Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
SR-71 Engines
Page <prev 2 of 5 next> last>>
Dec 22, 2014 07:17:49   #
LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY
 
Zone-System-Grandpa wrote:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.


Satellites were the reason given why it was placed out of service. True, satellites more and more were doing the imaging that the Blackbirds were capable of but even today they lack the ability to be as flexible and responsive as the Blackbird. The Air Force brass simply did not want the plane from the start. It was extremely expensive to maintain and operate and for the most part it was not conducting "their" missions. You may have noticed that the much less expensive, less capable, and older U-2 (TR-1) is still flying, even though the AF isn't really in love with it either. There is still a need for manned spy planes.

Reply
Dec 22, 2014 07:19:16   #
LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY
 
nicksr1125 wrote:
"Pointy end" trivia. The windscreen got hot enough to toast a sandwich on it.


During cruise the coolest spot on the fuselage was something like 600F, according to Lockheed.

Reply
Dec 22, 2014 07:26:37   #
Clif Loc: Central Ca.
 
I was going to the Jr Collage at Marysville in the mid 60's. You just had to stop what you were doing when one went over as it returned to Beale. What a beauty of purposeful design, an amazing beast.

Reply
 
 
Dec 22, 2014 08:09:25   #
Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC
 
jerryc41 wrote:

The only time I saw the SR-71 take off there was a trail of sparks from one of the engines and a mile long brush fire at the end of the runway. I assumed it lost an engine. The pilot immediately turned it around and landed it. It was certainly the fastest turn around and landing I ever saw, and some very skilled flying.

Reply
Dec 22, 2014 09:27:15   #
Zone-System-Grandpa Loc: Springfield, Ohio
 
LFingar wrote:
Satellites were the reason given why it was placed out of service. True, satellites more and more were doing the imaging that the Blackbirds were capable of but even today they lack the ability to be as flexible and responsive as the Blackbird. The Air Force brass simply did not want the plane from the start. It was extremely expensive to maintain and operate and for the most part it was not conducting "their" missions. You may have noticed that the much less expensive, less capable, and older U-2 (TR-1) is still flying, even though the AF isn't really in love with it either. There is still a need for manned spy planes.
Satellites were the reason given why it was placed... (show quote)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Back when the Blackbird had first been shown to the public, I was in my twenties and oh how I was impressed with it's looks and it's capabilities.. Still am !

Did you hear anything about when it was fueled up right before a flight, that fuel was purposely leaking out of the tanks and wings because loose tolerances were necessary to allow for expansion when heat had taken over at extreme speeds ?

Obviously, no cigarette smokers were allowed to be anywhere near the site when the Blackbird was about to take flight :)

Reply
Dec 22, 2014 09:46:07   #
nicksr1125 Loc: Mesa, AZ
 
Zone-System-Grandpa wrote:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Back when the Blackbird had first been shown to the public, I was in my twenties and oh how I was impressed with it's looks and it's capabilities.. Still am !

Did you hear anything about when it was fueled up right before a flight, that fuel was purposely leaking out of the tanks and wings because loose tolerances were necessary to allow for expansion when heat had taken over at extreme speeds ?

Obviously, no cigarette smokers were allowed to be anywhere near the site when the Blackbird was about to take flight :)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ br Back when... (show quote)


That was the design. The fuel had such a high flash point it could be used to put out small fires. The hydraulic fluid was a gel until it got above 86 degrees.

Reply
Dec 22, 2014 10:03:01   #
LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY
 
Zone-System-Grandpa wrote:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Back when the Blackbird had first been shown to the public, I was in my twenties and oh how I was impressed with it's looks and it's capabilities.. Still am !

Did you hear anything about when it was fueled up right before a flight, that fuel was purposely leaking out of the tanks and wings because loose tolerances were necessary to allow for expansion when heat had taken over at extreme speeds ?

Obviously, no cigarette smokers were allowed to be anywhere near the site when the Blackbird was about to take flight :)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ br Back when... (show quote)


Sealing, of all types on the SR-71 was a major technical issue because of the intense heat. As I understand it, the silicone sealants we use today originated with the SR program. Just the same, sealing of the fuel tanks proved impractical, or impossible. Take your pick. The wing and fuselage formed the fuel tanks. There were no separate tanks mounted inside the structure. At operating temps there was no leakage, but when the aircraft cooled there was. When an SR landed the fuel would be drained but there was always some leakage onto the hanger floor. The JP-7 fuel used in the SR had a very high flask point. There was at least one occasion where a small grease fire on the floor of the hanger was put out by a mechanic sweeping JP-7 from a puddle onto the fire and smothering it. Watch a video of engine start-up from the rear and you will see a green glow inside the engine. Electric igniters will not ignite the fuel. A very dangerous substance called TEB is injected at start-up. TEB auto-ignites when exposed to air. This produces the glow and enough heat to ignite the JP-7. It is also used to ignite the afterburners. The planes typically carried enough TEB for 14 or 15 lights. The afterburner output is hot enough to ignite the fuel and it was not uncommon to see streaks of flaming fuel, due to leakage, trailing behind the plane at takeoff. Quite spectacular at night, I understand.

BTW, did you know that a cigarette will not light gasoline, which is far more flammable then even standard jet fuel?

Reply
 
 
Dec 22, 2014 10:14:49   #
Zone-System-Grandpa Loc: Springfield, Ohio
 
LFingar wrote:
Sealing, of all types on the SR-71 was a major technical issue because of the intense heat. As I understand it, the silicone sealants we use today originated with the SR program. Just the same, sealing of the fuel tanks proved impractical, or impossible. Take your pick. The wing and fuselage formed the fuel tanks. There were no separate tanks mounted inside the structure. At operating temps there was no leakage, but when the aircraft cooled there was. When an SR landed the fuel would be drained but there was always some leakage onto the hanger floor. The JP-7 fuel used in the SR had a very high flask point. There was at least one occasion where a small grease fire on the floor of the hanger was put out by a mechanic sweeping JP-7 from a puddle onto the fire and smothering it. Watch a video of engine start-up from the rear and you will see a green glow inside the engine. Electric igniters will not ignite the fuel. A very dangerous substance called TEB is injected at start-up. TEB auto-ignites when exposed to air. This produces the glow and enough heat to ignite the JP-7. It is also used to ignite the afterburners. The planes typically carried enough TEB for 14 or 15 lights. The afterburner output is hot enough to ignite the fuel and it was not uncommon to see streaks of flaming fuel, due to leakage, trailing behind the plane at takeoff. Quite spectacular at night, I understand.

BTW, did you know that a cigarette will not light gasoline, which is far more flammable then even standard jet fuel?
Sealing, of all types on the SR-71 was a major tec... (show quote)


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A cigarette may not ignite gasoline, but what about the fumes from gasoline when mixed with oxygen in the outdoor air ?

Regardless of what the answer is, I wouldn't want to be standing in a puddle of gasoline and someone toss a burning cigarette upon the ground beneath me ! How about you ? :-D

Reply
Dec 22, 2014 10:28:39   #
topcat Loc: Alameda, CA
 
I love that plane. Most beautiful plane ever built.

Reply
Dec 22, 2014 11:25:42   #
LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY
 
Zone-System-Grandpa wrote:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A cigarette may not ignite gasoline, but what about the fumes from gasoline when mixed with oxygen in the outdoor air ?

Regardless of what the answer is, I wouldn't want to be standing in a puddle of gasoline and someone toss a burning cigarette upon the ground beneath me ! How about you ? :-D


All common fuels vaporize before ignition so it is always the fumes that are ignited. The glowing ember of a cigarette is just not hot enough to ignite gasoline fumes. Just the same, I'm with you. I wouldn't care to be standing in a puddle of it when someone flicks a butt! Who knows what "high test" tobacco they could be smoking! Here's another tip: If you are lighting a brush pile on fire and you don't have any kerosene, don't use gasoline, and if you do be very quick about lighting it! I've burned a lot of brush piles, but get careless one time and see if your wife ever lets you forget it! :lol:

Reply
Dec 22, 2014 11:38:29   #
Zone-System-Grandpa Loc: Springfield, Ohio
 
LFingar wrote:
All common fuels vaporize before ignition so it is always the fumes that are ignited. The glowing ember of a cigarette is just not hot enough to ignite gasoline fumes. Just the same, I'm with you. I wouldn't care to be standing in a puddle of it when someone flicks a butt! Who knows what "high test" tobacco they could be smoking! Here's another tip: If you are lighting a brush pile on fire and you don't have any kerosene, don't use gasoline, and if you do be very quick about lighting it! I've burned a lot of brush piles, but get careless one time and see if your wife ever lets you forget it! :lol:
All common fuels vaporize before ignition so it is... (show quote)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Only twice in my lifetime did I light a pile of brush with gasoline and a wood match..

After soaking the brush with gasoline, I stood upwind about twenty five feet away, ignited the match, and flicked it as far as it would go ! WHOOSH, and the brush had begun to burn !

Upwind and distance is the only way to do it if gasoline is the only flammable solvent available to get the job done !

Of course, when I had ignited the brush with gasoline, I was about 25 years of age, lived without fear, and being that the brush was upon a resort property without any other home structures nearby as well as no facilities were in the area selling kerosene, I had taken upon the challenge using gasoline ! Wow, that was 45 years ago !
8-)

Reply
 
 
Dec 22, 2014 12:22:46   #
flathead27ford Loc: Colorado, North of Greeley
 
Great info Jerry. When I was in the Navy we made a stop at Johnston Island. I can't remember just why we were there but something fantastic happened. There is not much to look at but all of a sudden, off in the distance, we saw something pop up out of the ground, make a lot of noise, race down a runway, lift off and almost climb straight up and disappear. We were all wondering what we had just witnessed when one of our officers came by and told us it was a Blackbird. One of the coolest things I ever saw. Cheers.

Reply
Dec 22, 2014 12:50:51   #
kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA
 
Zone-System-Grandpa wrote:
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.


There has never been an incident of an SR-71 being shot down. They’d sit up there and watch missiles burn up below them.

Reply
Dec 22, 2014 12:53:13   #
kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA
 
Clif wrote:
I was going to the Jr Collage at Marysville in the mid 60's. You just had to stop what you were doing when one went over as it returned to Beale. What a beauty of purposeful design, an amazing beast.


ALL of the SR-71s were based at Beale.

Reply
Dec 22, 2014 12:57:42   #
kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA
 
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.


A friend of mine, who has listened to ATC comms for decades, was listening this one time and heard an SR-71 pilot calling this particular “center”. The pilot was “requesting clearance to 60,000”.

He wasn’t requesting clearance to go UP to 60,000, but rather to come DOWN to it. One can only imagine how high he was, but the ATC asked the pilot to repeat the request just be be sure.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 5 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.