Never mind, I found one.
http://www.amazon.com/Lockheed-SR-71.../dp/0857331566


Mikek

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 3:27:11 PM UTC-5, amdx wrote:
Never mind, I found one.
http://www.amazon.com/Lockheed-SR-71.../dp/0857331566


Mikek

I drive past the one on display in New York on the way to one of my customers. I wonder if it will *ever* stop looking like the coolest thing that ever flew?

And maybe, with the help of this exhaustive (160 pages!) book, me & the boys will get it started up and take it out for a ride.

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 3:27:11 PM UTC-5, amdx wrote:
Never mind, I found one.
http://www.amazon.com/Lockheed-SR-71.../dp/0857331566


Mikek

I drive past the one on display in New York on the way to one of my
customers. I wonder if it will *ever* stop looking like the coolest
thing that ever flew?

And maybe, with the help of this exhaustive (160 pages!) book, me &
the boys will get it started up and take it out for a ride.

http://www.blackbirds.net/sr71/index.html

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 3:27:11 PM UTC-5, amdx wrote:
Never mind, I found one.
http://www.amazon.com/Lockheed-SR-71.../dp/0857331566


Mikek

I drive past the one on display in New York on the way to one of my
customers. I wonder if it will *ever* stop looking like the coolest
thing that ever flew?

And maybe, with the help of this exhaustive (160 pages!) book, me &
the boys will get it started up and take it out for a ride.

http://www.blackbirds.net/sr71/index.html


I didn't have this bookmarked and had to search:
http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/

On 1/17/2016 4:22 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 3:27:11 PM UTC-5, amdx wrote:
Never mind, I found one.
http://www.amazon.com/Lockheed-SR-71.../dp/0857331566


Mikek

I drive past the one on display in New York on the way to one of my customers. I wonder if it will *ever* stop looking like the coolest thing that ever flew?

And maybe, with the help of this exhaustive (160 pages!) book, me & the boys will get it started up and take it out for a ride.


Hope your finances are good, "The numbers that I've been told by
people that know is $38,000 per flying hour"
http://www.blackbirds.net/bbirdm&f.html
But the price of oil is down, so...

Mikek

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 6:45:09 PM UTC-5, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 3:27:11 PM UTC-5, amdx wrote:
Never mind, I found one.
http://www.amazon.com/Lockheed-SR-71.../dp/0857331566


Mikek

I drive past the one on display in New York on the way to one of my
customers. I wonder if it will *ever* stop looking like the coolest
thing that ever flew?

And maybe, with the help of this exhaustive (160 pages!) book, me &
the boys will get it started up and take it out for a ride.

http://www.blackbirds.net/sr71/index.html


I didn't have this bookmarked and had to search:
http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/

Jim - this is a tremendous find! Now I'll be up all night reading it, but it ought to give me more than enough info to get the bird off the ground. The really hard part is that it's on the deck of an aircraft carrier which is, in my estimation, somewhat shorter than the required 8,500 feet to get the thing in the air. Of course, we could fire up the catapult, but that's a whole other can of worms.

Seriously, though, this is going to be some interesting reading, and it WILL keep me up at night. Thanks for the link.

On 18/01/2016 9:22 AM, rangerssuck wrote:

I drive past the one on display in New York on the way to one of my
customers. I wonder if it will *ever* stop looking like the coolest
thing that ever flew?

Used to work in Nevada City, east of Beal AFB. One day heading back to
the shop from a nearby eatery, happened to look up and saw one glide by
on approach. I swear, it made not a sound, and if I'd never seen one
before, might have thought it a UFO at first glance. Flat black, silent,
and moving very fast for a low altitude aircraft.

I do have, btw, a Haynes Shuttle manual, just in case I ever run across
a deal on a used one... G


Jon

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 6:45:09 PM UTC-5, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 3:27:11 PM UTC-5, amdx wrote:
Never mind, I found one.
http://www.amazon.com/Lockheed-SR-71.../dp/0857331566


Mikek

I drive past the one on display in New York on the way to one of
my
customers. I wonder if it will *ever* stop looking like the
coolest
thing that ever flew?

And maybe, with the help of this exhaustive (160 pages!) book, me
&
the boys will get it started up and take it out for a ride.

http://www.blackbirds.net/sr71/index.html


I didn't have this bookmarked and had to search:
http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/

Jim - this is a tremendous find! Now I'll be up all night reading it,
but it ought to give me more than enough info to get the bird off the
ground. The really hard part is that it's on the deck of an aircraft
carrier which is, in my estimation, somewhat shorter than the required
8,500 feet to get the thing in the air. Of course, we could fire up
the catapult, but that's a whole other can of worms.

Seriously, though, this is going to be some interesting reading, and
it WILL keep me up at night. Thanks for the link.

==================

I wonder if the pilots really memorize and strictly observe all those
temperature restrictions and limits. The CIT limit of 427C is easy if
you're into hot Chevys but the others would confuse me, and I have
four temperature readouts visible from this chair to monitor and
respond to; indoors, outdoors, the basement wood stove and a pot
heating on it.

-jsw

"Jon Anderson" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2016 9:22 AM, rangerssuck wrote:

I drive past the one on display in New York on the way to one of my
customers. I wonder if it will *ever* stop looking like the coolest
thing that ever flew?

Used to work in Nevada City, east of Beal AFB. One day heading back
to the shop from a nearby eatery, happened to look up and saw one
glide by
on approach. I swear, it made not a sound, and if I'd never seen one
before, might have thought it a UFO at first glance. Flat black,
silent, and moving very fast for a low altitude aircraft.

I do have, btw, a Haynes Shuttle manual, just in case I ever run
across a deal on a used one... G


Jon

I don't like flying enough to deal with the upkeep on a Cessna 152.

On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 7:15:36 AM UTC-5, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Jon Anderson" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2016 9:22 AM, rangerssuck wrote:

I drive past the one on display in New York on the way to one of my
customers. I wonder if it will *ever* stop looking like the coolest
thing that ever flew?

Used to work in Nevada City, east of Beal AFB. One day heading back
to the shop from a nearby eatery, happened to look up and saw one
glide by
on approach. I swear, it made not a sound, and if I'd never seen one
before, might have thought it a UFO at first glance. Flat black,
silent, and moving very fast for a low altitude aircraft.

I do have, btw, a Haynes Shuttle manual, just in case I ever run
across a deal on a used one... G

I don't like flying enough to deal with the upkeep on a
Cessna 152.

I bet those have far better turn ratios than something like the SR-71.

On 1/18/2016 12:36 AM, Jon Anderson wrote:
... happened to look up and saw one glide by
on approach. I swear, it made not a sound ...

A goose bump moment

On 01/18/2016 6:05 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
....

I wonder if the pilots really memorize and strictly observe all those
temperature restrictions and limits. The CIT limit of 427C is easy if
you're into hot Chevys but the others would confuse me, ...


Years ago I hired a (near) kid fresh out of Air Force who had served as
air traffic controller at Kadena while the Blackbirds were stationed
there. He said (amongst other stories) they had only a _very_ limited
time of a few minutes to get traffic cleared and them off the ground
before they leaked so much fuel they wouldn't have enough to get to the
refueling rendezvous point. It took getting to airspeed and resulting
friction heating to expand and seal the tanks, apparently.

--

"Bob Engelhardt" wrote in message
...
On 1/18/2016 12:36 AM, Jon Anderson wrote:
... happened to look up and saw one glide by
on approach. I swear, it made not a sound ...

A goose bump moment


I worked at Offutt AFB as a contractor for almost 30 years. I was fortunate
several times to be on base for a lot of one time events. One of them is
when the Blackbird destined for the SAC museum flew in for its final flight.
We all knew it was coming that day so it kinda felt like a pending air show.
When he finally came in you could see his smoke trail what seemed 15 miles
out. He came in with the landing gear down and when they just skimmed the
runway he poured the cobs to it. I was facing him about a half mile from
the end of the runway. I heard him then felt him. And then he was past me
over my head. Anybody that's heard a fighter jet scorch past you knows that
noise. Square it.
He did at least a dozen repeats. We thought it was the pilot saying it was
his plane and he's not giving it up. Later we found out he was to use up
fuel until only the reserve was left. The fire dept didn't want to clean a
big leaking mess.

Steve

"Bob Engelhardt" wrote in message
...
On 1/18/2016 12:36 AM, Jon Anderson wrote:
... happened to look up and saw one glide by
on approach. I swear, it made not a sound ...

A goose bump moment


Imagine the pilot's pucker factor, gliding that brick in deadstick.

http://www.mach1registry.org/forums/...p/t-75348.html
"About 25 years ago I use to fly C-141 ‘s with a former SR-71 pilot.
He told me one time about coming back into the US and flaming out near
the Canadian border doing Mach 3.3+ at FL900. He glided into Beale AFB
Ca and did a deadstick landing."

http://www.apriliaforum.com/forums/a.../t-160026.html
The ground speed story, plus:

SR-71: Center, this is Blackbird 21 with you with request.

ATC: Go ahead Blackbird 21.

SR-71: Yeah, we'd like an altitude change to FL650 (65,000 ft) if
able.

ATC: [in sarcastic tone] If you think you can get up there, it's all
yours.

SR-71: Roger, descending to FL650 now.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/ch.../posts?page=20
tanknetter's post, near the bottom.

-jsw

He came in with the landing gear down and when they just skimmed the
runway he poured the cobs to it. I was facing him about a half mile from
the end of the runway. I heard him then felt him. And then he was past me
over my head.

A few times when I was on afternoon shift at NASA's Glenn Research Center, I helped out on the F-106 recovery team. The FAA required the F106 to have either an arresting cable or net when the runway was shorter than some amount, and Cleveland Hopkins was on the list.

So the crew set out an arresting cable held off the runway on 6" diameter rubber pucks. The commercial aircraft were wary of it, many times they would ask control what they were about to taxi over. We had no arresting energy system, so the cable was hooked to a huge chain buried in asphalt. The links were probably 12" long made of 2" bar stock. the chain was several hundred feet long, and the asphalt trench ran along either side of the runway. After the 106 landed, we unhooked its chute and packed it and the cable in our truck.

One time were were sitting there listening to Cliff (our pilot) call out positions. He was over western New York which meant he was only a few minutes away. Finally we saw him coming in over the fence, nose held high (they landed hot and blind), when we heard, "no gear locked indicator". At that moment the 106 rotated to near vertical and Cliff went full AB right over our position. Holy crap! I can only imagine what the SR 71 sounded like.

We had the GASP hung on the belly of the 106 (Global Air Sampling Program) and we tracked the ash cloud from Mt St Helens until it dissipated over Europe.

Dennis

On 19/01/2016 3:31 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

Imagine the pilot's pucker factor, gliding that brick in deadstick.

http://www.mach1registry.org/forums/...p/t-75348.html
"About 25 years ago I use to fly C-141 ‘s with a former SR-71 pilot.
He told me one time about coming back into the US and flaming out near
the Canadian border doing Mach 3.3+ at FL900. He glided into Beale AFB
Ca and did a deadstick landing."

Hmm, that's about 5 years after my sighting. Approaches to Beale took
them more or less right over a gated community, Lake Wildwood, which was
very near where the foothills transitioned into the valley.
I'd heard stories of them making VERY low approaches over the community
now and then to impress friends. To prevent noise complaints, I'd
imagine they would be on minimal power. Maybe that's what I saw, someone
setting up a low pass. Hard to imagine anyone intentionally dead
sticking an SR-71...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/ch.../posts?page=20
tanknetter's post, near the bottom.

Cool stories and comments there!

Jon


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message ...

"Bob Engelhardt" wrote in message
...
On 1/18/2016 12:36 AM, Jon Anderson wrote:
... happened to look up and saw one glide by
on approach. I swear, it made not a sound ...

A goose bump moment


Imagine the pilot's pucker factor, gliding that brick in deadstick.

http://www.mach1registry.org/forums/...p/t-75348.html
"About 25 years ago I use to fly C-141 ‘s with a former SR-71 pilot.
He told me one time about coming back into the US and flaming out near
the Canadian border doing Mach 3.3+ at FL900. He glided into Beale AFB
Ca and did a deadstick landing."

http://www.apriliaforum.com/forums/a.../t-160026.html
The ground speed story, plus:

SR-71: Center, this is Blackbird 21 with you with request.

ATC: Go ahead Blackbird 21.

SR-71: Yeah, we'd like an altitude change to FL650 (65,000 ft) if
able.

ATC: [in sarcastic tone] If you think you can get up there, it's all
yours.

SR-71: Roger, descending to FL650 now.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/ch.../posts?page=20
tanknetter's post, near the bottom.

-jsw
================================================== ===================

Maybe 20 years ago I was talking with someone who had been a firefighter in
the air force, and he showed me the ring binder he kept with plane
silhouettes for identification, with all the info on getting pilots out,
etc. On the page for the SR71 there was just a silhouette and the
instructions (from memory, but the gist is correct): "If you see one of
these and it is on fire, face away and let it burn. Shoot anyone who
approaches."

-----
Regards,
Carl Ijames

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:50:43 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 01/18/2016 6:05 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
...

I wonder if the pilots really memorize and strictly observe all those
temperature restrictions and limits. The CIT limit of 427C is easy if
you're into hot Chevys but the others would confuse me, ...


Years ago I hired a (near) kid fresh out of Air Force who had served as
air traffic controller at Kadena while the Blackbirds were stationed
there. He said (amongst other stories) they had only a _very_ limited
time of a few minutes to get traffic cleared and them off the ground
before they leaked so much fuel they wouldn't have enough to get to the
refueling rendezvous point. It took getting to airspeed and resulting
friction heating to expand and seal the tanks, apparently.

I'm not sure about that. While I wasn't in the SR-71 Squadron at Beal
we did do a certain amount of support work for them, and our Squadron
Commander even went through the up-grading program and was qualified
on them. I never heard that they allowed fuel leaks.

But, depending on a lot of things they might have been taking off with
minimum fuel which would limit their time on the ground.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 07:05:27 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 6:45:09 PM UTC-5, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 3:27:11 PM UTC-5, amdx wrote:
Never mind, I found one.
http://www.amazon.com/Lockheed-SR-71.../dp/0857331566


Mikek

I drive past the one on display in New York on the way to one of
my
customers. I wonder if it will *ever* stop looking like the
coolest
thing that ever flew?

And maybe, with the help of this exhaustive (160 pages!) book, me
&
the boys will get it started up and take it out for a ride.

http://www.blackbirds.net/sr71/index.html


I didn't have this bookmarked and had to search:
http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/

Jim - this is a tremendous find! Now I'll be up all night reading it,
but it ought to give me more than enough info to get the bird off the
ground. The really hard part is that it's on the deck of an aircraft
carrier which is, in my estimation, somewhat shorter than the required
8,500 feet to get the thing in the air. Of course, we could fire up
the catapult, but that's a whole other can of worms.

Seriously, though, this is going to be some interesting reading, and
it WILL keep me up at night. Thanks for the link.

==================

I wonder if the pilots really memorize and strictly observe all those
temperature restrictions and limits. The CIT limit of 427C is easy if
you're into hot Chevys but the others would confuse me, and I have
four temperature readouts visible from this chair to monitor and
respond to; indoors, outdoors, the basement wood stove and a pot
heating on it.

-jsw

I think that you will find that they do although the instruments are
marked with red and green tape to show the safe and unsafe readings.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On 01/18/2016 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:50:43 -0600, wrote:
....

Years ago I hired a (near) kid fresh out of Air Force who had served as
air traffic controller at Kadena while the Blackbirds were stationed
there. He said (amongst other stories) they had only a _very_ limited
time of a few minutes to get traffic cleared and them off the ground
before they leaked so much fuel they wouldn't have enough to get to the
refueling rendezvous point. It took getting to airspeed and resulting
friction heating to expand and seal the tanks, apparently.

I'm not sure about that. While I wasn't in the SR-71 Squadron at Beal
we did do a certain amount of support work for them, and our Squadron
Commander even went through the up-grading program and was qualified
on them. I never heard that they allowed fuel leaks.

Well, I always wondered but he swore was true. So, I just did some
looking and whaddya' know...

"In order for the SR-71 to fly the worldwide missions, it has a special
fleet of modified KC-135Q tankers for refueling. SR-71s run on JP-7
fuel, that fills the six large tanks in the fuselage. The component
parts of the Blackbird fit very loosely together to allow for expansion
at high temperatures. At rest on the ground, fuel leaks out constantly,
since the tanks in the fuselage and wings only seal at operating
temperatures. There is little danger of fire since the JP-7 fuel is very
stable with an extremely high flash point."

From the page at

http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/sr-71/


But, depending on a lot of things they might have been taking off with
minimum fuel which would limit their time on the ground.
....

He said when it came time to roll 'em out, _everything_ else other than
perhaps an immediate emergency landing took second fiddle 'til they were
airborne (and if that aircraft could make one more fly around, it'd
probably wait, too! ).

Having been an air traffic controller, his tendency to not hesitate in
making a decision was certainly quite out of the norm of most young
engineers who had just graduated and taken their first employment (he
had dropped out and done his tour prior to returning to school and, this
time, doing well in getting his degree with honors). I became quite
accustomed to "Please stand by!" when he was engrossed in a task and I
wanted something.

--

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 19:13:21 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 01/18/2016 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:50:43 -0600, wrote:
...

Years ago I hired a (near) kid fresh out of Air Force who had served as
air traffic controller at Kadena while the Blackbirds were stationed
there. He said (amongst other stories) they had only a _very_ limited
time of a few minutes to get traffic cleared and them off the ground
before they leaked so much fuel they wouldn't have enough to get to the
refueling rendezvous point. It took getting to airspeed and resulting
friction heating to expand and seal the tanks, apparently.

I'm not sure about that. While I wasn't in the SR-71 Squadron at Beal
we did do a certain amount of support work for them, and our Squadron
Commander even went through the up-grading program and was qualified
on them. I never heard that they allowed fuel leaks.

Well, I always wondered but he swore was true. So, I just did some
looking and whaddya' know...

"In order for the SR-71 to fly the worldwide missions, it has a special
fleet of modified KC-135Q tankers for refueling. SR-71s run on JP-7
fuel, that fills the six large tanks in the fuselage. The component
parts of the Blackbird fit very loosely together to allow for expansion
at high temperatures. At rest on the ground, fuel leaks out constantly,
since the tanks in the fuselage and wings only seal at operating
temperatures. There is little danger of fire since the JP-7 fuel is very
stable with an extremely high flash point."

Yes, I read that but when the SR's first came to Beal the squadron was
not fully manned and we (SAC) provided some basic support -
sheetmetal, welding, machine shop, hydraulic, etc. What the A.F.
called Field Maintenance. I have been near them when they start but
never say any fuel drizzling out of them. But, they did fly a lot of
short, say 30 minute, flights which would mean that they had a very
small fuel load aboard. The Take off, climb to altitude and refuel was
a fairly standard technique as a jet engine uses a huge amount of fuel
at low altitudes so taking off with a very light fuel load and then
refuel at some intermediate altitude was pretty standard. The B-52's
did it on all long missions and I assume that is what the SR's did
also as they flew Beal to Okinawa in one jump.


From the page at

http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/sr-71/


But, depending on a lot of things they might have been taking off with
minimum fuel which would limit their time on the ground.
...

He said when it came time to roll 'em out, _everything_ else other than
perhaps an immediate emergency landing took second fiddle 'til they were
airborne (and if that aircraft could make one more fly around, it'd
probably wait, too! ).

Not to make light of anything but controlling the local flight pattern
is a pretty routine practice. When the U-2's landed or took off they
cleared the pattern and the main runway had pickup trucks running up
and down it. When the F-4's practiced tail hook landings they cleared
the pattern, when the B-52's took off, one airplane every 60 seconds,
they cleared the pattern.

Having been an air traffic controller, his tendency to not hesitate in
making a decision was certainly quite out of the norm of most young
engineers who had just graduated and taken their first employment (he
had dropped out and done his tour prior to returning to school and, this
time, doing well in getting his degree with honors). I became quite
accustomed to "Please stand by!" when he was engrossed in a task and I
wanted something.


--

Cheers,

John B.

On 01/19/2016 6:31 AM, John B. wrote:
....

Not to make light of anything but controlling the local flight pattern
is a pretty routine practice. ...

Of course it is; that was the whole point. The size/complexity of
Kadena dwarfs Beale, however...

--

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 09:03:00 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 01/19/2016 6:31 AM, John B. wrote:
...

Not to make light of anything but controlling the local flight pattern
is a pretty routine practice. ...

Of course it is; that was the whole point. The size/complexity of
Kadena dwarfs Beale, however...

Possibly :-) But when the Black Birds were flying there, which was in
the late 1960's if I remember correctly, Kadena wasn't really a hub of
activity.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On the ground the tanks leaked. They took off with nominal fuel and
filled to full after the liftoff and at that level nominal leaking
and at flight altitude there wasn't leaking. It was the design. At
the flight characteristics, something had to give - design for flight
to get the full bore ability. If not - altitude would cause leaks.

I got to be within maybe 50' from a U2 that landed in a Typhoon. Made
it's run but the return was limited to our tiny island. They took off
the wings and took it home in a C-130 as I recall.


Martin

On 1/18/2016 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:50:43 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 01/18/2016 6:05 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
...

I wonder if the pilots really memorize and strictly observe all those
temperature restrictions and limits. The CIT limit of 427C is easy if
you're into hot Chevys but the others would confuse me, ...


Years ago I hired a (near) kid fresh out of Air Force who had served as
air traffic controller at Kadena while the Blackbirds were stationed
there. He said (amongst other stories) they had only a _very_ limited
time of a few minutes to get traffic cleared and them off the ground
before they leaked so much fuel they wouldn't have enough to get to the
refueling rendezvous point. It took getting to airspeed and resulting
friction heating to expand and seal the tanks, apparently.

I'm not sure about that. While I wasn't in the SR-71 Squadron at Beal
we did do a certain amount of support work for them, and our Squadron
Commander even went through the up-grading program and was qualified
on them. I never heard that they allowed fuel leaks.

But, depending on a lot of things they might have been taking off with
minimum fuel which would limit their time on the ground.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:22:24 -0600, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On the ground the tanks leaked. They took off with nominal fuel and
filled to full after the liftoff and at that level nominal leaking
and at flight altitude there wasn't leaking. It was the design. At
the flight characteristics, something had to give - design for flight
to get the full bore ability. If not - altitude would cause leaks.

But, the SR's flying out of Beal made some short training flights
where they didn't do any in flight refueling. My Sgdn. Commander who
went through the "up-grade" scheme that gave other pilots the chance
to fly and theoretically qualify, in the SR, said that he made 30
minute training flights. No refueling.

It wasn't altitude that made the fuel cells leak it was temperatures.

I think that the take off and inflight refueling routine was more
likely for longer flights. As I said, they took off from Beal and
landed at Kadina, which is a longish flight.

I got to be within maybe 50' from a U2 that landed in a Typhoon. Made
it's run but the return was limited to our tiny island. They took off
the wings and took it home in a C-130 as I recall.


I was at two bases where U-2's were stationed and they are a really
close mouthed bunch. Keep the airplanes in the hanger and only let
them out when they are flying :-)

One of the ground crew did tell me that preparing for a flight is a
several hour long procedure as the pilot first makes his preflight
inspection and then gets suited up and has to spend an hour or more
breathing "pure oxygen" to purge nitrogen out of his blood. then he
can go fly.

The ground crew guy said that the pilots get rather short tempered
going through all that :-)



Martin

On 1/18/2016 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:50:43 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 01/18/2016 6:05 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
...

I wonder if the pilots really memorize and strictly observe all those
temperature restrictions and limits. The CIT limit of 427C is easy if
you're into hot Chevys but the others would confuse me, ...


Years ago I hired a (near) kid fresh out of Air Force who had served as
air traffic controller at Kadena while the Blackbirds were stationed
there. He said (amongst other stories) they had only a _very_ limited
time of a few minutes to get traffic cleared and them off the ground
before they leaked so much fuel they wouldn't have enough to get to the
refueling rendezvous point. It took getting to airspeed and resulting
friction heating to expand and seal the tanks, apparently.

I'm not sure about that. While I wasn't in the SR-71 Squadron at Beal
we did do a certain amount of support work for them, and our Squadron
Commander even went through the up-grading program and was qualified
on them. I never heard that they allowed fuel leaks.

But, depending on a lot of things they might have been taking off with
minimum fuel which would limit their time on the ground.
--

Cheers,

John B.

--

Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:32:24 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:22:24 -0600, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On the ground the tanks leaked. They took off with nominal fuel and
filled to full after the liftoff and at that level nominal leaking
and at flight altitude there wasn't leaking. It was the design. At
the flight characteristics, something had to give - design for flight
to get the full bore ability. If not - altitude would cause leaks.

But, the SR's flying out of Beal made some short training flights
where they didn't do any in flight refueling. My Sgdn. Commander who
went through the "up-grade" scheme that gave other pilots the chance
to fly and theoretically qualify, in the SR, said that he made 30
minute training flights. No refueling.

It wasn't altitude that made the fuel cells leak it was temperatures.

I think that the take off and inflight refueling routine was more
likely for longer flights. As I said, they took off from Beal and
landed at Kadina, which is a longish flight.

I got to be within maybe 50' from a U2 that landed in a Typhoon. Made
it's run but the return was limited to our tiny island. They took off
the wings and took it home in a C-130 as I recall.


I was at two bases where U-2's were stationed and they are a really
close mouthed bunch. Keep the airplanes in the hanger and only let
them out when they are flying :-)

One of the ground crew did tell me that preparing for a flight is a
several hour long procedure as the pilot first makes his preflight
inspection and then gets suited up and has to spend an hour or more
breathing "pure oxygen" to purge nitrogen out of his blood. then he
can go fly.

The ground crew guy said that the pilots get rather short tempered
going through all that :-)



Martin

On 1/18/2016 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:50:43 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 01/18/2016 6:05 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
...

I wonder if the pilots really memorize and strictly observe all those
temperature restrictions and limits. The CIT limit of 427C is easy if
you're into hot Chevys but the others would confuse me, ...


Years ago I hired a (near) kid fresh out of Air Force who had served as
air traffic controller at Kadena while the Blackbirds were stationed
there. He said (amongst other stories) they had only a _very_ limited
time of a few minutes to get traffic cleared and them off the ground
before they leaked so much fuel they wouldn't have enough to get to the
refueling rendezvous point. It took getting to airspeed and resulting
friction heating to expand and seal the tanks, apparently.

I'm not sure about that. While I wasn't in the SR-71 Squadron at Beal
we did do a certain amount of support work for them, and our Squadron
Commander even went through the up-grading program and was qualified
on them. I never heard that they allowed fuel leaks.

But, depending on a lot of things they might have been taking off with
minimum fuel which would limit their time on the ground.
--

Cheers,

John B.

There is an SR-71 at the Boeing Air and Space Museum in Seattle. It is
actually a variant, made to carry a drone on top. My brother and I
went on a "tour" of the plane several years ago given by one of the
SR-71 pilots. He told us that the planes did indeed drip fuel when on
the ground and cool. He told the tour group about how the plane was
fueled for spy missions. The engines the plane used were designed for
use in a boat, not a plane. But they had the power neded so the CIA
employed designers chose those engines. They still needed many
modifications though. The fuel used for the missions served three
functions. Besides fuel it was also used as the hydraulic fluid and as
a coolant for the aircraft, the cockpit in particular. Before a
mission a refueling plane was sent up to a high altitude where the air
was really cold. It then flew around for a time in order to cool the
fuel load. On the ground the SR-71 was lightly fueled with some sort
of conventional jet fuel. When it was airborne the tanks were filled
with the special fuel the plane needed to operate at the high
temperatures it was heated to. The fuel was very hard to ignite. The
pilot told us that just switching over from regular jet fuel to the
special stuff while the engine was running would not ignite the
special fuel. So a small cannister, I think he said it held a pint, of
some sort of hypergolic fluid was used to ignite the operating jet
fuel. Just a little was used each time the engines needed igniting,
around an ounce I think. The pilot told us that the skin of the
aircraft around the cockpit was heated to 650 degrees, which shows why
it needed cooling. Other parts of the skin were heated to much higher
temperatures. Behind the engines, in the exhaust path, the skin was
not a titanium alloy, but was instead some sort of nickel alloy
because this area was heated much hotter than the titanium alloys
could endure. Interestingly, much of the titanium for the skin came
from the USSR. At the time these planes were first built the USA
didn't have the skills yet to make the titanium alloy sheet needed. So
the CIA purchased the titanium sheet through several devious channels
so that the USSR wouldn't find out it was supplying the USA. The pilot
told us that none of the SR-71 aircraft were shot down. He also told
us that the pilots could watch missles on radar approaching the
aircraft and then falling short and missing. Oh, he also told us that
the top speed was still classified and that the SR-71 was still the
fastest jets made.
Eric

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:41:29 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:32:24 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:22:24 -0600, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On the ground the tanks leaked. They took off with nominal fuel and
filled to full after the liftoff and at that level nominal leaking
and at flight altitude there wasn't leaking. It was the design. At
the flight characteristics, something had to give - design for flight
to get the full bore ability. If not - altitude would cause leaks.

But, the SR's flying out of Beal made some short training flights
where they didn't do any in flight refueling. My Sgdn. Commander who
went through the "up-grade" scheme that gave other pilots the chance
to fly and theoretically qualify, in the SR, said that he made 30
minute training flights. No refueling.

It wasn't altitude that made the fuel cells leak it was temperatures.

I think that the take off and inflight refueling routine was more
likely for longer flights. As I said, they took off from Beal and
landed at Kadina, which is a longish flight.

I got to be within maybe 50' from a U2 that landed in a Typhoon. Made
it's run but the return was limited to our tiny island. They took off
the wings and took it home in a C-130 as I recall.


I was at two bases where U-2's were stationed and they are a really
close mouthed bunch. Keep the airplanes in the hanger and only let
them out when they are flying :-)

One of the ground crew did tell me that preparing for a flight is a
several hour long procedure as the pilot first makes his preflight
inspection and then gets suited up and has to spend an hour or more
breathing "pure oxygen" to purge nitrogen out of his blood. then he
can go fly.

The ground crew guy said that the pilots get rather short tempered
going through all that :-)



Martin

On 1/18/2016 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:50:43 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 01/18/2016 6:05 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
...

I wonder if the pilots really memorize and strictly observe all those
temperature restrictions and limits. The CIT limit of 427C is easy if
you're into hot Chevys but the others would confuse me, ...


Years ago I hired a (near) kid fresh out of Air Force who had served as
air traffic controller at Kadena while the Blackbirds were stationed
there. He said (amongst other stories) they had only a _very_ limited
time of a few minutes to get traffic cleared and them off the ground
before they leaked so much fuel they wouldn't have enough to get to the
refueling rendezvous point. It took getting to airspeed and resulting
friction heating to expand and seal the tanks, apparently.

I'm not sure about that. While I wasn't in the SR-71 Squadron at Beal
we did do a certain amount of support work for them, and our Squadron
Commander even went through the up-grading program and was qualified
on them. I never heard that they allowed fuel leaks.

But, depending on a lot of things they might have been taking off with
minimum fuel which would limit their time on the ground.
--

Cheers,

John B.

There is an SR-71 at the Boeing Air and Space Museum in Seattle. It is
actually a variant, made to carry a drone on top. My brother and I
went on a "tour" of the plane several years ago given by one of the
SR-71 pilots. He told us that the planes did indeed drip fuel when on
the ground and cool. He told the tour group about how the plane was
fueled for spy missions. The engines the plane used were designed for
use in a boat, not a plane. But they had the power neded so the CIA
employed designers chose those engines. They still needed many
modifications though. The fuel used for the missions served three
functions. Besides fuel it was also used as the hydraulic fluid and as
a coolant for the aircraft, the cockpit in particular. Before a
mission a refueling plane was sent up to a high altitude where the air
was really cold. It then flew around for a time in order to cool the
fuel load. On the ground the SR-71 was lightly fueled with some sort
of conventional jet fuel. When it was airborne the tanks were filled
with the special fuel the plane needed to operate at the high
temperatures it was heated to. The fuel was very hard to ignite. The
pilot told us that just switching over from regular jet fuel to the
special stuff while the engine was running would not ignite the
special fuel. So a small cannister, I think he said it held a pint, of
some sort of hypergolic fluid was used to ignite the operating jet
fuel. Just a little was used each time the engines needed igniting,
around an ounce I think. The pilot told us that the skin of the
aircraft around the cockpit was heated to 650 degrees, which shows why
it needed cooling. Other parts of the skin were heated to much higher
temperatures. Behind the engines, in the exhaust path, the skin was
not a titanium alloy, but was instead some sort of nickel alloy
because this area was heated much hotter than the titanium alloys
could endure. Interestingly, much of the titanium for the skin came
from the USSR. At the time these planes were first built the USA
didn't have the skills yet to make the titanium alloy sheet needed. So
the CIA purchased the titanium sheet through several devious channels
so that the USSR wouldn't find out it was supplying the USA. The pilot
told us that none of the SR-71 aircraft were shot down. He also told
us that the pilots could watch missles on radar approaching the
aircraft and then falling short and missing. Oh, he also told us that
the top speed was still classified and that the SR-71 was still the
fastest jets made.
Eric

Great description, Eric. Just one correction: The P&W J58 engine was
designed for use in a jet-powered flying boat, not actually a boat.
"J58" is a navy designation, which may have led to some confusion.

I forget the designation of the flying boat, but it was dropped when
submarine-borne ballistic missiles became available. It was to be a
high-speed, low-altitude nuclear bomber.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:41:29 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:32:24 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:22:24 -0600, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On the ground the tanks leaked. They took off with nominal fuel
and
filled to full after the liftoff and at that level nominal leaking
and at flight altitude there wasn't leaking. It was the design.
At
the flight characteristics, something had to give - design for
flight
to get the full bore ability. If not - altitude would cause
leaks.

But, the SR's flying out of Beal made some short training flights
where they didn't do any in flight refueling. My Sgdn. Commander
who
went through the "up-grade" scheme that gave other pilots the
chance
to fly and theoretically qualify, in the SR, said that he made 30
minute training flights. No refueling.

It wasn't altitude that made the fuel cells leak it was
temperatures.

I think that the take off and inflight refueling routine was more
likely for longer flights. As I said, they took off from Beal and
landed at Kadina, which is a longish flight.

I got to be within maybe 50' from a U2 that landed in a Typhoon.
Made
it's run but the return was limited to our tiny island. They took
off
the wings and took it home in a C-130 as I recall.


I was at two bases where U-2's were stationed and they are a really
close mouthed bunch. Keep the airplanes in the hanger and only let
them out when they are flying :-)

One of the ground crew did tell me that preparing for a flight is a
several hour long procedure as the pilot first makes his preflight
inspection and then gets suited up and has to spend an hour or more
breathing "pure oxygen" to purge nitrogen out of his blood. then he
can go fly.

The ground crew guy said that the pilots get rather short tempered
going through all that :-)



Martin

On 1/18/2016 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:50:43 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 01/18/2016 6:05 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
...

I wonder if the pilots really memorize and strictly observe
all those
temperature restrictions and limits. The CIT limit of 427C is
easy if
you're into hot Chevys but the others would confuse me, ...


Years ago I hired a (near) kid fresh out of Air Force who had
served as
air traffic controller at Kadena while the Blackbirds were
stationed
there. He said (amongst other stories) they had only a _very_
limited
time of a few minutes to get traffic cleared and them off the
ground
before they leaked so much fuel they wouldn't have enough to
get to the
refueling rendezvous point. It took getting to airspeed and
resulting
friction heating to expand and seal the tanks, apparently.

I'm not sure about that. While I wasn't in the SR-71 Squadron at
Beal
we did do a certain amount of support work for them, and our
Squadron
Commander even went through the up-grading program and was
qualified
on them. I never heard that they allowed fuel leaks.

But, depending on a lot of things they might have been taking
off with
minimum fuel which would limit their time on the ground.
--

Cheers,

John B.

There is an SR-71 at the Boeing Air and Space Museum in Seattle. It
is
actually a variant, made to carry a drone on top. My brother and I
went on a "tour" of the plane several years ago given by one of the
SR-71 pilots. He told us that the planes did indeed drip fuel when
on
the ground and cool. He told the tour group about how the plane was
fueled for spy missions. The engines the plane used were designed
for
use in a boat, not a plane. But they had the power neded so the CIA
employed designers chose those engines. They still needed many
modifications though. The fuel used for the missions served three
functions. Besides fuel it was also used as the hydraulic fluid and
as
a coolant for the aircraft, the cockpit in particular. Before a
mission a refueling plane was sent up to a high altitude where the
air
was really cold. It then flew around for a time in order to cool the
fuel load. On the ground the SR-71 was lightly fueled with some sort
of conventional jet fuel. When it was airborne the tanks were filled
with the special fuel the plane needed to operate at the high
temperatures it was heated to. The fuel was very hard to ignite. The
pilot told us that just switching over from regular jet fuel to the
special stuff while the engine was running would not ignite the
special fuel. So a small cannister, I think he said it held a pint,
of
some sort of hypergolic fluid was used to ignite the operating jet
fuel. Just a little was used each time the engines needed igniting,
around an ounce I think. The pilot told us that the skin of the
aircraft around the cockpit was heated to 650 degrees, which shows
why
it needed cooling. Other parts of the skin were heated to much
higher
temperatures. Behind the engines, in the exhaust path, the skin was
not a titanium alloy, but was instead some sort of nickel alloy
because this area was heated much hotter than the titanium alloys
could endure. Interestingly, much of the titanium for the skin came
from the USSR. At the time these planes were first built the USA
didn't have the skills yet to make the titanium alloy sheet needed.
So
the CIA purchased the titanium sheet through several devious
channels
so that the USSR wouldn't find out it was supplying the USA. The
pilot
told us that none of the SR-71 aircraft were shot down. He also told
us that the pilots could watch missles on radar approaching the
aircraft and then falling short and missing. Oh, he also told us
that
the top speed was still classified and that the SR-71 was still the
fastest jets made.
Eric

Great description, Eric. Just one correction: The P&W J58 engine was
designed for use in a jet-powered flying boat, not actually a boat.
"J58" is a navy designation, which may have led to some confusion.

I forget the designation of the flying boat, but it was dropped when
submarine-borne ballistic missiles became available. It was to be a
high-speed, low-altitude nuclear bomber.

--
Ed Huntress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_P6M

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:32:24 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:22:24 -0600, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On the ground the tanks leaked. They took off with nominal fuel
and
filled to full after the liftoff and at that level nominal leaking
and at flight altitude there wasn't leaking. It was the design.
At
the flight characteristics, something had to give - design for
flight
to get the full bore ability. If not - altitude would cause leaks.

But, the SR's flying out of Beal made some short training flights
where they didn't do any in flight refueling. My Sgdn. Commander who
went through the "up-grade" scheme that gave other pilots the chance
to fly and theoretically qualify, in the SR, said that he made 30
minute training flights. No refueling.

It wasn't altitude that made the fuel cells leak it was
temperatures.

I think that the take off and inflight refueling routine was more
likely for longer flights. As I said, they took off from Beal and
landed at Kadina, which is a longish flight.

I got to be within maybe 50' from a U2 that landed in a Typhoon.
Made
it's run but the return was limited to our tiny island. They took
off
the wings and took it home in a C-130 as I recall.


I was at two bases where U-2's were stationed and they are a really
close mouthed bunch. Keep the airplanes in the hanger and only let
them out when they are flying :-)

One of the ground crew did tell me that preparing for a flight is a
several hour long procedure as the pilot first makes his preflight
inspection and then gets suited up and has to spend an hour or more
breathing "pure oxygen" to purge nitrogen out of his blood. then he
can go fly.

The ground crew guy said that the pilots get rather short tempered
going through all that :-)



Martin

On 1/18/2016 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:50:43 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 01/18/2016 6:05 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
...

I wonder if the pilots really memorize and strictly observe all
those
temperature restrictions and limits. The CIT limit of 427C is
easy if
you're into hot Chevys but the others would confuse me, ...


Years ago I hired a (near) kid fresh out of Air Force who had
served as
air traffic controller at Kadena while the Blackbirds were
stationed
there. He said (amongst other stories) they had only a _very_
limited
time of a few minutes to get traffic cleared and them off the
ground
before they leaked so much fuel they wouldn't have enough to get
to the
refueling rendezvous point. It took getting to airspeed and
resulting
friction heating to expand and seal the tanks, apparently.

I'm not sure about that. While I wasn't in the SR-71 Squadron at
Beal
we did do a certain amount of support work for them, and our
Squadron
Commander even went through the up-grading program and was
qualified
on them. I never heard that they allowed fuel leaks.

But, depending on a lot of things they might have been taking off
with
minimum fuel which would limit their time on the ground.
--

Cheers,

John B.

There is an SR-71 at the Boeing Air and Space Museum in Seattle. It
is
actually a variant, made to carry a drone on top. My brother and I
went on a "tour" of the plane several years ago given by one of the
SR-71 pilots. He told us that the planes did indeed drip fuel when
on
the ground and cool. He told the tour group about how the plane was
fueled for spy missions. The engines the plane used were designed
for
use in a boat, not a plane. But they had the power neded so the CIA
employed designers chose those engines. They still needed many
modifications though. The fuel used for the missions served three
functions. Besides fuel it was also used as the hydraulic fluid and
as
a coolant for the aircraft, the cockpit in particular. Before a
mission a refueling plane was sent up to a high altitude where the
air
was really cold. It then flew around for a time in order to cool the
fuel load. On the ground the SR-71 was lightly fueled with some sort
of conventional jet fuel. When it was airborne the tanks were filled
with the special fuel the plane needed to operate at the high
temperatures it was heated to. The fuel was very hard to ignite. The
pilot told us that just switching over from regular jet fuel to the
special stuff while the engine was running would not ignite the
special fuel. So a small cannister, I think he said it held a pint,
of
some sort of hypergolic fluid was used to ignite the operating jet
fuel. Just a little was used each time the engines needed igniting,
around an ounce I think. The pilot told us that the skin of the
aircraft around the cockpit was heated to 650 degrees, which shows
why
it needed cooling. Other parts of the skin were heated to much
higher
temperatures. Behind the engines, in the exhaust path, the skin was
not a titanium alloy, but was instead some sort of nickel alloy
because this area was heated much hotter than the titanium alloys
could endure. Interestingly, much of the titanium for the skin came
from the USSR. At the time these planes were first built the USA
didn't have the skills yet to make the titanium alloy sheet needed.
So
the CIA purchased the titanium sheet through several devious
channels
so that the USSR wouldn't find out it was supplying the USA. The
pilot
told us that none of the SR-71 aircraft were shot down. He also told
us that the pilots could watch missles on radar approaching the
aircraft and then falling short and missing. Oh, he also told us
that
the top speed was still classified and that the SR-71 was still the
fastest jets made.
Eric

Here are the details. The hypergolic igniter fluid was triethylborane:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_J58

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:09:33 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:41:29 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:32:24 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:22:24 -0600, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On the ground the tanks leaked. They took off with nominal fuel
and
filled to full after the liftoff and at that level nominal leaking
and at flight altitude there wasn't leaking. It was the design.
At
the flight characteristics, something had to give - design for
flight
to get the full bore ability. If not - altitude would cause
leaks.

But, the SR's flying out of Beal made some short training flights
where they didn't do any in flight refueling. My Sgdn. Commander
who
went through the "up-grade" scheme that gave other pilots the
chance
to fly and theoretically qualify, in the SR, said that he made 30
minute training flights. No refueling.

It wasn't altitude that made the fuel cells leak it was
temperatures.

I think that the take off and inflight refueling routine was more
likely for longer flights. As I said, they took off from Beal and
landed at Kadina, which is a longish flight.

I got to be within maybe 50' from a U2 that landed in a Typhoon.
Made
it's run but the return was limited to our tiny island. They took
off
the wings and took it home in a C-130 as I recall.


I was at two bases where U-2's were stationed and they are a really
close mouthed bunch. Keep the airplanes in the hanger and only let
them out when they are flying :-)

One of the ground crew did tell me that preparing for a flight is a
several hour long procedure as the pilot first makes his preflight
inspection and then gets suited up and has to spend an hour or more
breathing "pure oxygen" to purge nitrogen out of his blood. then he
can go fly.

The ground crew guy said that the pilots get rather short tempered
going through all that :-)



Martin

On 1/18/2016 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:50:43 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 01/18/2016 6:05 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
...

I wonder if the pilots really memorize and strictly observe
all those
temperature restrictions and limits. The CIT limit of 427C is
easy if
you're into hot Chevys but the others would confuse me, ...


Years ago I hired a (near) kid fresh out of Air Force who had
served as
air traffic controller at Kadena while the Blackbirds were
stationed
there. He said (amongst other stories) they had only a _very_
limited
time of a few minutes to get traffic cleared and them off the
ground
before they leaked so much fuel they wouldn't have enough to
get to the
refueling rendezvous point. It took getting to airspeed and
resulting
friction heating to expand and seal the tanks, apparently.

I'm not sure about that. While I wasn't in the SR-71 Squadron at
Beal
we did do a certain amount of support work for them, and our
Squadron
Commander even went through the up-grading program and was
qualified
on them. I never heard that they allowed fuel leaks.

But, depending on a lot of things they might have been taking
off with
minimum fuel which would limit their time on the ground.
--

Cheers,

John B.

There is an SR-71 at the Boeing Air and Space Museum in Seattle. It
is
actually a variant, made to carry a drone on top. My brother and I
went on a "tour" of the plane several years ago given by one of the
SR-71 pilots. He told us that the planes did indeed drip fuel when
on
the ground and cool. He told the tour group about how the plane was
fueled for spy missions. The engines the plane used were designed
for
use in a boat, not a plane. But they had the power neded so the CIA
employed designers chose those engines. They still needed many
modifications though. The fuel used for the missions served three
functions. Besides fuel it was also used as the hydraulic fluid and
as
a coolant for the aircraft, the cockpit in particular. Before a
mission a refueling plane was sent up to a high altitude where the
air
was really cold. It then flew around for a time in order to cool the
fuel load. On the ground the SR-71 was lightly fueled with some sort
of conventional jet fuel. When it was airborne the tanks were filled
with the special fuel the plane needed to operate at the high
temperatures it was heated to. The fuel was very hard to ignite. The
pilot told us that just switching over from regular jet fuel to the
special stuff while the engine was running would not ignite the
special fuel. So a small cannister, I think he said it held a pint,
of
some sort of hypergolic fluid was used to ignite the operating jet
fuel. Just a little was used each time the engines needed igniting,
around an ounce I think. The pilot told us that the skin of the
aircraft around the cockpit was heated to 650 degrees, which shows
why
it needed cooling. Other parts of the skin were heated to much
higher
temperatures. Behind the engines, in the exhaust path, the skin was
not a titanium alloy, but was instead some sort of nickel alloy
because this area was heated much hotter than the titanium alloys
could endure. Interestingly, much of the titanium for the skin came
from the USSR. At the time these planes were first built the USA
didn't have the skills yet to make the titanium alloy sheet needed.
So
the CIA purchased the titanium sheet through several devious
channels
so that the USSR wouldn't find out it was supplying the USA. The
pilot
told us that none of the SR-71 aircraft were shot down. He also told
us that the pilots could watch missles on radar approaching the
aircraft and then falling short and missing. Oh, he also told us
that
the top speed was still classified and that the SR-71 was still the
fastest jets made.
Eric

Great description, Eric. Just one correction: The P&W J58 engine was
designed for use in a jet-powered flying boat, not actually a boat.
"J58" is a navy designation, which may have led to some confusion.

I forget the designation of the flying boat, but it was dropped when
submarine-borne ballistic missiles became available. It was to be a
high-speed, low-altitude nuclear bomber.

--
Ed Huntress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_P6M

Wow, what a cool seaplane. Reading the history, I'm reminded that
flying horizontal stabilizers cause a lot of control problems back in
the '50s.

--
Ed Huntress

I bet. The pilot was a really nice guy. He stood by the plane
waiting for security and guards. We were run off once they came.

It has been so long more than 50 years that I forget if I had my
camera with me. I suspect so. Might have a shot on old slides or
b&W as I did both and often had two cameras with me. I shot for
AFRS (before television was added) and ran the chem lab in special
services for the Army. Just had my film taken once. It was a flight
of officers on a small jet headed for Viet Nam. One of those things -
might have been someone there that didn't want tracking or
identification. CIA or High Military staff.

We were 2500 N-Mi south west of Hawaii.

Martin

On 1/21/2016 5:32 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:22:24 -0600, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On the ground the tanks leaked. They took off with nominal fuel and
filled to full after the liftoff and at that level nominal leaking
and at flight altitude there wasn't leaking. It was the design. At
the flight characteristics, something had to give - design for flight
to get the full bore ability. If not - altitude would cause leaks.

But, the SR's flying out of Beal made some short training flights
where they didn't do any in flight refueling. My Sgdn. Commander who
went through the "up-grade" scheme that gave other pilots the chance
to fly and theoretically qualify, in the SR, said that he made 30
minute training flights. No refueling.

It wasn't altitude that made the fuel cells leak it was temperatures.

I think that the take off and inflight refueling routine was more
likely for longer flights. As I said, they took off from Beal and
landed at Kadina, which is a longish flight.

I got to be within maybe 50' from a U2 that landed in a Typhoon. Made
it's run but the return was limited to our tiny island. They took off
the wings and took it home in a C-130 as I recall.


I was at two bases where U-2's were stationed and they are a really
close mouthed bunch. Keep the airplanes in the hanger and only let
them out when they are flying :-)

One of the ground crew did tell me that preparing for a flight is a
several hour long procedure as the pilot first makes his preflight
inspection and then gets suited up and has to spend an hour or more
breathing "pure oxygen" to purge nitrogen out of his blood. then he
can go fly.

The ground crew guy said that the pilots get rather short tempered
going through all that :-)



Martin

On 1/18/2016 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:50:43 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 01/18/2016 6:05 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
...

I wonder if the pilots really memorize and strictly observe all those
temperature restrictions and limits. The CIT limit of 427C is easy if
you're into hot Chevys but the others would confuse me, ...


Years ago I hired a (near) kid fresh out of Air Force who had served as
air traffic controller at Kadena while the Blackbirds were stationed
there. He said (amongst other stories) they had only a _very_ limited
time of a few minutes to get traffic cleared and them off the ground
before they leaked so much fuel they wouldn't have enough to get to the
refueling rendezvous point. It took getting to airspeed and resulting
friction heating to expand and seal the tanks, apparently.

I'm not sure about that. While I wasn't in the SR-71 Squadron at Beal
we did do a certain amount of support work for them, and our Squadron
Commander even went through the up-grading program and was qualified
on them. I never heard that they allowed fuel leaks.

But, depending on a lot of things they might have been taking off with
minimum fuel which would limit their time on the ground.
--

Cheers,

John B.

--

Cheers,

John B.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:09:33 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_P6M

Wow, what a cool seaplane. Reading the history, I'm reminded that
flying horizontal stabilizers cause a lot of control problems back
in
the '50s.

--
Ed Huntress

Ballistic missiles obsoleted many other clever advanced developments.
Canada still blames us for the cancellation of their Avro Arrow bomber
interceptor, ignoring that we abandoned substantially higher
performing planes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_..._XF-108_Rapier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12

I was drenched by the launching splash of this early missile sub,
another dead end:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Growler_(SSG-577)

-jsw

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:41:29 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:32:24 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:22:24 -0600, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On the ground the tanks leaked. They took off with nominal fuel and
filled to full after the liftoff and at that level nominal leaking
and at flight altitude there wasn't leaking. It was the design. At
the flight characteristics, something had to give - design for flight
to get the full bore ability. If not - altitude would cause leaks.

But, the SR's flying out of Beal made some short training flights
where they didn't do any in flight refueling. My Sgdn. Commander who
went through the "up-grade" scheme that gave other pilots the chance
to fly and theoretically qualify, in the SR, said that he made 30
minute training flights. No refueling.

It wasn't altitude that made the fuel cells leak it was temperatures.

I think that the take off and inflight refueling routine was more
likely for longer flights. As I said, they took off from Beal and
landed at Kadina, which is a longish flight.

I got to be within maybe 50' from a U2 that landed in a Typhoon. Made
it's run but the return was limited to our tiny island. They took off
the wings and took it home in a C-130 as I recall.


I was at two bases where U-2's were stationed and they are a really
close mouthed bunch. Keep the airplanes in the hanger and only let
them out when they are flying :-)

One of the ground crew did tell me that preparing for a flight is a
several hour long procedure as the pilot first makes his preflight
inspection and then gets suited up and has to spend an hour or more
breathing "pure oxygen" to purge nitrogen out of his blood. then he
can go fly.

The ground crew guy said that the pilots get rather short tempered
going through all that :-)



Martin

On 1/18/2016 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:50:43 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 01/18/2016 6:05 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
...

I wonder if the pilots really memorize and strictly observe all those
temperature restrictions and limits. The CIT limit of 427C is easy if
you're into hot Chevys but the others would confuse me, ...


Years ago I hired a (near) kid fresh out of Air Force who had served as
air traffic controller at Kadena while the Blackbirds were stationed
there. He said (amongst other stories) they had only a _very_ limited
time of a few minutes to get traffic cleared and them off the ground
before they leaked so much fuel they wouldn't have enough to get to the
refueling rendezvous point. It took getting to airspeed and resulting
friction heating to expand and seal the tanks, apparently.

I'm not sure about that. While I wasn't in the SR-71 Squadron at Beal
we did do a certain amount of support work for them, and our Squadron
Commander even went through the up-grading program and was qualified
on them. I never heard that they allowed fuel leaks.

But, depending on a lot of things they might have been taking off with
minimum fuel which would limit their time on the ground.
--

Cheers,

John B.

There is an SR-71 at the Boeing Air and Space Museum in Seattle. It is
actually a variant, made to carry a drone on top. My brother and I
went on a "tour" of the plane several years ago given by one of the
SR-71 pilots. He told us that the planes did indeed drip fuel when on
the ground and cool.

Possible but the implication in the original post was that if the
plane didn't get air borne almost immediately it was too late. While
my contention was that they weren't leaking that bad as I have been
around the SR's for a limited time and they certainly weren't sitting
there in a big puddle of JP-7.

He told the tour group about how the plane was
fueled for spy missions. The engines the plane used were designed for
use in a boat, not a plane.

Nope. According to the makers (Pratt & Whitney) the J-58 was
originally developed for use in the Navy's Martin P6 aircraft.

But they had the power neded so the CIA
employed designers chose those engines.

But the CIA didn't design the SR and the engine was used ion the A-12,
the YF-12 and later in the SR.

They still needed many
modifications though. The fuel used for the missions served three
functions. Besides fuel it was also used as the hydraulic fluid and as
a coolant for the aircraft, the cockpit in particular. Before a
mission a refueling plane was sent up to a high altitude where the air
was really cold.

Inlet air at the design speed of 3.2 Mach was 800 degrees Fahrenheit
and 85% of the fusalage was titanium because of the high temperatures
created by the high speed.

It then flew around for a time in order to cool the
fuel load. On the ground the SR-71 was lightly fueled with some sort
of conventional jet fuel. When it was airborne the tanks were filled
with the special fuel the plane needed to operate at the high
temperatures it was heated to. The fuel was very hard to ignite. The
pilot told us that just switching over from regular jet fuel to the
special stuff while the engine was running would not ignite the
special fuel. So a small cannister, I think he said it held a pint, of
some sort of hypergolic fluid was used to ignite the operating jet
fuel. Just a little was used each time the engines needed igniting,
around an ounce I think.

The starting system included a cylinder of TED,- about 20 oz., said to
be good for 16 starts.

The pilot told us that the skin of the
aircraft around the cockpit was heated to 650 degrees, which shows why
it needed cooling. Other parts of the skin were heated to much higher
temperatures. Behind the engines, in the exhaust path, the skin was
not a titanium alloy, but was instead some sort of nickel alloy
because this area was heated much hotter than the titanium alloys
could endure. Interestingly, much of the titanium for the skin came
from the USSR. At the time these planes were first built the USA
didn't have the skills yet to make the titanium alloy sheet needed. So
the CIA purchased the titanium sheet through several devious channels
so that the USSR wouldn't find out it was supplying the USA. The pilot
told us that none of the SR-71 aircraft were shot down. He also told
us that the pilots could watch missles on radar approaching the
aircraft and then falling short and missing. Oh, he also told us that
the top speed was still classified and that the SR-71 was still the
fastest jets made.
Eric

I'm not sure about top speed but the SR before delivery to the A.F.
was reported to have made 3.4 Mach flights.

Some of what you were told sounds like the very serius chap that told
me about the "radar reflecting paint" used on the "secret"
reconnaissance airplanes flying out of Yokota AFB in Japan.

I was assigned to that squadron for nearly 8 years and the "radar
reflective paint" was black nitrocellulose lacquer :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:00:37 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:41:29 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:32:24 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:22:24 -0600, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On the ground the tanks leaked. They took off with nominal fuel and
filled to full after the liftoff and at that level nominal leaking
and at flight altitude there wasn't leaking. It was the design. At
the flight characteristics, something had to give - design for flight
to get the full bore ability. If not - altitude would cause leaks.

But, the SR's flying out of Beal made some short training flights
where they didn't do any in flight refueling. My Sgdn. Commander who
went through the "up-grade" scheme that gave other pilots the chance
to fly and theoretically qualify, in the SR, said that he made 30
minute training flights. No refueling.

It wasn't altitude that made the fuel cells leak it was temperatures.

I think that the take off and inflight refueling routine was more
likely for longer flights. As I said, they took off from Beal and
landed at Kadina, which is a longish flight.

I got to be within maybe 50' from a U2 that landed in a Typhoon. Made
it's run but the return was limited to our tiny island. They took off
the wings and took it home in a C-130 as I recall.


I was at two bases where U-2's were stationed and they are a really
close mouthed bunch. Keep the airplanes in the hanger and only let
them out when they are flying :-)

One of the ground crew did tell me that preparing for a flight is a
several hour long procedure as the pilot first makes his preflight
inspection and then gets suited up and has to spend an hour or more
breathing "pure oxygen" to purge nitrogen out of his blood. then he
can go fly.

The ground crew guy said that the pilots get rather short tempered
going through all that :-)



Martin

On 1/18/2016 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:50:43 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 01/18/2016 6:05 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
...

I wonder if the pilots really memorize and strictly observe all those
temperature restrictions and limits. The CIT limit of 427C is easy if
you're into hot Chevys but the others would confuse me, ...


Years ago I hired a (near) kid fresh out of Air Force who had served as
air traffic controller at Kadena while the Blackbirds were stationed
there. He said (amongst other stories) they had only a _very_ limited
time of a few minutes to get traffic cleared and them off the ground
before they leaked so much fuel they wouldn't have enough to get to the
refueling rendezvous point. It took getting to airspeed and resulting
friction heating to expand and seal the tanks, apparently.

I'm not sure about that. While I wasn't in the SR-71 Squadron at Beal
we did do a certain amount of support work for them, and our Squadron
Commander even went through the up-grading program and was qualified
on them. I never heard that they allowed fuel leaks.

But, depending on a lot of things they might have been taking off with
minimum fuel which would limit their time on the ground.
--

Cheers,

John B.

There is an SR-71 at the Boeing Air and Space Museum in Seattle. It is
actually a variant, made to carry a drone on top. My brother and I
went on a "tour" of the plane several years ago given by one of the
SR-71 pilots. He told us that the planes did indeed drip fuel when on
the ground and cool. He told the tour group about how the plane was
fueled for spy missions. The engines the plane used were designed for
use in a boat, not a plane. But they had the power neded so the CIA
employed designers chose those engines. They still needed many
modifications though. The fuel used for the missions served three
functions. Besides fuel it was also used as the hydraulic fluid and as
a coolant for the aircraft, the cockpit in particular. Before a
mission a refueling plane was sent up to a high altitude where the air
was really cold. It then flew around for a time in order to cool the
fuel load. On the ground the SR-71 was lightly fueled with some sort
of conventional jet fuel. When it was airborne the tanks were filled
with the special fuel the plane needed to operate at the high
temperatures it was heated to. The fuel was very hard to ignite. The
pilot told us that just switching over from regular jet fuel to the
special stuff while the engine was running would not ignite the
special fuel. So a small cannister, I think he said it held a pint, of
some sort of hypergolic fluid was used to ignite the operating jet
fuel. Just a little was used each time the engines needed igniting,
around an ounce I think. The pilot told us that the skin of the
aircraft around the cockpit was heated to 650 degrees, which shows why
it needed cooling. Other parts of the skin were heated to much higher
temperatures. Behind the engines, in the exhaust path, the skin was
not a titanium alloy, but was instead some sort of nickel alloy
because this area was heated much hotter than the titanium alloys
could endure. Interestingly, much of the titanium for the skin came
from the USSR. At the time these planes were first built the USA
didn't have the skills yet to make the titanium alloy sheet needed. So
the CIA purchased the titanium sheet through several devious channels
so that the USSR wouldn't find out it was supplying the USA. The pilot
told us that none of the SR-71 aircraft were shot down. He also told
us that the pilots could watch missles on radar approaching the
aircraft and then falling short and missing. Oh, he also told us that
the top speed was still classified and that the SR-71 was still the
fastest jets made.
Eric

Great description, Eric. Just one correction: The P&W J58 engine was
designed for use in a jet-powered flying boat, not actually a boat.
"J58" is a navy designation, which may have led to some confusion.

I forget the designation of the flying boat, but it was dropped when
submarine-borne ballistic missiles became available. It was to be a
high-speed, low-altitude nuclear bomber.
I'm sure the pilot said that too, that it was a flying boat, and I
just missed the part about it flying.
Thanks,
Eric