Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Replicant on March 13, 2006, 02:49:51 PM
-
Interesting article here. (http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/oldstuff/2006/sr71/sr71.htm)
Brings back rather fond memories. I went to many airshows during the 80s but my favourites were always at RAF Mildenhall between 1983-1990. Seeing the Blackbird was always something special.
Many miles from Mildenhall I was walking home one afternoon when I noticed up above seeing a SR71 with two T38s flying either side. I believe that particular Blackbird was returning to the USA. Was a rather fond farewell! :)
Who else loved this aircraft? I managed to look inside the one at Duxford but all the interesting bits, and seats (!), had been removed!
(http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/oldstuff/2006/sr71/17973.jpg)
-
To me, it represented the epitome of sexy and mean looking aircraft. Considering when it was designed and what it can do. Well,..you really have to hand to the SkunkWorks guys (especially Kelly).
I got to see, be around, and sit in the cockpit when I was in the AF.
I remember the final publicly known flight setting a new coast-to-coast record. She was something to behold at speed.
-
It's just an amazing looking aircraft, even now it still looks super cool!
-
In Kelly's skunkworks book they talk about fitting it with look-down/shoot-down radar and engaging 10k targets from 80k. That's just neat.
-
How ironic this post is, my son just qualified in the M-21 (CIA version of the SR-71) yesterday! ;)
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/133099971.jpg)
-
(http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/pilotsuit1.jpg)
SR-71 Flight Suit
(http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-69/images/medium/KSC-95EC-1289.jpg)
Space Shuttle Flight Suit
-
Raider, I'm pretty sure you're mistaken. All the movies I've seen show this as the space suit. :)
(http://www.costumesinc.com/Costumes/images/medium/55642-std.jpg)
-
Convict orange or piss stain yellow? Tough choice. Remember Raider, they were damn near close to space, so they need the suits to survive if the situation ever came to them having to pull the cord. I know, I know, you work at an Air Force Museum, but also know most of us here are, well, aviation enthusiasts to a point.
-
yeah but the cold up there would probaly freeze of there visor
I quit that Musuem job found it to be boring:D
-
What's even COOLER about the SR-71 is that it cost $100,000 an HOUR to fly:aok (THat's in 1970's dollars)
-
Ive always loved that plane. I loved it even more when I found out my grandfather helped buuild them in nevada.
-
it had its drawbacks though
(http://www.horsfall9.freeserve.co.uk/planes/SR71_refuel.gif)
I think I read in article online that the SR-71 had to refuel about 20 minutes after take off but I'm not sure It was a gas guzzler though
-
it was originally designed to intercept russian bombers but by the time it was ready missiles had replaced bombers as the threat, so it was converted to recon work, some are still flown by NASA and the CIA.
-
It did, because before take off it's skin is porous, leaking fuel like crazy. When it gets to high speed, its skin contracts, sealing the tanks, but requiring immediate fuel. plus, cruisin at mach 3 does take a lot of gas :)
-
Saw one fly at Norton AFB in 1984. It made a couple of slow passes then lit the burners and went like a bat out of sight. The roar was deafening but I loved it.
-
She's a grand old cold warrior. One of the best out of the skunk works. IMO one of the best looking of the fast movers. I was sorry to see them retired.
-
(http://www.testpilot.ru/usa/lockheed/sr/71/images/sr71_lasre.jpg)
(http://air.xuexue.net/others/gfx/sr71_4.jpg)
what is that white thing near the stabilizers?
:confused:
-
Originally posted by Seraphim
It did, because before take off it's skin is porous, leaking fuel like crazy. When it gets to high speed, its skin contracts, sealing the tanks, but requiring immediate fuel. plus, cruisin at mach 3 does take a lot of gas :)
Not quite right Serphim, but close. The panels of the skin were spaced apart to allow for expansion due to heat at high speeds.
She did leak fuel on the ground and in the air, until she got hot enough for the panels to expand. She was filled in the air for safety reasons. The fuel was much more docile below freezing and the leaks were minimal.
-
I don't see how it could carry bombs/missiles bombs would have quite a effect fall ing from 100,000ft.+
-
gawd i love that plane. its an orgasm with wings. i saw one at an airshow just before it retired. pulled a few Gs, then lit out flippin fast. the i could see the tail from the engines and it was day.
to tell u the truth, that it the one plane without guns that i like. just think, if it was improved with higher output lighter more modern engines, itd b untouchable.:t
-
I used to rub up against SR- 71 engines like a cat in heat .(MEEEEEOOOOOW)
Got to sit in on a few test cell runs that were pritty cool .
Yes they leak from almost every orifice due to expansion while sitting static .
-
http://www1.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Movie/index.html
about a dozen Blackbird videos at this URL & bunch of other top quality aeroporn also
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
yeah but the cold up there would probaly freeze of there visor
I quit that Musuem job found it to be boring:D
what did you do there raider?
-
Originally posted by Furball
what did you do there raider?
I think he mentioned he worked the cash register counter...:huh :eek: :p
http://www.sponge-buddy.net/staticfiles/staticfiles/21b/2.jpg
-
I was the person giving the tours of the musuem but after 6 months of saying the same thing 30 times a day it got boring
-
was that volunteer work or paid?
i can imagine that got old fast. you will always get a smart arse setting out to try and prove you wrong somewhere.
-
Two of the birds on static display in Palmdale, and also one of the engines
(http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c352/diamondshark/DSC00185b.jpg)
(http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c352/diamondshark/DSC00186b.jpg)
-
Geez! Roped off? I'll have to take more pics of our M-21 (SR-71). You can walk all around it, touch it, and they have a cockpit mock up you can sit in.
-
I love this plane. Super cold war just like the tomcat. The tomcat is sexier but the black bird is on a different level.
-
Disclaimer: I am a nerd
The two M-21s were built from A-12 airframes, not SR-71.
A-12, single seat, bare metal finish, CIA plane, way cooler than the SR-71!!!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Geez! Roped off? I'll have to take more pics of our M-21 (SR-71). You can walk all around it, touch it, and they have a cockpit mock up you can sit in.
They are roped off, but it doesnt matter, you can still go up to 'em and touch 'em. All of the aircraft at this particular museum you can touch.
-
The museum at Airbus Field sux
-
We have one here in Nebraska, at the SAC museum between Lincoln and Omaha. The thing is up on a pedestal in a diving pose as you walk in the main door 2-story lobby (which is all glass and glass roof). You cannot touch it, but by looking at it you can see that it did degrade a bit when it sat outside at the old museum.
From what I know about the A-12 and SR-71s is these tidbits.
1. Single seater is the A-12, designed as an interceptor for Russian super fast bombers. Yes, they lauch missiles from a bomb bay.
2. SR-71 name is a mistake made by the chief of the Air Force when giving a presentation to the President. He goofed when he was supposed to say RS-71. All recon planes ID's start with the letter R, but nobody is going to correct the head of the Air Force, or the President.
3. The motor oil of engines is almost solid at room temperature. They had a hell of a time figuring out how to get it to work. I believe they got it working somehow, but it isn't pretty. Electric heaters perhaps?
4. The engine intake cones retract into the nacelles when going full speed.
5. The plane does not handle bursting through the sound barrier that well (unstable). They do it in a dive to get it over with as fast as possible.
6. The engines are dual turbojets and ramjets. The high speed flight is with just the ramjet part.
7. Most of the thrust at high speed is actually suction from in front of the engines, not the exhaust comming out the back.
8. V-8 or V-10 engines used in race cars are used to shaft start the turbojets on the ground (stick the shaft into the engine and spin it up...it doesn't have onboard starter motors).
9. It does leak fuel on the ground, which is a different brand of fuel with a very high ignition temperature. JP-12 I think. Lockheed (Kelly Johnson in other words) never found a resonable sealant to use on the plane, so it never was sealed.
10. The tools used to work on the plane have to be the same Titanium used to build the plane. Early on the Chromium plating of regular tools was leaving residue behind that normally is not a problem. At very high temperatures it reacts with the titanium, and the plane often loses rivets when their heads were popping off.
11. SR-71s have flown over Russia many times, even though Gary Powers was shot down in the U-2. The Russians didn't make it public because it was embarassing to admit they cannot stop them.
Most of that comes from Ben Rich's book "Skunkworks." Ben Rich was the guy who took over the Lockheed Skunkworks after Kelly Johnson retired for health reasons. Ben Rich did the Stealth F-117, which oddly Kelly Johnson didn't think would work.
-
Raider,
That white thing on the top of the NASA bird is (IIRC) a prototype hypersonic engine. It won't even start below around mach 3 so the only way to get sustained burn tests without using an actual hypersonic-capable carrier vehicle is to bolt it to the top of an SR-71. I think they were also trying to use ground launch sounding rockets but those have most of their burn time at too low of an altitude. There have been at least 2 tests of that type of motor using winged subscale aircraft attached to the front of pegasus satellite boosters air-launched from B-52s, but the first attempt resulted in a failure.
-
Actually that white triangle is not the hypersonic jet engine.
It is the Linear Areospike rocket engine prototype. One thing about rocket engines is that the shape of the rocket nozzel bell has a big effect on efficiency. Narrow rockets work well at low atltitudes, and large bells work well at high altitudes or space. Rocket scientists have to choose a nozzel bell shape that is a compromise for the altitudes they want to fly at (ground level to 30,000 feet, then the second stage rocket has a different bell that is a compromise from 30,000 to space for example).
Then NASA tried to develope a single stage vehicle in the 1990s. The X-33, and later the Venture Star. They needed a rocket engine that would work at all altitudes efficiently, because SSTO designes only allow you to have 5% of the weight of the vehicle be everything it needs, and the other 95% be the fuel. Efficiency is everything. Thus they worked on the Linear Areospike, which does that.
But the 5% structure & equipment weight versus 95% fuel weight killed the idea of a Single Stage To Orbit vehicle.
-
I thought they mounted both those engines on the SR-71... Guess I was wrong?
-
Nope. The Hypersonic engine was tested by mounting it to the front of a Pegasus booster rocket, which is launched from NASA's B-52. It took two tries to test the prototype. The Pegasus veered off course when it was released and was blown up on the first try.
(http://www.24x7updates.com/newsimages/NASA_scramjet_goes_for_Mach_10_burn.jpg)
(http://www.orbital.com/images/low/hyperx_5.jpg)
(http://www.orbital.com/images/high/hyper-x.jpg)