.
The oil is a solid at room temperature and must be heated by
a blow torch in order to be put in the plane.
The pilot program is equivalent to the astronaut program.
Any one know how much of this is true?
Rick.
SMU Crew, Rowing's Finest!!!deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) (09/29/90)
From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) >From: bruce@saturn.cs.swin.oz.au (Bruce Donaldson) > >I once heard a story that the Blackbird could literally undergo >a "burn up on re-entry" type accident. At first I thought this extremely >far fetched, but upon hearing of the plane's fantastic altitude >(80,000 ft plus ?) and speed (literally faster than a lee-enfield Mk4 bullet) >I began to wonder. > >A shallow dive could presuamably build up sufficient energy so that a rapid >climb could convert this to additional height. I know that you >don't have to reach vacuum to "burn up on re-entry" so the plane needn't be >space-capable. > >Any thoughts or facts ? > I seem to recall hearing something about the properties of the "skin" of the Blackbird. If memory serves correct, the plane was covered with a polymeric composite which, due to the friction of high speed flight in a resistive medium (even at high altitude), would essentially melt -- i.e., become amorphous -- and recongeal as it cooled. The interesting thing about polymers is that they contract when heated (since the long molecular chains get kinked up with the added kinetic energy), so one would suspect that the Blackbird, upon close examin- ation, would appear almost wrinkled. Of course, I've never been close enough to see this for myself.... As for the question of "burn up on re-entry", I suppose it's possible -- if they went into a steep high-speed dive. However, it is up to the coating to dissipate as much of this energy as possible. |\/\/\/\/| | | | | | (o)(o) c _) | ,____/ | / /_______\ "I'm outta here, man!" -shane d deichman
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/03/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: texbell!letni!digi!digi.lonestar.org!user1 ("USER1") >The guy said that the skin got so hot on the plane that the wing >span was three feet wider when it was flying at its operational >height and conditions. The number sounds exaggerated, but thermal expansion and contraction was a big concern in the design. That's why the wing skins are corrugated, so they can expand without messing up the wing shape. >The fuel is so inflamable that it can not be lit by a match. (A better word would be "non-flammable"; for historical reasons "inflammable" and "flammable" are synonyms.) The stuff is supposed to be pretty tame compared to normal kerosene, since it has to behave itself in hot tanks. Again, the specific claim sounds a bit exaggerated, but it could be true. (Same general comment about the other things, actually.) -- Imagine life with OS/360 the standard | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology operating system. Now think about X. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (10/03/90)
From: fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) > From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) > I seem to recall hearing something about the properties of the "skin" > of the Blackbird. If memory serves correct, the plane was covered > with a polymeric composite which, due to the friction of high speed > flight in a resistive medium (even at high altitude), would essentially > melt -- i.e., become amorphous -- and recongeal as it cooled. Sorry, the SR-71's skin is less of a chemical engineer's fantasy than a high-tech cast iron stove. The skin is titanium alloy. One major problem is that heating causes so much expansion that the aircraft would have severe buckling problems during operations. One of the design team happened upon curious-looking cast-iron stove, having parallel grooves formed in the stove's sides. He asked, and found it was a way to avoid buckling...the grooves allowed for the expansion and contraction while allowing the side to stay flat. Sort of like a steel bridge's expansion joints. On the other hand, when they first went looking for a hydraulic fluid, the hydraulics manufacturer offered something with perfect specs for the cruise phase of flight. Unfortunately, the hydraulic fluid was a powder at room temperature. -- ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
elec140@canterbury.ac.nz (10/03/90)
From: elec140@canterbury.ac.nz In article <1990Sep29.155314.7821@cbnews.att.com>, ** Sender Unknown ** writes: > > The fuel is so inflamable that it can not be lit by a match. > That is certainly true. When the SR-71 is on the ground there is a continuous stream of fuel leaking from its tanks. Once the aircraft heats up and expands the leaks stop. Nothing has been done about this because the fuel is so inflamable that there is no real fire hazard! (information source: "Reach for the Skies", BBC TV series on aviation) ********************************************************* Chris Kaiser Postgrad - Elec Eng Dept Canterbury University Christchurch, NEW ZEALAND E.MAIL: c.kaiser@elec.canterbury.ac.nz *********************************************************
jumper@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Michael Lanham) (10/03/90)
From: jumper@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Michael Lanham) Using Popular Science as a source (not the most technical source around but...) The SR-71 has hydraulic fluid that is a solid at room temperature. It must be heated and maintained at high temperatures during pre-flight checks and preparation. The skin is slightly corrigated in effect to allow expansion of it during flight. I do not recall the wing span being mentioned, but the article did say that the plane is about six inches longer in the air after fast flights than it is on the ground. Three feet wingspan expansion seems a little much for structual integrity to be maintained. Also, the article did mention that the front portion of the cockpit reaches up to 3000 F with extremely high temps elsewhere also. Also, average cost per mission was around 2 million according to this article. The most incredible thing to remember about the Blackbird is that is was designed and built by Johnson at Lockheed's sSkunkwork back in the 1970s. The plane's design is twenty years old, still state of the art, and still the fastest plane made. Here's to the SR-71 Blackbird, one of the most beautiful planes around... -- He who will not reason, is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave. --- Sir William Drummond
png@uunet.UU.NET (10/04/90)
From: <ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!png@uunet.UU.NET> Recently, jumper@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Michael Lanham) wrote: > The most incredible thing to remember about the Blackbird is that is was > designed and built by Johnson at Lockheed's sSkunkwork back in the 1970s. > The plane's design is twenty years old, still state of the art, and still > the fastest plane made. At least the fastest one in the white world. :-) Aviation Week of 1 October has a pair of articles about sightings of rather unusual, and presumably highly secret, aircraft in California and Nevada. Some of these sightings apparently involved hypersonic aircraft traveling at speeds in excess of Mach 5. And they say that Lockheed's Skunk Works is believed to employ about 4,000 people, although they're not (officially) in production on any aircraft. The artist's conceptions of these aircraft aren't nearly as nice-looking as the SR-71, though. That's what you get when you use CFD instead of trial and error, I guess-- boring shapes. (Although I give Northrop a few points for the YF-23A, which looks kinda cute.) . png "One final thing. When you're eating lunch in the cafeteria, please do not cut your sandwiches in half diagonally and fly them around the table! Remember that the cafeteria is not a secured area. Thank you."
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (10/04/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
>From Michael Lanham:
The most incredible thing to remember about the Blackbird is that is was
designed and built by Johnson at Lockheed's sSkunkwork back in the 1970s.
The plane's design is twenty years old, still state of the art, and still
the fastest plane made.
The SR-71's first flight was made on 26 April, 1962. That means that
the design is from the 1950's not the '70's.
I have a theory about why the USAF was so quick to discard the SR-71
with so little resistance. When the design competition for the stealth
fighter began in the early 1970's, Lockheed originally wasn't in the
running. If memory serves, the original competition was between
McDonnell Douglass and either Northrop or General Dynamics. When
Lockheed entered their own design independently, it was accepted by the
USAF in a very short period of time, i.e. in weeks. That suggests to me
that the F-117A uses construction methods, equipment, and materials
common to another aircraft that Lockheed was building. Hence, I think
it is a fair possibility that the SR-71's successor might have been
flying since the late '70's or the early '80's--well before the
introduction of the F-117A.
Besides, what was the Skunk Works doing between the time they finished
building SR-71's in the mid-'60's and when they started building
F-117A's in the early '80's?
--Allan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIDN 3/C (PLCJR) Allan Bourdius, Carnegie Mellon University NROTC
"Retreat hell! We just got here!" ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu
The opinons expressed in this letter/posting do not, nor are in any way
intended to, represent the official policies and positions of the Department
of Defense, the Department of the Navy, the United States Marine Corps
or the United States Navy; so there! v059l49z@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) (10/04/90)
From: v059l49z@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) In article <1990Oct2.235500.24130@cbnews.att.com>, jumper@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Michael Lanham) writes... >The most incredible thing to remember about the Blackbird is that is was >designed and built by Johnson at Lockheed's sSkunkwork back in the 1970s. >The plane's design is twenty years old, still state of the art, and still >the fastest plane made. > >Here's to the SR-71 Blackbird, one of the most beautiful planes around... (Trying to to use forward and hoping it doesn't get on bypassing the moderator.) [mod.note: Not a chance. I know all and see all... 8-) - Bill ] Just a correction here. The SR-71 was developed in the late 50's-early 60's. Sure would be nice to have some around for the little get-together in the Middle East. Paul
jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) (10/04/90)
From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) In article <1990Oct2.235500.24130@cbnews.att.com>, jumper@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Michael Lanham) writes... >The most incredible thing to remember about the Blackbird is that is was >designed and built by Johnson at Lockheed's sSkunkwork back in the 1970s. >The plane's design is twenty years old, still state of the art, and still >the fastest plane made. Even more of a tribute to Johnson et al: actually, it's very-late-FIFTIES technology in an early-60s design. I believe the first public demo flight was in 1964. Depending on which "Aurora" rumors you believe, it's still the fastest, highest-flying plane around. >Here's to the SR-71 Blackbird, one of the most beautiful planes around... Worthy heir to the P-38, F-104, and U-2. A pattern begins to emerge... --Joe "Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jonathan A Bishop) (10/04/90)
From: jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jonathan A Bishop) henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: [talking about Blackbird fuel] >(A better word would be "non-flammable"; for historical reasons "inflammable" >and "flammable" are synonyms.) The stuff is supposed to be pretty tame >compared to normal kerosene, since it has to behave itself in hot tanks. >Again, the specific claim sounds a bit exaggerated, but it could be true. It's true. The flashpoint of JP-7 (the SR-71's fuel) is higher than the temperature of a burning match. The fuel is ignited with Tri Ethyl Borane. The fuel is also used to cool critical systems, such as the landing gear, which utilizes aluminum-impregnated tires inflated with nitrogen. -- jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu "Ground Control to Major Tom: Your circuit's dead; there's something wrong. Can you hear me, Major Tom?" -- David Bowie
jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jonathan A Bishop) (10/04/90)
From: jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jonathan A Bishop) jumper@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Michael Lanham) writes: >Using Popular Science as a source (not the most technical source around but...) >The most incredible thing to remember about the Blackbird is that is was >designed and built by Johnson at Lockheed's sSkunkwork back in the 1970s. >The plane's design is twenty years old, still state of the art, and still >the fastest plane made. Actually, the first A-12 (predecessor to the YF-12, which was predecessor to the SR-71) was delivered around 1962! As to Johnson's role in the design effort, he certainly spearheaded the development but, as one of my professors says (and he is an acquaintance of Johnson) that "Kelly Johnson likes to promote his own image." He has done incredible things, though. -- jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu "Ground Control to Major Tom: Your circuit's dead; there's something wrong. Can you hear me, Major Tom?" -- David Bowie
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (10/04/90)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) In article <1990Oct2.235500.24130@cbnews.att.com>, jumper@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Michael Lanham) writes: >The most incredible thing to remember about the Blackbird is that is was >designed and built by Johnson at Lockheed's sSkunkwork back in the 1970s. >The plane's design is twenty years old, still state of the art, and still >the fastest plane made. ...that is in public view... it's the things we DON'T know about which are faster, and more fun to drive.
geoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) (10/04/90)
From: geoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) >From: texbell!letni!digi!digi.lonestar.org!user1 ("USER1") >I am not sure about the re-entry burn up thing but I will tell you >what I heard: >A friend of mine in school knew a guy who used to fly the SR-71 or at >least had gone through the program. [...] >The oil is a solid at room temperature and must be heated by >a blow torch in order to be put in the plane. That can't possibly be true. If it was, the oil would solidify in the engines while the plane sat between flights, and the engines themselves would have to be heated somehow before they could be started. Oil doesn't have to be solid at room temperature in order to have the resistance to breakdown necessary at high operating temperatures. I've read quite a bit about the SR-71, and I've never seen a reference to this. Geoff -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems geoffm@purplehaze.sun.com + + + + + + + + Milpitas, California -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
pspod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) (10/05/90)
From: pspod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) In article <1990Oct4.012354.11544@cbnews.att.com>, ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes... > >I have a theory about why the USAF was so quick to discard the SR-71 >with so little resistance. For a discussion of the political aspect of the SR 71 retirement debacle see the latest issue of the Smithsonian's "Air and Space". As usual, the determining factor in any hardware and program decision has a greater political content than technological content.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/08/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >...it is a fair possibility that the SR-71's successor might have been >flying since the late '70's or the early '80's--well before the >introduction of the F-117A. Actually, there is some evidence that it followed the F-117A at Lockheed. Lockheed's reported revenue from "black" programs, in its financial statements, has remained more or less constant despite the ending of the F-117A program. The obvious inference is that something else took up the several-hundred-million-a-year slack. -- Imagine life with OS/360 the standard | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology operating system. Now think about X. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
adam%rondo@rand.org (Adam Frankl) (10/08/90)
From: Adam Frankl <adam%rondo@rand.org> In article <1990Oct2.235500.24130@cbnews.att.com> jumper@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Michael Lanham) writes: > > >The most incredible thing to remember about the Blackbird is that is was >designed and built by Johnson at Lockheed's sSkunkwork back in the 1970s. >The plane's design is twenty years old, still state of the art, and still >the fastest plane made. 1970s ??? The really amazing thing was that it was designed in the late 50's and early 60's. The first flight was December 22, 1964. Adam_Frankl@rand.org
tkopp@uunet.UU.NET (Tom Kopp) (10/08/90)
From: uwm!carroll1.cc.edu!tkopp@uunet.UU.NET (Tom Kopp) In article <1990Sep29.155242.7693@cbnews.att.com> ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: >From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >I think it's a little late to begin asking questions about the SR-71 >since the USAF has sadly put them all in museums or in storage. I don't know. I've heard what everyone has said, but everything I read that carried any weight with me either specified that they were retiring 'nine' SR-71s, or said they were retiring 'some' of them. I have my doubts. They never told us how many were made, and it was never said that these were the 'last' nine remaining. I have two basic theories...either a: they're still flying a handfull of them but only when necessary. or b: they've got something even better. The Aurora project would be nice, but I doubt they're actually capable of going operational with it yet. I'm almost willing to bet money there've been SR-71s over Iraq, Kuwait, etc. in recent months. Anyone else feel this way, or can it be positvely concluded that these WERE the last nine aircraft? On the negative side, I do know it took extreme amounts of time and money to put one over a target, and we have a reasonable satellite system now, but getting a satellite in position seems to me to be tougher than putting a Blackbird on target. It's easier to refuel a '71 than a satellite... -- Thomas J. Kopp - Carroll College, Waukesha, WI tkopp@carroll1.cc.edu uunet!marque!carroll1!tkopp "Some people aim to live the longest. My goal is to live the most." - Me
swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) (10/15/90)
From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) >>The plane's design is twenty years old, still state of the art, and >>still the fastest plane made. > >1970s ??? The really amazing thing was that it was designed in the > >late 50's and early 60's. The first flight was December 22, 1964. > > Correction: the first flight was December 22, 1964; that is correct, but that was for SR-71A. An explanation follows: Procurement of this aircraft was authorised after consideration of competitive designs from Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed and North American, and detail design of the Lockheed submission began in 1959. Known then by the designation A-11, its orginal purpose was almost certainly to supersede the Lockheed U-2 for long-range high-altitute surveillance missions. Like the U-2, it was designed by a small team led by C. L. (Kelly) Johnson, Lockheed's Vice-President for Advanced Development Projects, in the ADP building at Burbank known as the "Skunk Works." For its construction, a new titanium alloy known as Beta B-120 was evolved specially by Lockheed and the Titanium Metals Corporaton, and 93 per cent by weight of the A-11's structure is built of this alloy, which has a tensile strength of up to 200,000 lb/sq in. Existence of the A-11 was not revealed officially until 29 February 1964, when President Lyndon Johnson stated at a news conference that it had already been tested in sustained flight at speeds of more than 1,735 knots (2,000 mph) and at heights in excess of 70,000 ft at Edwards Air Force Base, California. The following versions of the aircraft have been built: YF-12A. The first three A-11 aircraft (60-6934 to 60-6936), ordered on a USAF contract in FY 1960, were redesignated YF-12A in 1964, during which year they were evaluated as experimental all-weather fighters in the USAF's IMI (Improved Manned Interceptor) programme. First flight took place at Watertown Strip, in the Nevada desert, on 26 April 1962. The YF-12A was displayed publicly for the first time at Edwards AFB on 30 September 1964. YF-12C. Designation of the fourth aircraft (60-6937), ordered on the same contract as the three A-11/YF-12As and completed as the prototype for the SR-71 version. SR-71A. Strategic photographic and electronic reconnaissance aircraft, developed from the YF-12A via the YF-12C prototype. Development began in February 1963, and the first production SR-71A (60-7950) made its first flight at Edwards AFB on 22 December 1964. Existence first revealed officially, by President Johnson, on 24 July 1964. As in the YF-12C, the SR-71A fuselage is slightly longer than that of the YF-12A, the wing/body chine fairings extend fully forward to meet at the extreme nose, and there are no ventral fins. The SR-71A is substantially heavier than the YF-12A, carries considerably more fuel, and has a longer range. SR-71B. Originally tandem two-seat operational training version of the SR-71A, with second cockpit elevated aft of front (pilot's) cockpit. Fixed ventral tail-fins under nacelles reintroduced. Two aircraft known (61-7951 and '56). One aircraft was subsequently lost in a crash. SR-71C. Revised training version, modified from an SR-71A after the loss of one SR-71B in an accident. Source: Jane's All The World's Aircraft