Blackbird Questions, Anyone?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

Supposedly, the original official designation should have been RS-71
for
"reconisance - strategic" but LBJ muddled the words and called it an
SR-71
when it was unveiled to the public...

No one wanted to correct the Prez so it stuck...True? False?

According to Bill, this is 100% true. He still laughs about it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


Hehehe...cool.

Thanks!

Jay B

Hehehe...cool.

Thanks!

Other cool tidbits from Bill:

Regarding the D-21 drone: They had many problems with the engine
"unstarting" which, in Bill's opinion, could have easily been solved by
installing a "translating spike" in the engine intake, like on the SR-71
itself. The D-21's engine designer was opposed to the plan, which would
have added weight to the drone, and successfully argued against it --
resulting in the unnecessary loss of several drones, and a couple of SR-71s.

The P-80 program. In 1944 they sent 5 P-80s, built virtually by hand,
from scratch at the Skunkworks (their first plane was the P-38 Lightning,
BTW), to Italy. Because the engines only lasted about 5 hours before
destroying themselves, the pilots were instructed to go "fly the planes near
the enemy, but don't engage them." After each mission, the tail numbers
were changed, so that the Germans would believe that we had dozens of jet
fighters in theater!

Security. At Lockheed's Burbank, CA facility, they were testing the
SR-71's fuel tank and the explosive nature of the special fuel the Blackbird
used. They drained a tank, leaving fumes in it, and heated it to hundreds
of degrees, to simulate in-flight conditions. It, of course, exploded,
blowing the building to bits and starting a raging fire.

When the fire department responded, they ran up against the 10-foot,
razor-wire-topped fence -- and guards who would NOT let them inside.
Apparently no one had thought to give a security clearance to the fire
department -- even though it was LOCKHEED'S fired department! The firemen
were left to aim their hoses at whatever could be reached -- from outside
the fence. (According to Bill, the water caused extensive damage to their
testing equipment -- he was working with Honeywell at that time on the
Blackbird's autopilots...)

Fly by wire. The Blackbird had fly-by-wire capability AND conventional
push-rod and cable controls. Most of the time it was flown by the
autopilots, using the fly-by-wire servos, but the pilots liked knowing that
things were still hooked up conventionally if all the electrons failed.

The pilots. Several pilots achieved over 1000 hours -- at Mach 3 or
higher! This plane was USED, a LOT.

Flying the plane. It was dangerous. They lost 15 of them, primarily to
"pilot error." They lost several after refueling, when the pilots would
try to zoom to altitude, trying to get over weather or whatever. The
pilots would pull back too aggressively, which would cause the SR-71 to
pitch up violently. If the plane was going fast enough, it would break in
half right behind the cockpit. In one accident, the back seater hit the
water dead, while the front seat guy was badly injured. It was determined
that during the aircraft breakup, the right wing somehow hit the fuselage
where the "RESCUE" handles were located. When these handles are pulled, the
crew's straps are disengaged, so that rescuers can pull them out cleanly.

Apparently the wing triggered this mechanism, cutting the crew's straps.
This allowed them to tumble around the cockpit unrestrained. When the plane
pitched up, the pilots were exposed to first positive and then negative Gs.
In the meantime, the pilot's canopy came off, while the back seater's
remained in place. When the plane went into negative Gs, the pilot was
thrown clear, while the back seater was thrown violently into the canopy,
breaking his neck. On the SECOND tumble, the back seater's canopy came off,
and he, too, was thrown clear.

The parachute sequence was automatic, so he floated gently down, quite dead.
As Bill said "It took us quite a while to figure that one out..."

Killing the SR-71 project. We would have found the Scud missiles in
Iraq easily, if the Blackbird was still in service. Its cameras could look
obliquely at things, seeing into caves and canyons that couldn't be viewed
from outer space. In his opinion, Clinton killing the program was "putting
politics ahead of the Nation"...

Building the Blackbird today. He flatly says it couldn't be done. In
the time it took to build the SR-71 (two years), we wouldn't even have the
first piece manufactured, thanks to increased "government oversight".

This is illustrated by the following. The P-80, from start to first
flight, took 90 days. The U-2, from start to first flight, took 6 months.
The SR-71, from start to first flight, took two years. Each plane had a
little more "government help" -- and took much longer to complete.

He said by the time he worked on the Stealth program -- which took years --
there were 50 government workers, doing what one guy did on the SR-71
program. He said the meetings that were held to satisfy all these guys
("Each one had to ask a question to justify his existence, which then
required a formal, written response that could take anywhere from ten days
to six months...") were taking most of his time by the time he retired.

The danger of working on the program. Many pilots were lost in this
super secret program, without fanfare. But what few people remember is how
dangerous the plane was to work on. The hydraulic system, specially
designed for high temperatures, was operated at 3350 psi. The hydraulic
fluid, if it leaked, would vaporize as it came out at 650 degrees. By the
time the plane cooled down, the leak could no longer be found -- so it HAD
to be tested at high temperatures and pressure.

On one occasion, a technician had the system pressurized and heated, and
found the leak he was looking for. Stupidly, he instinctively put his
gloved hand over the leak, which instantly bored a hole clean through his
glove -- and his hand.

I meet some pretty interesting people at the inn -- but none more
interesting than Bill.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:ektvd.189728$V41.138784@attbi_s52...
Hehehe...cool.

Thanks!

Other cool tidbits from Bill:


Security. At Lockheed's Burbank, CA facility, they were testing the
SR-71's fuel tank and the explosive nature of the special fuel the
Blackbird used. They drained a tank, leaving fumes in it, and heated it
to hundreds of degrees, to simulate in-flight conditions. It, of course,
exploded, blowing the building to bits and starting a raging fire.


Hey Jay,

Double check something else with Bill if you still have him available...

JP-12:

So, they fill the SR-71 on the ground and it would leak like a sieve until
it got up to altitude and expansion of the airframe "sealed" the leaks
(necessitating an immediate tanker join once airborne...)

So here's the kicker, I recall reading that you could make a torch out of a
T-Shirt on a stick, light it, dunk it in a bucket of JP-12 and the JP-12
would do nothing but extinguish your torch...JP-12 was anything BUT
explosive and it required immense pressures to get it to ignite (fumes, of
course, are a different kettle of fish.)

Jay B

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:K3vvd.4793$2r.2971@fed1read02...
[...]
So here's the kicker, I recall reading that you could make a torch out of
a T-Shirt on a stick, light it, dunk it in a bucket of JP-12 and the JP-12
would do nothing but extinguish your torch...JP-12 was anything BUT
explosive and it required immense pressures to get it to ignite

Regular gasoline is basically the same. The main difference would be vapor
pressure; there's a decent amount of gasoline vapor anywhere there's liquid
gasoline. But the liquid gasoline itself is very resistant to ignition
(ditto other fuels).

With decent ventilation, you could put out a match by throwing it into a
bucket of gasoline.

In other words, your recollection is correct, but it's not really the
mind-blowing news flash one might think it is.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:K3vvd.4793$2r.2971@fed1read02...
[...]
So here's the kicker, I recall reading that you could make a torch out of
a T-Shirt on a stick, light it, dunk it in a bucket of JP-12 and the
JP-12 would do nothing but extinguish your torch...JP-12 was anything BUT
explosive and it required immense pressures to get it to ignite

Regular gasoline is basically the same. The main difference would be
vapor pressure; there's a decent amount of gasoline vapor anywhere there's
liquid gasoline. But the liquid gasoline itself is very resistant to
ignition (ditto other fuels).

With decent ventilation, you could put out a match by throwing it into a
bucket of gasoline.

In other words, your recollection is correct, but it's not really the
mind-blowing news flash one might think it is.

Pete


Oh well,

I remember it as a "NO SH*T!??!" moment at the time. :O)

Lots of things in life are probably not as big a deal as one remembers them
at the time.

Regards,

Jay B

"Peter Duniho" wrote

Regular gasoline is basically the same. The main difference would be
vapor
pressure; there's a decent amount of gasoline vapor anywhere there's
liquid
gasoline. But the liquid gasoline itself is very resistant to ignition
(ditto other fuels).

With decent ventilation, you could put out a match by throwing it into a
bucket of gasoline.


I always wanted to try that, but I could never figure out what "decent
ventilation" was, and didn't feel like trying without knowing, for sure.
--
Jim in NC

Double check something else with Bill if you still have him available...

Sorry -- Bill departed yesterday, after spending two nights in "his" suite.
I've already thought of ten new questions for his next visit!

So here's the kicker, I recall reading that you could make a torch out of
a T-Shirt on a stick, light it, dunk it in a bucket of JP-12 and the JP-12
would do nothing but extinguish your torch...JP-12 was anything BUT
explosive and it required immense pressures to get it to ignite (fumes, of
course, are a different kettle of fish.)

True. As Bill put it, JP-12 was the "worst diesel fuel around" -- it just
wouldn't burn.

This turned out to be a good thing on many occasions.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article 4jBvd.568589$D%.328171@attbi_s51,
Jay Honeck wrote:

True. As Bill put it, JP-12 was the "worst diesel fuel around" -- it just
wouldn't burn.

This turned out to be a good thing on many occasions.

The exploding fuel mentioned up thread might be the TEB (Triethylborane).

From an old Mary Shafer post (http://yarchive.net/air/sr71.html):

MS TEB is the "igniter" for JP-7. You can't get JP-7 to burn without it
MS in the SR-71, as the ignition of JP-7 takes a higher temperature than
MS is conveniently produced otherwise. You drop in a shot of TEB, which
MS bursts into very hot flames the minute it has any oxygen, and this
MS ignites the JP-7. Once ignited, the JP-7 keeps burning. The plane
MS has twelve shots of TEB (either total or per engine, I forget), using
MS one shot for each engine start and one for each burner light.

There are lots more interesting details about TEB at the url above.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.panix.com/~jac

Jay B

Story I always heard was that they took off with a light load of fuel
due to either W & B or structural limits and tanked shortly after
take off for the initial phase of mission where they might be required
to tank several times.

Leaks yes.

Big John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:43:23 -0700, "Jay Beckman"
wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:ektvd.189728$V41.138784@attbi_s52...
Hehehe...cool.

Thanks!

Other cool tidbits from Bill:


Security. At Lockheed's Burbank, CA facility, they were testing the
SR-71's fuel tank and the explosive nature of the special fuel the
Blackbird used. They drained a tank, leaving fumes in it, and heated it
to hundreds of degrees, to simulate in-flight conditions. It, of course,
exploded, blowing the building to bits and starting a raging fire.


Hey Jay,

Double check something else with Bill if you still have him available...

JP-12:

So, they fill the SR-71 on the ground and it would leak like a sieve until
it got up to altitude and expansion of the airframe "sealed" the leaks
(necessitating an immediate tanker join once airborne...)

So here's the kicker, I recall reading that you could make a torch out of a
T-Shirt on a stick, light it, dunk it in a bucket of JP-12 and the JP-12
would do nothing but extinguish your torch...JP-12 was anything BUT
explosive and it required immense pressures to get it to ignite (fumes, of
course, are a different kettle of fish.)

Jay B

The numbers I have seen is that the SR-71 had a max. weight
of 78,000Kg (in flight) but a max. take off weight of only
56,000Kg. And even at that weight they were rotating at
235 knots.

Regarding leaks, the SR-71's tanks leaked like a sieve on
the ground, but sealed up tight as soon as they got up to
speed and the wings heated up.

Lockheed never came up with a sealant for the tanks that
would tolerate the heat loading AND the 8" expansion of
the airframe in flight.

Big John wrote:
Jay B

Story I always heard was that they took off with a light load of fuel
due to either W & B or structural limits and tanked shortly after
take off for the initial phase of mission where they might be required
to tank several times.

Leaks yes.

Big John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:43:23 -0700, "Jay Beckman"
wrote:


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:ektvd.189728$V41.138784@attbi_s52...

Hehehe...cool.

Thanks!

Other cool tidbits from Bill:


Security. At Lockheed's Burbank, CA facility, they were testing the
SR-71's fuel tank and the explosive nature of the special fuel the
Blackbird used. They drained a tank, leaving fumes in it, and heated it
to hundreds of degrees, to simulate in-flight conditions. It, of course,
exploded, blowing the building to bits and starting a raging fire.


Hey Jay,

Double check something else with Bill if you still have him available...

JP-12:

So, they fill the SR-71 on the ground and it would leak like a sieve until
it got up to altitude and expansion of the airframe "sealed" the leaks
(necessitating an immediate tanker join once airborne...)

So here's the kicker, I recall reading that you could make a torch out of a
T-Shirt on a stick, light it, dunk it in a bucket of JP-12 and the JP-12
would do nothing but extinguish your torch...JP-12 was anything BUT
explosive and it required immense pressures to get it to ignite (fumes, of
course, are a different kettle of fish.)

Jay B