SR-71 Engines: Amazing technology produced the fastest plane ever. http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-secret-engine-technology-that-made-the-sr-71-the-fa-1673510951...

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Amazing technology produced the fastest plane ever.

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-secret-engine-technology-that-made-the-sr-71-the-fa-1673510951

banjonut Loc: Southern Michigan

Very interesting Jerry.

Lenf Loc: Strasburg,PA

Thanks Jerry, truly an amazing airplane , I have seen it take off , unbelieveable, there in one on display at the air and space museum at Dulles ,Va.
Hope you and your family have a Merry Christmas !

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Lenf wrote:

Thanks Jerry, truly an amazing airplane , I have seen it take off , unbelieveable, there in one on display at the air and space museum at Dulles ,Va.
Hope you and your family have a Merry Christmas !

I've seen the one on the Intrepid in NYC. It's actually an A-12, but close enough.

http://www.intrepidmuseum.org/

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

jerryc41 wrote:

Amazing technology produced the fastest plane ever.

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-secret-engine-technology-that-made-the-sr-71-the-fa-1673510951

Fastest JET plane ever. You will get arguments that both the X-15 or the space shuttles are the fastest planes.
The J-58 Turbo-ramjets are incredible engines. It is the only aircraft I know of that, in regular service, saved fuel by increasing Mach. The MIG 25 Foxbat could also reach Mach 3 or slightly faster but it did not have the sophisticated engine and inlet technology of the SR-71. It's engines would often self-destruct at such speeds with the pilots being lucky to survive. Plus, it could only maintain that speed for short periods. ("MIG Pilot", by Viktor Belenko, the Soviet pilot who defected with his shiny new MIG 25 in 1975).
Brian Shul, a retired Air Force Major, wrote 2 excellent books about his time as an SR-71 pilot. "Sled Driver", and "The Untouchables". Worthwhile reading.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

LFingar wrote:

Fastest JET plane ever. You will get arguments tha... (show quote)

The last flight of an SR-71 was from Edwards AFB in CA to D. C. It made the trip in something like 68 minutes - no holding back.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

jerryc41 wrote:

The last flight of an SR-71 was from Edwards AFB in CA to D. C. It made the trip in something like 68 minutes - no holding back.

It's speed and altitude records have never been broken. Many were set in the '60's. Kelly Johnson stated years ago that it would be a long time before any aircraft could exceed its performance because it would cost an incredible amount of money to go any faster or any higher in a jet aircraft. He was right.

nicksr1125 Loc: Mesa, AZ

Used to love watching the SR-71's take off & land at Kadena AB, Okinawa while I was stationed there in 1985-86. They never took off with a full load of fuel so they could get to altitude quicker, then meet up with a tanker before & after their mission.
Had the privilege of meeting Brian Shul some years ago. He's an interesting man to talk to. Don't get him started on the Blackbird. You'll never get away.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

nicksr1125 wrote:

Used to love watching the SR-71's take off & land at Kadena AB, Okinawa while I was stationed there in 1985-86. They never took off with a full load of fuel so they could get to altitude quicker, then meet up with a tanker before & after their mission.
Had the privilege of meeting Brian Shul some years ago. He's an interesting man to talk to. Don't get him started on the Blackbird. You'll never get away.

Was the tanker designation QC-135 or KC-135Q? I've seen it given both ways.
Taking off light wasn't so much for speed as it was to save fuel. Taking off and climbing to tanker altitude required a lot of fuel burn when heavy. It was much more practical to let the tanker take the fuel aloft. Plus, if a takeoff had to be aborted or an emergency return made it was much safer to do so with a light fuel load. This was pretty much a design requirement. A pilot who pulled the nose up too quickly with a heavy fuel load risked breaking the plane in half. A hard landing could do the same thing when heavy. The plane was not designed for high G loads. In many ways the plane was a flying fuel tank. Stressing it the wrong way would destroy it.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

LFingar wrote:

It's speed and altitude records have never been broken. Many were set in the '60's. Kelly Johnson stated years ago that it would be a long time before any aircraft could exceed its performance because it would cost an incredible amount of money to go any faster or any higher in a jet aircraft. He was right.

That guy was amazing. You have to wonder what the aviation business would be like if he had gone into stand-up comedy or any other business.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

So cool!

nicksr1125 Loc: Mesa, AZ

LFingar wrote:

Was the tanker designation QC-135 or KC-135Q? I've... (show quote)

As best I can recall, they were designated KC-135Q. I don't recall ever hearing them referred to as QC-135's.

Thanks for the info on the light fuel load. It makes sense.

Zone-System-Grandpa Loc: Springfield, Ohio

jerryc41 wrote:

Amazing technology produced the fastest plane ever.

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-secret-engine-technology-that-made-the-sr-71-the-fa-1673510951

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Satellites were responsible for the demise of the sr-71. Once in orbit, a satellite produces sharper images, they take no fuel, and they cannot reasonably be shot down.

Pandylou Loc: The Levant

Not an engine shot but a quick peek in the office at the "pointy end"

nicksr1125 Loc: Mesa, AZ

Pandylou wrote:

Not an engine shot but a quick peek in the office at the "pointy end"

"Pointy end" trivia. The windscreen got hot enough to toast a sandwich on it.