It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This is the amazing Lockheed Martin SR-72—the space Blackbird

page: 36
38
<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I suppose I chose my words poorly. Be nice, I'm a High School dropout.

So why not a 'traditional' fuel tank that wouldn't leak like a sieve (or melt)? I'm assuming because the plane needed to carry a lot of 'go juice' and that wouldn't be possible with a normal gas tank like you see on a car. So it was a flying gas tank? How were pilots able to adjust for the differing weight between missions? Was it easy since she 'liked to fly'? Just a man up kind of deal? When she's half full she flies different, get used to it?

Was this safe? Or at least relatively safe? Were there accidents? I don't know enough about JP-7 and the additives. If the stuff was spilling all over were there worries about sparks? My guess is no, drop a match in gasoline and it goes out. How much actually leaked? If it was my car and a thimble of gas poured out every minute (which has happened thank you MOPAR fuel lines) I would be a little freaked out. Are those reports alarmist/shenanigans?




posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 05:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

Because a traditional fuel tank uses rubber bladders inside it. The only way that it could be done was to give it expansion room for in flight.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




The only way that it could be done was to give it expansion room for in flight.


But that means it would have leaked Fuuuuuuu!

Really dumb question, would the fuel also expand? So it couldn't be a traditional container? The 'tank' had to expand with the fuel?

You should tell me to just quit, but I'm not going to do it.
edit on 0820140820141 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

As the airframe heated up as speed increased (air friction) the body of the aircraft would expand. Since the fuel tanks on the aircraft are usually in the wings/body, basically everywhere they could get an open space, this area would also expand since it was in relative closer proximity to areas of extreme heat.
A traditional "tank" like on a car would expand and crack under these conditions and any rubber gaskets would fail under the conditions the aircraft was subjected to, so they had no choice but to "let it leak" so to speak.
I'm not an SR-71 expert but I believe they would refuel shortly after take-off to replenish any lost fuel due to leaking.
And yes, JP-7 won't just ignite spontaneously so the leaked fuel isn't a huge danger while it's sitting on the ground.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Thank you. You guys should never ask me questions just after I wake up after a short night of sleep.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Yes the first thing the sr-71 did after takeoff was refuel. And that was after they would fly mach 1-2 to seal up all the leaks first. Lol



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

The English Electric Lightning had similar fuel-leaking problems on the ground. It gets very hot at Mach 3, to the extent that the SR-71 pilots could warm up their MRE tubes by holding them against the inside of the cockpit glass.

Why I can say 'window' here but not where 'glass' is I have no idea, but it censors it there.

edit on 9-8-2014 by Araqiel because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-8-2014 by Araqiel because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-8-2014 by Araqiel because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-8-2014 by Araqiel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 01:12 AM
link   
THey probably had this technology for years now, but now they're releasing it and telling us they're going to built it but its probably already in service.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Isn't it crazy how just one little number changes things...hehe



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Inhumanegenocide
THey probably had this technology for years now, but now they're releasing it and telling us they're going to built it but its probably already in service.


When the first plane comes off the production line it is 20 year old in technology...



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

And as I recall, it would drip, leak and make an ungodly mess after it landed and sat stationary.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Is this the SR-72? Something seen from the ISS (see the link with video below).




From this Daily Mail article:

www.dailymail.co.uk... lien-life.html



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: smokybarnable

It's a hoax.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Looks like someone lost a flipper...



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

im guessing else where



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Well it looks like LM are categorically denying the existence or building of an SR-72 style aircraft. Lockheeds Carvalho flatly denied its existence after recent speculation that they had in fact constructed a prototype. This rumour was based upon a presentation given by an LM Vice-President in which he discussed advanced design and manufacturing techniques.
LM quashes existence of SR-72



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian
A rather specific denial IMO.
He denied the existence of an SR-72 style vehicle 'sitting on base somewhere'. I dont think anyone seriously blieves they have built an operational vehicle for the Air Force at this point. Various in house or DARPA funded demonstrator/prototype vehicles with maybe even working engines are another story entirely.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: mightmight
a reply to: thebozeian I dont think anyone seriously blieves they have built an operational vehicle for the Air Force at this point.


that's their intended goal.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Like LM is the only game in town



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Why would they need a new SR 71 these days. Surley we now have the tech to go into space, travel at 17,000+ miles per hour and land a missile on a postage stamp and or take piccies. See Space x as an example of how you land on a postage stamp.



new topics




 
38
<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in

join