SR-71 funny story - Page 3

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SR-71 funny story (Page 3 of 5)

Posted: 6/18/2006 8:42:03 AM EDT

[#1]

According to Col. Richard Graham's book "SR-71 Revealed" , the only mandatory prerequisite to be a pilot for the SR-71 program was to be married!

How about that! I've always thought that was an interesting fact about the Habus.

Posted: 6/18/2006 8:54:49 AM EDT

[#2]

I'm sure that we didn't give up the capabilities of the SR-71 when we retired it.

We never give up critical capabilities as a matter of policy.

The Blackbird was replaced by something even scarier in terms of its total strategic importance. Bet on that.

But what was it?

Aurora? Maybe. But I think that spy satellites are doing much of the same work now. With the advances that have been made in adaptive optics, the capabilities of spy satellites must be really amazing by now and I'd bet that we have enough of them in orbit that any given area of interest can be
imaged at extremely high resolution levels pretty much any time we want to. And some of those satellites are probably very well stealthed, too.

CJ

Posted: 6/18/2006 8:57:31 AM EDT

[#3]

At Edwards AFB

Posted: 6/18/2006 9:40:31 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
At Edwards AFB

img362.imageshack.us/img362/9513/edwards90ul.jpg

Guess what, they're gone now.

Posted: 6/18/2006 9:45:02 AM EDT

[#5]

Got to see an SR71 wheeled out of a hangar at Eglin AFB when I was there on a jump in '82. It was cool as hell to see.

Posted: 6/18/2006 9:50:17 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
There is an SR71 and Drone at the Evergreen museum of flight in north oregon. The drones were launched from the top I believe. Apparently there were some problems because the plane would fly into the drone and so few were made. I have pictures somewhere. You can actually look inside the cockpit and everything.

The Museum of Flight in Seattle has not an SR-71, but the final M-21 Blackbird remaining.

The M-21 is one of the few projects at the Skunk Works that was relatively unsuccessful. The M-21 is an A-12-like aircraft designed to
launch the once ultra-secret D-21 Drone. When the United States signed a treaty to end flights of manned vehicles
over the Soviet Union, an unmanned vehicle was needed for reconnaissance. Since the A-12 is an overflight vehicle, it would undermine the
treaty if used in the future. Consequently, after A-12 #60-6939 was built, two aircraft called M-21s were built for the TAGBOARD program.

There were two M-21 aircraft built, 60-6940 and 60-6941. Aircraft #60-6941 crashed when the aircraft collided with a D-21 during the launch.
This crash ended all M-21 sorties. Later on, the B-52H was used to launch the D-21 drone. The other M-21 is on Display at the
Museum of Flight in Seattle, WA.

Posted: 6/18/2006 10:01:03 AM EDT

[#7]

Wright-Patterson AFB Museum in Dayton, Ohio has an SR-71 and a YF-12. What's the difference between the two? They look really similar, that's all I know.

The R&D Hangar part of the museum has 3 of the fastest aircraft known to man in one area: YF-12, XB-70, and the X-15 (which has confirmed speeds over Mach 6.0, but it wasn't an "airplane" per se).

Posted: 6/18/2006 10:04:37 AM EDT

[#8]

A lot of differences between the SR-71 and the A-12.

Posted: 6/18/2006 10:05:05 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
At Edwards AFB

img362.imageshack.us/img362/9513/edwards90ul.jpg

Guess what, they're gone now.

A couple B-1s on the ramp.

Posted: 6/18/2006 10:06:25 AM EDT

[#10]

The YF-12 was the prototype. The SR-71 was the production model.

The original intended designator was RS-71, but President Johnson made mention of it at its unveiling as "SR-71" and for political reasons, it was decided to just go with it. It actually worked out well because SR is meant to stand for "Strategic Reconnaissance" and RS meant "Reconnaissance/Strike".

You can see which of these two designators implies a more peaceful purpose.

CJ

Posted: 6/18/2006 10:08:01 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
The YF-12 was the prototype. The SR-71 was the production model.

The original intended designator was RS-71, but President Johnson made mention of it at its unveiling as "SR-71" and for political reasons, it was decided to just go with it. It actually worked out well because SR is meant to stand for "Strategic Reconnaissance" and RS meant "Reconnaissance/Strike".

You can see which of these two designators implies a more peaceful purpose.

CJ

C'mon dude, you have got to be kidding me.
The A-12 was not the prototype of the SR-71.
Go back to remedial aircraft 101 and come back with the correct answer.

Posted: 6/18/2006 10:08:37 AM EDT

[#12]

The YF12 was (more or less, mostly less) an interceptor/fighter. The idea was to carry a couple of missiles internally. These missiles ultimately led to the Phoenix missle used by the Tomcat.

The A-12 was a single seat overflight machine. That is, if flew directly overhead and took it's pictures look down. The SR-71 was a two seat craft with cameras that looked sideways so the aircraft did not have to enter the subject country's airspace.

Posted: 6/18/2006 10:19:20 AM EDT

[#13]

www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/yf12~1.htm

good info

Posted: 6/18/2006 10:21:37 AM EDT

[#14]

The A-12 flew higher and faster than the SR-71, plus its camera took larger sized better quality pictures.

The SR-71 had two crewmembers, three cameras (although only one worked as advertised), infrared, side looking aerial radar, and ELINT/COMINT equipment provided some unique intelligence not available from the A-12.

Some of the SR-71's ELINT/COMINT gear was removed later on in the program to install ECM gear.

Posted: 6/18/2006 10:24:52 AM EDT

[#15]

Several years ago, I touched the one at the NASA U.S. Space and Rocket Center at Huntsville, Alabama.

Got goosebumps and teared up, it was a religious experience to have actually touched such an awesome aircraft.

Posted: 6/18/2006 10:26:22 AM EDT

[#16]

Funny how Lockheed was able to design, develop and build the A-12 (CIA), the YA-12F (USAF/Navy) and the SR-71 (USAF/CIA) within such a short time period.

Wonder where the F-22 would be if it had gotten such a high priority back in the 90's.

Posted: 6/18/2006 10:29:37 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Several years ago, I touched the one at the NASA U.S. Space and Rocket Center at Huntsville, Alabama.
Got goosebumps and teared up, it was a religious experience to have actually touched such an awesome aircraft.

I flew into Beal AFB back in the mid 80's.
After I was done servicing up my jet I was able to walk around the SR-71 flight line and "look but don't touch".

I flew back into Beal again in the mid 90's and the only SR-71 I saw was the one on static display.

I did get to walk around it and finger fuck it though.

Posted: 6/18/2006 10:30:14 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Wright-Patterson AFB Museum in Dayton, Ohio has an SR-71 and a YF-12.

I saw that SR-71 at the Dayton air show around 1993 or so.

The 82nd Airborne also put on what was supposed to be the largest peacetime jump in recent history.

Maybe someone here took part in that jump. I think there were 500-700 chutes in the air at one time.

I saw another SR-71 at the Hutchinson, Kansas, Cosmosphere last winter.

Posted: 6/18/2006 10:37:15 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
i had a post awhile back that showed 2 sr-71s at some airfield out west somewhere parked out (where they are "out of commission........."

Maybe you're thinking of Blackbird Air Park in Palmdale, CA.

Click on the images for more info.

Posted: 6/18/2006 11:26:56 AM EDT

[#20]

"* So how fast does the SR-71 really go.......?

The fastest published speed of the SR is Mach 3.5. There are several factors that limit the speed of the SR, one is the shock waves generated by various parts of the plane, at around Mach 3.6- 3.8 the shock wave off the nose of the aircraft narrows enough to go into the engine, while there is the inlet spike (which slows the air to subsonic before it enters the engine), the shock wave bypasses the spike and causes the engine to unstart. "

I believe this was addressed with the wider flatter nose profile, Glass heating wasn't a limitation, we could overcome that, the space shuttle has freaking windows.

Posted: 6/18/2006 12:14:37 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
"* So how fast does the SR-71 really go.......?

The fastest published speed of the SR is Mach 3.5. There are several factors that limit the speed of the SR, one is the shock waves generated by various parts of the plane, at around Mach 3.6- 3.8 the shock wave off the nose of the aircraft narrows enough to go into the engine, while there is the inlet spike (which slows the air to subsonic before it enters the engine), the shock wave bypasses the spike and causes the engine to unstart. "

I believe this was addressed with the wider flatter nose profile, Glass heating wasn't a limitation, we could overcome that, the space shuttle has freaking windows.

You hit the nail on the head. The Space Shuttle is going much faster than Mach 3.5 when it hits the atmosphere. What you have just witnessed is BS put forth by the government to mask the SR-71's true capabilities.

Posted: 6/18/2006 12:37:57 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Several years ago, I touched the one at the NASA U.S. Space and Rocket Center at Huntsville, Alabama.
Got goosebumps and teared up, it was a religious experience to have actually touched such an awesome aircraft.

I flew into Beal AFB back in the mid 80's.
After I was done servicing up my jet I was able to walk around the SR-71 flight line and "look but don't touch".

I flew back into Beal again in the mid 90's and the only SR-71 I saw was the one on static display.

I did get to walk around it and finger fuck it though.

But now they have Global Hawk! They had it out on static display during the big airshow they had their last week. Effing impressing.

Posted: 6/18/2006 1:28:49 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Several years ago, I touched the one at the NASA U.S. Space and Rocket Center at Huntsville, Alabama.
Got goosebumps and teared up, it was a religious experience to have actually touched such an awesome aircraft.

I flew into Beal AFB back in the mid 80's.
After I was done servicing up my jet I was able to walk around the SR-71 flight line and "look but don't touch".

I flew back into Beal again in the mid 90's and the only SR-71 I saw was the one on static display.

I did get to walk around it and finger fuck it though.

But now they have Global Hawk! They had it out on static display during the big airshow they had their last week. Effing impressing.

Chesh, the subject of the tazered dog thread, was out there on Saturday speaking about the Global Hawk's capabilities. I got some cool pictures of it too. But I wouldn't want to hijack the thread.

That was a damn good air show. Too bad we fell short on numbers of people in the audience.

Did you get a picture with EOD's Humvee mounted Barrett?

I contracted all of the civilian acts, bought their fuel, and several of the other services out there.

You probably even saw me out there making my rounds. I was out there from before open to close both days.

Posted: 6/18/2006 1:51:02 PM EDT

[#24]

Posted: 6/18/2006 1:55:05 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
At Edwards AFB

img362.imageshack.us/img362/9513/edwards90ul.jpg

Guess what, they're gone now.

"These are not the droids you're looking for" [waves hand]

Posted: 6/18/2006 1:55:19 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
A lot of differences between the SR-71 and the A-12.

www.vaq34.com/junk/sr71-a12_difference.jpg

The right one can't be an A-12.. it lacks the .. different wing/nose.. err. things.

Aside.. the a-12 was built as an interceptor to launch missiles from. like the f-14/phoenix agm-54

I think.

Posted: 6/18/2006 2:02:19 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
At Edwards AFB

img362.imageshack.us/img362/9513/edwards90ul.jpg

Guess what, they're gone now.

"These are not the droids you're looking for" [waves hand]

Ever since the Auroras came out, th SR-71s arn't worth what they used to be.

It will be enough.

Posted: 6/18/2006 2:10:12 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
"* So how fast does the SR-71 really go.......?

The fastest published speed of the SR is Mach 3.5. There are several factors that limit the speed of the SR, one is the shock waves generated by various parts of the plane, at around Mach 3.6- 3.8 the shock wave off the nose of the aircraft narrows enough to go into the engine, while there is the inlet spike (which slows the air to subsonic before it enters the engine), the shock wave bypasses the spike and causes the engine to unstart. "

I believe this was addressed with the wider flatter nose profile, Glass heating wasn't a limitation, we could overcome that, the space shuttle has freaking windows.

You hit the nail on the head. The Space Shuttle is going much faster than Mach 3.5 when it hits the atmosphere. What you have just witnessed is BS put forth by the government to mask the SR-71's true capabilities.

I'm not saying it isn't BS, but the space shuttle doesn't have jet engines.

Posted: 6/18/2006 2:20:23 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"* So how fast does the SR-71 really go.......?

The fastest published speed of the SR is Mach 3.5. There are several factors that limit the speed of the SR, one is the shock waves generated by various parts of the plane, at around Mach 3.6- 3.8 the shock wave off the nose of the aircraft narrows enough to go into the engine, while there is the inlet spike (which slows the air to subsonic before it enters the engine), the shock wave bypasses the spike and causes the engine to unstart. "

I believe this was addressed with the wider flatter nose profile, Glass heating wasn't a limitation, we could overcome that, the space shuttle has freaking windows.

You hit the nail on the head. The Space Shuttle is going much faster than Mach 3.5 when it hits the atmosphere. What you have just witnessed is BS put forth by the government to mask the SR-71's true capabilities.

I'm not saying it isn't BS, but the space shuttle doesn't have jet engines.

Neither does the SR71.

Posted: 6/18/2006 2:37:09 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Originally Posted By OSUBeaver

I'm not saying it isn't BS, but the space shuttle doesn't have jet engines.

Neither does the SR71.

www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/engines/eng55.htm

Oh its a TURBOjet

Posted: 6/18/2006 3:13:10 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"* So how fast does the SR-71 really go.......?

The fastest published speed of the SR is Mach 3.5. There are several factors that limit the speed of the SR, one is the shock waves generated by various parts of the plane, at around Mach 3.6- 3.8 the shock wave off the nose of the aircraft narrows enough to go into the engine, while there is the inlet spike (which slows the air to subsonic before it enters the engine), the shock wave bypasses the spike and causes the engine to unstart. "

I believe this was addressed with the wider flatter nose profile, Glass heating wasn't a limitation, we could overcome that, the space shuttle has freaking windows.

You hit the nail on the head. The Space Shuttle is going much faster than Mach 3.5 when it hits the atmosphere. What you have just witnessed is BS put forth by the government to mask the SR-71's true capabilities.

I'm not saying it isn't BS, but the space shuttle doesn't have jet engines.

They said the glass in the cockpit could not withstand the temperatures caused by air friction at speeds greater than Mach 3.5, therefore the SR-71 could never exceed that speed. The Space Shuttle re-enters the atmosphere at 15,000 MPH, and it has glass windows in the cockpit, therefore the story about the glass being a limiting factor in the SR-71's top speed is not true.

Posted: 6/18/2006 3:23:19 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
A lot of differences between the SR-71 and the A-12.

www.vaq34.com/junk/sr71-a12_difference.jpg

The right one can't be an A-12.. it lacks the .. different wing/nose.. err. things.

Aside.. the a-12 was built as an interceptor to launch missiles from. like the f-14/phoenix agm-54

I think.

The nose cones are actually different sensor/electronics packages that can be quick changed to meet particular mission requirements. The interceptor version had IIRC, IR sensors on either side of the nose. (small white domes.)

Posted: 6/18/2006 3:32:32 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
"* So how fast does the SR-71 really go.......?

The fastest published speed of the SR is Mach 3.5. There are several factors that limit the speed of the SR, one is the shock waves generated by various parts of the plane, at around Mach 3.6- 3.8 the shock wave off the nose of the aircraft narrows enough to go into the engine, while there is the inlet spike (which slows the air to subsonic before it enters the engine), the shock wave bypasses the spike and causes the engine to unstart. "

I believe this was addressed with the wider flatter nose profile, Glass heating wasn't a limitation, we could overcome that, the space shuttle has freaking windows.

You hit the nail on the head. The Space Shuttle is going much faster than Mach 3.5 when it hits the atmosphere. What you have just witnessed is BS put forth by the government to mask the SR-71's true capabilities.

Pssssst....
The space shuttle enters the atmosphere in a very nose high attitude. Ever wonder why the tiles are burned off the bottom of the shuttle.....

The six planform-shaped forward windows are the thickest pieces of glass ever produced in the optical quality for see-through viewing. Each consists of three individual panes. The innermost pane is constructed of tempered aluminosilicate glass to withstand the crew compartment pressure. It is 0.625 of an inch thick. Aluminosilicate glass is a low-expansion glass that can be tempered to provide maximum mechanical strength. The exterior of this pane, called a pressure pane, is coated with a red reflector coating to reflect the infrared (heat portion) rays while transmitting the visible spectrum.

The center pane is constructed of low-expansion, fused silica glass because of its high optical quality and excellent thermal shock resistance. This pane is 1.3 inches thick.

The inner and outer panes are coated with a high-efficiency, anti-reflection coating to improve visible light transmission. These windows withstand a proof pressure of 8,600 psi at 240 F and 0.017 relative humidity.

The outer pane is made of the same material as the center pane and is 0.625 of an inch thick. The exterior is uncoated, but the interior is coated with high-efficiency, anti-reflection coating. The outer surface withstands approximately 800 F.

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_coord.html

Posted: 6/18/2006 3:34:26 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
A lot of differences between the SR-71 and the A-12.

www.vaq34.com/junk/sr71-a12_difference.jpg

The right one can't be an A-12.. it lacks the .. different wing/nose.. err. things.

Aside.. the a-12 was built as an interceptor to launch missiles from. like the f-14/phoenix agm-54

I think.

OK, I'll play your silly game.
Guess you better call NASA up and let them know they fucked away the caption at the bottom of their picture.

Posted: 6/18/2006 3:36:58 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"* So how fast does the SR-71 really go.......?

The fastest published speed of the SR is Mach 3.5. There are several factors that limit the speed of the SR, one is the shock waves generated by various parts of the plane, at around Mach 3.6- 3.8 the shock wave off the nose of the aircraft narrows enough to go into the engine, while there is the inlet spike (which slows the air to subsonic before it enters the engine), the shock wave bypasses the spike and causes the engine to unstart. "

I believe this was addressed with the wider flatter nose profile, Glass heating wasn't a limitation, we could overcome that, the space shuttle has freaking windows.

You hit the nail on the head. The Space Shuttle is going much faster than Mach 3.5 when it hits the atmosphere. What you have just witnessed is BS put forth by the government to mask the SR-71's true capabilities.

I'm not saying it isn't BS, but the space shuttle doesn't have jet engines.

They said the glass in the cockpit could not withstand the temperatures caused by air friction at speeds greater than Mach 3.5, therefore the SR-71 could never exceed that speed. The Space Shuttle re-enters the atmosphere at 15,000 MPH, and it has glass windows in the cockpit, therefore the story about the glass being a limiting factor in the SR-71's top speed is not true.

The "atmosphere" at 500,000 feet is a whole different animal than it is at 80-100K'. If the shuttle hadn't slowed to barely over mach by that altitude it would self destruct. The fastest known "aircraft", the X-15 made it to around mach 6, but that was at 200,00'+ and it still had problems with leading edges melting, and they were titanium. As much as some people may want to believe it, mach 3.5 or so was the maximum speed of the SR-71.

Posted: 6/18/2006 3:38:06 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Originally Posted By OSUBeaver

I'm not saying it isn't BS, but the space shuttle doesn't have jet engines.

Neither does the SR71.

www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/engines/eng55.htm

Oh its a TURBOjet

www.hill.af.mil/museum/photos/coldwar/j58.htm

Working in conjunction with a series of bypass ducts and doors, the spike prevented supersonic air from entering the inlet and maintained a steady flow of subsonic air for the engine. At Mach 3.2 cruise the inlet system itself actually provided 80 percent of the thrust and the engine only 20 percent, making the J58 in reality a turbo-ramjet engine.

Not really "just jet engines." Of course I could be wrong, I've only worked on PW F100-100's/200's/220's, PW2037 & 2040's, GE CF6-80C2B7F, PW JT8D-217's, and CFM56-7B's. So I could be wrong on the normal operation of high and low bypass turbofans.

Posted: 6/18/2006 3:40:09 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A lot of differences between the SR-71 and the A-12.

www.vaq34.com/junk/sr71-a12_difference.jpg

The right one can't be an A-12.. it lacks the .. different wing/nose.. err. things.

Aside.. the a-12 was built as an interceptor to launch missiles from. like the f-14/phoenix agm-54

I think.

The nose cones are actually different sensor/electronics packages that can be quick changed to meet particular mission requirements. The interceptor version had IIRC, IR sensors on either side of the nose. (small white domes.)

The shape of the chines.
The length of the aircraft.
The height of the cockpit.
The size of the cockpit.

The A-12 didn't have the sensor package that the SR-71 had.
One of the reasons why the A-12 was retired in favor of the SR-71.

The A-12 was a VERY FAST HIGH ALTITUDE PHOTO BIRD, nothing more, nothing less.
The A-12 was built for the CIA, not the Air Force.

Posted: 6/18/2006 3:47:55 PM EDT

[#38]

The fucking J58 is a TURBOJET ENGINE.
A TURBOJET ENGINE powers the SR-71.

The AEROSPIKE or TRANSLATING SPIKE and it's associated systems are what takes the SR-71 to the high mach speeds.

P&W put a fan on the J-52 and called it the JT8D turbofan.
P&W put a translating spike on the J58 and called it a.....TURBOJET.

Please, stop the ignorance.

Posted: 6/18/2006 3:48:59 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Working in conjunction with a series of bypass ducts and doors, the spike prevented supersonic air from entering the inlet and maintained a steady flow of subsonic air for the engine. At Mach 3.2 cruise the inlet system itself actually provided 80 percent of the thrust and the engine only 20 percent, making the J58 in reality a turbo-ramjet engine.

Not really "just jet engines." Of course I could be wrong, I've only worked on PW F100-100's/200's/220's, PW2037 & 2040's, GE CF6-80C2B7F, PW JT8D-217's, and CFM56-7B's. So I could be wrong on the normal operation of high and low bypass turbofans.

Oh there you go gettin all technical

Posted: 6/18/2006 3:49:43 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A lot of differences between the SR-71 and the A-12.

www.vaq34.com/junk/sr71-a12_difference.jpg

The right one can't be an A-12.. it lacks the .. different wing/nose.. err. things.

Aside.. the a-12 was built as an interceptor to launch missiles from. like the f-14/phoenix agm-54

I think.

OK, I'll play your silly game.
Guess you better call NASA up and let them know they fucked away the caption at the bottom of their picture.

A-12 and YF-12 were not the same.

A-12 is a single seat reconnaissance airplane built for the CIA.

SR-71 is a two seat reconnaissance airplane built for the USAF.

YF-12 is a prototype two seat interceptor built for the USAF.

Posted: 6/18/2006 3:49:46 PM EDT

[#41]

Couldn't leading edges be made of ceramic or a tungsten material to withstand the high temperature?

I can't figure a way to deal with the problem of the glass on the cockpit windows.

Posted: 6/18/2006 3:56:13 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Couldn't leading edges be made of ceramic or a tungsten material to withstand the high temperature?

I can't figure a way to deal with the problem of the glass on the cockpit windows.

Tungten is way too heavy, ceramics are a possibility. One problem with ceramics in a leading edge application is impact resistance, imagine a birdstrike at 500 knots.

The ceramic exhaust duct plates on the B-2 have had cracking problems, not something you want on a leading edge either. In 20 years when we find out about "Aurora" or whatever air breather replaced the SR I'm sure there will be some cool technologies involved.

Posted: 6/18/2006 4:00:06 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Couldn't leading edges be made of ceramic or a tungsten material to withstand the high temperature?

I can't figure a way to deal with the problem of the glass on the cockpit windows.

Tungten is way too heavy, ceramics are a possibility. One problem with ceramics in a leading edge application is impact resistance, imagine a birdstrike at 500 knots. The ceramic exhaust duct plates on the B-2 have had cracking problems, not something you want on a leading edge either. In 20 years when we find out about "Aurora" or whatever air breather replaced the SR I'm sure there will be some cool technologies involved.

Absolutely.

Though as much as I hate to admit it, I think the UAVs are the best possible replacement for these aircraft. No man to lose over hostile territory, no life support to worry about putting in the plane, and since they're flying high and fast and not turning and burning in a dogfight, I don't see a better application of UAV.

Posted: 6/18/2006 4:03:34 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

The fucking J58 is a TURBOJET ENGINE.
A TURBOJET ENGINE powers the SR-71.

The AEROSPIKE or TRANSLATING SPIKE and it's associated systems are what takes the SR-71 to the high mach speeds.

www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/j58airflow.jpg

Please, stop the ignorance.

To continue stopping the ignorance the J58 is a variable cycle engine which functioned as both a turbojet and a ramjet. It is essentially a turbo jet inside of a ram jet design. That allowed for 80% of the thrust to be produced at the intake/bypass (ala ramjet) and 20% from the turbojet itself. Remember high bypass low bypass? At those speeds (mach 3+) no regular turbojet at that time could operate at that speed. Hence the need for the conical compression at the inlet which also leads to reducing the air/fuel ration in the compressor. If you truly believe that a turbojet could operate efficiently at that speed for that length of time, well ignorance is the least of our worries isn't it?

aerostories.free.fr/technique/J58/J58_01/page10.html

Posted: 6/18/2006 4:08:31 PM EDT

[#45]

Another interesting thread degenerating into a pissing contest.

Posted: 6/18/2006 4:09:44 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Another interesting thread degenerating into a pissing contest.

I dislike being called ignorant especially when the information presented is clearly incorrect.

Posted: 6/18/2006 4:22:35 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Another interesting thread degenerating into a pissing contest.

I dislike being called ignorant especially when the information presented is clearly incorrect.

Hmmm I dont see him calling anyone ignorant.

Pissing contest indeed

Posted: 6/18/2006 4:50:14 PM EDT

[#48]

Tag.

Posted: 6/18/2006 5:11:19 PM EDT

[#49]

Bake a cake in a bundt pan and it's called a bundt cake.
It's still a cake.

Put a translating spike in front of a turbojet, bypass highspeed air into the afterburner of the turbojet and it's called a turbojet engine with a ramjet.
It's still a turbojet.

Two Pratt & Whitney J58 turbojet engines are used to power the Lockheed SR71 Blackbird.

The J58 operates as an afterburning turbojet engine until it reaches high Mach when six large tubes bypass flow to the afterburner.

When these tubes are in use, the compressor, burner, and turbine of the turbojet are essentially bypassed and the engine operates as a ramjet with the afterburner acting as the ramjet's burner.

What did Pratt and Whitney call the J58?
Oh yea, a turbojet engine.

Posted: 6/18/2006 5:13:17 PM EDT

[#50]

You used a FRENCH webpage to base your facts of the J58 on?

I never said that the J58 turbojet engine is what took the SR-71 to its high mach speeds.

Ran what I said though the liberalizer spin translation webpage I see.

Didn't I post this or was I on drugs: The AEROSPIKE or TRANSLATING SPIKE and it's associated systems are what takes the SR-71 to the high mach speeds.

Quoted:
Quoted:

The fucking J58 is a TURBOJET ENGINE.
A TURBOJET ENGINE powers the SR-71.

The AEROSPIKE or TRANSLATING SPIKE and it's associated systems are what takes the SR-71 to the high mach speeds.

www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/j58airflow.jpg

Please, stop the ignorance.

To continue stopping the ignorance the J58 is a variable cycle engine which functioned as both a turbojet and a ramjet. It is essentially a turbo jet inside of a ram jet design. That allowed for 80% of the thrust to be produced at the intake/bypass (ala ramjet) and 20% from the turbojet itself. Remember high bypass low bypass? At those speeds (mach 3+) no regular turbojet at that time could operate at that speed. Hence the need for the conical compression at the inlet which also leads to reducing the air/fuel ration in the compressor. If you truly believe that a turbojet could operate efficiently at that speed for that length of time, well ignorance is the least of our worries isn't it?

aerostories.free.fr/technique/J58/J58_01/page10.html

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SR-71 funny story (Page 3 of 5)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us