Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What You Never Knew About The SR-71  
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7466 posts, RR: 18
Posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8068 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

From a presentation at an EAA Chapter 1000 meeting (at Muroc, aka Edwards AFB). Feel free to mentally sub in A-12 wherever you feel like it, since this applies to both CIA and Air Force examples. This isn't very well organized, but hey.


The SR-71 was capable of accelerating for longer than any other vehicle at max power. It took 20 minutes and 250 miles to reach 3.2M. Even the Space Shuttle only takes 8 minutes. Calibrated airspeed at 3.2M was about 350 kts, although the true airspeed would be about 1820 kts.

Cabin air comes in at -40 degrees, but the cabin still gets hot. The U-2 has a heater for its tube food, but SR-71 crews just held their dinners against the 300 degree canopies for a minute or two.

Typically, the most challenging part of the mission was finding the tankers (pre-GPS, remember) without overshooting hundreds of miles to either side or in front. However, single engine approaches ( normal approach speed 175 kts, landing at 155 kts) were exceptionally difficult, requiring full rudder and 5-10 deg of bank. The drag chute was critical for stopping, and if it failed (it happened, due to door problems, which usually melted the chute), you could count of very hot brakes afterwards. The NASA guys copied the Shuttle's chute from the SR-71.

The SR-71 weighed about 60,000 lbs, but carried 80,000 lbs of fuel and 2,000 lbs of cameras. Thus, it was fairly fragile, and was limited to 2.5G and 30 degree banked turns. It was actually a very lightweight airplane for its size.

It was standard ops to sweep the runway before every flight, because debris and tires inflated with 450 psi of nitrogen just don't mix.

The J-58 engine is not a turbo-ramjet. At high speeds the air does not bypass the core (it always runs). However, ironically, for cooling purposes, air is diverted around the core and directly into the turbine, which can explain the confusion. The SR-71 never operates as a ramjet.

The SR-71's afterburner is unique because it is designed to run continuously This required gold plating for the oil coolers, lines, etc, since gold has just about the best thermal conduction properties of anything, and the heat must be radiated away.

The fuel tanks were never intended to leak. There was no sealant available that could do the job and contend with 300 degree fuel. The SR-71 does not seal up from heat expansion during flight, but a 10lb/hr fuel leak doesn't mean much when you're burning 60,000lb/hr.

The most complex part of the aircraft and the most masterful piece of engineering were the inlets. (There's a diagram that goes along with this that I can't show to explain the 5 different flight regimes).

Engine unstart. Go faster than 3.2 Mach, and before you burn up, you'll have an engine unstart, where the airflow in the inlet reverses (of course, this didn't just happen above 3.2M). Everything was optimized for 3.2M, and at that speed the inlet cone has the shock wave right at the very lip of the inlet, and is all the way in at the limit of its travel (the smallest opening). The way to remember which engine unstarted first (because when one goes, the other gets disturbed and you have a sympathetic unstart from it too) is to recall which side of the canopy your helmet smacked first.

JP-7 fuel cannot be re-ignited in the air. The SR-71 carried about 16 starts worth of TEB (TriEthylBorane) for each engine. TEB explodes upon contact with air, and thusly is an excellent ignition agent for either the core burner of the afterburner (so it takes at least 2 shots to get an engine going again). The real limitation for the SR-71's flight duration was the TEB capacity, followed by pilot endurance.

Starting an engine on the ground used either four -60 air carts manifolded together, or a special cart that had two 427 Chevy Hemis on it that manually spun the core to 1000 rpm.


Don't steal, the government hates competition
43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7808 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Thread starter):
The SR-71 was capable of accelerating for longer than any other vehicle at max power.

I'll take that bet. Oil Tankers & heavily loaded freight trains take a long time to get to speed

Quoting MD-90 (Thread starter):
Starting an engine on the ground used either four -60 air carts manifolded together, or a special cart that had two 427 Chevy Hemis on it that manually spun the core to 1000 rpm.

The start cart engines were Buicks...

[Edited 2005-03-19 15:07:14]

User currently onlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2035 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7735 times:

True on the start cart engines not being Chevy Hemis. Mainly because Hemis were made by Chrysler.

Good fun article on the SR-71 though, I learned a bit about TEB here.


The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineLMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3956 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7699 times:

Here's another little known fact about the SR-71. The former Soviet Union helped build it, unknowingly of course. The USSR had one of the largest deposits of titanium ore in the world. So the CIA bought ore from the USSR using third parties and dummy corporations. Pretty slick!


Never take financial advice from co-workers.
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11084 posts, RR: 91
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks ago) and read 7680 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MD-90 (Thread starter):
or a special cart that had two 427 Chevy Hemis on it that manually spun the core to 1000 rpm.

I see SATL and Spacepope beat me to the correction, but this was a great post.

Excellent info.

There is an SR-71 cockpit section at the Museum of Flight in Seattle at BFI and you can sit in it and have photos taken. Almost made the trip worthwhile right there. I'm willing to bet that the guys at one of the museums around the country would be willing to let volunteers who donate time and money to the preservation of their aircraft would be willing to let folks take very close looks at the airplanes.

THis is possibly the greatest feat of engineering to date, considering what Johnson and his team had to work with in terms of time and technology. THey went from concept to flight in record time. Its sad to see them not flying anymore.


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 32
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7614 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Thread starter):
against the 300 degree canopies for a minute or two

300? what? 300 kelvin is room temperature, 300 F is what Concorde saw, and 300C is what XB-70 saw.

From what I hear and have read, SR-71's could have seen up to 900K and the A-12's might have seen upwards of 1000K as they were capable of M3.6


The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1531 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7547 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have the account of the crew that punched out of the last SR-71 lost, off the coast of the Phlippines. The airplane crashed into the water and the crew parachuted down almost on top of the crash site. They talked about floating in the water and seeing bubbles of TEB floating up from the wreckage. As soon as the green blobs hit the surface, they would explode.

Regarding unstarts, I once asked Marta Bohn-Meyer, one of the NASA SR-71 backseaters, if she had ever ridden through one. Her reply - 32 in on flight! They had a inlet controller go ape and had a rough time controlling the airplane.

There is a start cart at the Museum of Flight here in Seattle. I think it has two Buicks in it.

User currently offlineDuce50boom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7533 times:

MD,

Good post man, just a couple things though.

The SR's main speed reference apart from MACH was KEAS (knots equivalent airspeed) not calibrated. Max bank supersonic was 45 degrees with 42 used for planning purposes and max G was different subsonic than supersonic. 3.5 IIRC for sub. And the start carts were originally un-muffled buick wildcat 401 V-8s, then switched in the mid 70s to chevy LS-7 454s.

I managed to see one land at the Beale air show in 97, then came back the next day to watch the engine start and takeoff. Then a year later at Edwards for 967's final engine run. Absolutely amazing.....it's a real shame they're not around anymore. It showed the flag in the same way a carrier battle group off the coast would. Ichi ban

User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 7436 times:

I have a fun story about a friend of mine asking an SR-71 pilot about it's "real" performance capabilities. It went something like this....

(My firend)So, you say the SR-71 can do MACH 3 or around 2100 mph, but how fast can it really do?

(SR-71 pilot)It really does max out at MACH 3 or around 2100 mph.

Naw comon, really, how fast can this thing really go.

Really, it maxes out at MACH, or 2100 mph.

Yea but, we know that's the publicly known speed, but what's the real top speed?

Really sir, it's around 2100 mph.

(this goes back and forth for a bit, then finally the pilot grows irritated....)

So, comon, tell me, how fast can it really go?

(finally, the pilot barks at him..) Look, I can't tell you, OK?!?!

 eyebrow 

User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1469 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 7429 times:

You're lucky Duce50Boom. I live in FL and the Blackbird just wasn't an option at airshows/bases down here. My one chance to see one was at the 1987 Dayton, OH, airshow. I was a teenager and had begged and pleaded to get to that airshow as the Blackbird was scheduled to perform at it. It was staged somewhere else though, and though the announcer kept teasing us with the possibility of it showing up, weather kept it from showing up that day. Or that's what they told us. It definitely saddens me that I'll never see one fly.

In regards to the Blackbirds true top speed, I cannot wait til they reveal it. It's quite obvious that it has a higher top end than what they have published so far.

I remember reading an interview with a SR-71 pilot years ago. When he was asked what would the USA do if the Russians beat our speed record, his reply was that they would take a Blackbird up "and press a little harder on the gas pedal".

Aren't the true performance stats on the SR-71 sealed until 2021? I don't know if that is true, but I've heard that a few different times.

Great thread!

[Edited 2005-03-20 16:57:26]


You can run... but you'll only die tired
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 9998 posts, RR: 77
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 7423 times:

In years past, flying into Reno from the north, it was not uncommon to see an SR-71 go by below you. It appeared to me that, arriving from the east they would descend somewhere between the Rockies and the Sierra Nevada, and cross the Black Rock - Honey Lake area at about FL240 or so. Still seems strange to look down on such an airplane. It was a thing of beauty.

I got a peek in the cockpit once and one thing was instantly apparent. The mach meter was designed to read in much larger increments than mine was.

I knew Bill Skliar slightly, just before he was killed. I never got the chance to talk to him about crashing one of them. That had to have been an experience.


Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7402 times:

FYI: Here's the motor in a SR71 start cart. Taken at the USAF Museum Aug 03. Any Motorheads here that can verify that this a Buick?



User currently offlineJetmek319 From Germany, joined Sep 2003, 199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7359 times:

Going out on a limb here.... Looks like an Oldsmobile 455 to me.


Never, ever moon a werewolf !!
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7466 posts, RR: 18
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7288 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 2):
True on the start cart engines not being Chevy Hemis.

I thought that was strange, myself, but that was before my time, so I wouldn't know. The above is my condensation of someone else's notes from an actual SR-71 pilot's Powerpoint presentation at an EAA chapter meeting (remember, EAA 1000 is the chapter at Edwards AFB).


I don't know how fast it really could go before having to back down due to overheating, but it's common knowledge that the plane was happiest at 3.2M at 80,000 ft. I think it was 80K...

I remember an article in Air & Space that Kelly was confounded for a while about the titanium, because they had pieces that inexpicably cracked, when others didn't. Turns out that extra chlorine was added to the water in the summer to prevent bacterial growth, and the chlorine was weakening the titanium alloy. Thusly, the titanium parts that had to be heat-treated were treated with distilled, chlorine-free water.


Don't steal, the government hates competition
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 5750 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7260 times:

It's a Buick Wildcat. The National Air Force Museum website says so.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11084 posts, RR: 91
Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7131 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Heres the cockpit section at Seattle.




Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineB741 From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 655 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6996 times:

I have an AW&ST pilot report on the SR-71 by the late Robert R. Ropelewski dated May 18, 1981. Maj. B.C. Thomas was the instructor pilot and Maj. William Keller was the instructor RSO. Very informative article. It was based at the 9th Strategic Recon. Wing at Beale.


Being Bilingual, I Speak English And Aviation
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6586 times:

1. I do not know from first hand experience.
2. I do not have a degree in anything.
3. Same as original poster SR-71=YF-12=SR-71
4. I'm not a conspiracy buff

Any one who believes that Mach 3.something was 'max' is not taking things into consideration. Happy @ Mach 3.x, I buy, but not max...

Officially the Mig 25 had/has the speed record for years. (I think it still technically holds the closed course record)

An article I read from a Mig 25 driver, gave the following impressions 'The SR-71 easily out climbed,turned and accelerated the Mig 25 by a long shot' and 'when the mig 25 made it's run for the record, the engines were ruined after the sucessful attempt.'

A History channel report on the SR-71 interviewed the SR-71 driver who took the BDA photos after we attacked Libya. That driver cited "Doing mach #'s" (plural) he had never seen before. Yes 3 is more then one #, but considering the starter of this article cited 3.2 as common...Let's think about that..

Now the piece de resistance... The canopy of the Mig 25 (the official record holder) looks stout, but a LOT more then less like a 'common' jet canopy.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25
"The MiG-25 was capable of exceptional performance, including a maximum speed of Mach 3.2 and a ceiling of 90,000 ft (27,000 m). "

The SR-71 has a canopy like the admitted Mach 5 traveller the X-15

Can anyone with the above knowlege look at the SR-71 and really say they think Mach 3.something is the MAX??

User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1531 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6522 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The fastest speed every achieved in a A-12/SR-71/YF-12 was M=3.6, by Darryl Greenamyer. The NASA handbook for people running experiments on the SR-71 has a chapter on what would be needed for the SR-71 to achieve M=4. The list is significant and not cheap.

User currently offlineDc1030guy From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 63 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6507 times:

I am a former KC10A pilot who just returned back into the cockpit. I was amazed when I saw the new change to our Air Refueling T.O. There are new procedures for refueling the SR-71. The KC135s also got this change.

I wonder ....

-Pat

User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1469 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6479 times:

AeroWeenie can you share any details of what the handbook said would need to be done to make it Mach 4+? Just curious as to what mods you referring to.


You can run... but you'll only die tired
User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 2806 posts, RR: 28
Reply 21, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6479 times:

Why would there be a new change to air refueling the SR-71.....I thought they were all retired...Or are they? hmmmmmm

GS


Sometimes life leaves a $100 on your dresser, and you don't realize until later that it's because it f..ked you
User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1531 posts, RR: 54
Reply 22, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6445 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Here is a summary (including comment by NASA's Chief Engineer on the SR-71):
http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works/v10.n007

User currently offline4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2280 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6269 times:

Hey,
Good reading, this thread!
Regarding the "interesting" properties of TEB, I used to work for a chemical company that made the stuff. I knew that "back in the day" they made it for the XB-70 project, but do not know if they made it for the Blackbird.
I can verify that yes, it spontaneously combusts on contact with air (oxygen), and also that it is toxic. What confuses me a little is that I also know that it decomposes if it is not kept very cold. I wonder how they did this in the very hot airplane!
Oh and yes it was very touchy to work with, and yes we also worked with similar nasties at said chemical plant!


What an ultramaroon!
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6241 times:

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 22):
Here is a summary (including comment by NASA's Chief Engineer on the SR-71):
http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works/v....n007

While once again I must state
1. I do not know from first hand experience.
2. I do not have a degree in anything.
3. Same as original poster SR-71=YF-12=SR-71
4. I'm not a conspiracy buff

I don't find the above link very convincing. Considering the topic, I doubt there will be evidence that I would believe in my life time. I do think it interesting that it mentions the nacelle intersection as a weak point. I can't Imagine that RCC panels couldn't be fabircated for a more reasonable price then cited. Opps I forgot this was the government we are talking about.

I'll say I buy it for extended periods of time, and that for the most part the A/C was 'most happy @ 3.2'. Without information from an aerodynamicist on what the temperature variations should be between 3.2, 4 and above, I'll have to say I still think Max speed is in the 5+ range. Maybe not for long, but if it ever officially comes to light it could 'burst' to 5+ I will not blink twice.

25 AeroWeanie: TedTAce: The M=3.6 number I quoted previously comes from a friend who should know (nudge, nudge). I'd believe it. I'm an aerodynamicist, so I'll answe
26 Duce50boom: Let's also remember that the SR-71's structure is "only" 85-90% titanium. The tails were composite as were the leading edges. The most I've read about
27 AeroWeanie: A stagnation temperature of 427 C at 80,000 feet is reached at... M=3.29!
28 4holer: Just wanted to make a correction to my post about TEB above. It does not break down quickly if it gets warm. I was thinking of another nasty that we w
29 KC135TopBoom: I had the chance to refuel a few of them (SR-71s). They had very experienced pilots and were very stable. The speed we refueled them was 355 KIAS, .90
30 Duce50boom: TopBoom, Were those speeds with the Q or T 135? Obviously you had to be using the high speed boom but just wondering what Vne on the 135 was. The 10's
31 KC135TopBoom: That was in the KC-135Q. I never flew a "T" model, just A, E, and Q models. I posted the refueling speeds in my post, 355/.90. Overrun airspeed was .9
32 Post contains images SATL382G: Hey Hey!! Get a room! I'm fuzzy on "Q" & "T". Was the "T" the variant with the CFM56/F107? I'm assuming the J-57 variant was quicker -- I know VNe is
33 JFKTOWERFAN: Also an interesting fact is the it was originally designated the RS-71 but Lyndon Johnson called it an SR-71 during a speech which stuck. Corey
34 DL021: KC135....I think I understood a friend who used to fly tankers said that the refuelling for SRs was done while in a slight dive so the tanker could ke
35 Post contains links AeroWeanie: JFKTOWERFAN: Regarding the urban legend about LBJ's slip on the SR/RS, the following comments on what was published in Av Week a while back: "Conventi
36 Duce50boom: Topboom, I meant Vne for the 135, not the max AR speeds. I never qual'd in the stratoturd...er....stratotanker. What I would give to have been a boome
37 SATL382G: ... is the T slower or is Vne the same?
38 Duce50boom: I got no clue. Never was 135 trained (pure gucci). But I remember reading something a few years ago about the SR-71s reactivated during the 90s. It sa
39 Post contains links and images SATL382G: Sorry I didn't make that connection. Here's your NVG pix. Are NVG ops common for you guys? They've had my guys doing blacked out C-17 offloads with N
40 Duce50boom: From what I understand it's more common in the 135 and specifically in their special ops community (I know, I chuckled thinking about that one too). T
41 KC135TopBoom: Yes, you did. That had to be done on some refuelings if the SR was refueling to its heavy weight, and the refueling was accomplished with a cross win
42 Cptkrell: I know I'm very late to the party here, but the photo (reply 11) is positively that of a Buick "Nailhead" V-8. This is easily identified by the rocker
43 SATL382G: Thanks! I was hoping someone would cough up the details
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This TopicWhat You Never Knew About The SR-71
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Did The SR-71 Ever Operated Out Of Langley posted Tue Apr 4 2006 18:06:43 by 747400sp
What Do You Like About The F/A-18-E/F Super Hornet posted Mon Mar 27 2006 23:12:13 by 747400sp
SR-71- The World's Fastest Jet Fighter... posted Mon Nov 26 2007 12:31:41 by MadameConcorde

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format