Sr-71 Blackbird

for anyone who was interested about this aircraft and how it related to the cold war check out the movie FIREFOX. I know that the plane used in that movie was really not an SR-71, but more ressembled a YF-12a because of it's smaller size and manuverability, barring of course the the thought controlled defense pod system.

Originally posted by mad scientist

Great Pic!!
For me there is no beter Aircraft than the SR-71 Blackbird.
What Airforce Base is that in the Background?


[Edited on 28-5-2003 by barba007]

Originally posted by PKD
for anyone who was interested about this aircraft and how it related to the cold war check out the movie FIREFOX. I know that the plane used in that movie was really not an SR-71, but more ressembled a YF-12a because of it's smaller size and manuverability, barring of course the the thought controlled defense pod system.

It's not even close to a YF-12.

That firefox was based on the SR-71 design.

Anyway, the SR-71 has been operting from a lot of airbases around the world. But the pic is most likely shot at Beale AFB, CA.

I apologise and stand corrected Mad Scientist.

I thought the facts that I had were correct.

...wow

just an SR-71 anecdote thot you might like....

a close relative of mine worked the SR-71 project for US*F back in the 1960's, and carried over for a year as a civilian working out of that most well-known "secret area" in NV... had a lot of unclass'ed stories...

i asked about how many SR-71's made... said it was classified.... but he recalled at least six crashes locally (exploding on landing or take off), with at least a couple more that rumored were non-recoverables... so eight were at least lost out of your 30 odd, or maybe there were far more than officially admitted....

the pilots that flew the things described them as a flying rockets - some said pilots had flown them so fast the 'sharp points' melted or shattered, nose and wing edges... supposedly those parts were titanium and/or ceramic or composites.... the relative said the engines were rated to max push the thing well over 5000 mph, but that the frame and externals couldn't handle it - they'd melt or tear themselves apart. probably where the rumor of 'mach 9' began.

one story he told was about an SR-71 that had the same flight path over one of our asian interests... the interest tried for months to take down the plane, with all sorts of modified missiles, aircraft, etc with no success.

one day the SR-71 pilot was cruising along, cruise altitude, secure in his knowledge he was untouchable.... and found himself in a cloud of missiles, several hundred it was estimated. almost every one missed...

the one that hit stuck in his tail, and didn't explode. he called and advised, naturally concerned about his new passenger. he was directed to land at a west european nation's civilian airport, not NATO affiliated, that took pride in its strict neutrality.

by the time the aircraft rolled in, local assets had set up a circus tent, and the SR-71 rolled into it. The neutral country was told that it was an official 'weather observation' aircraft that needed maintainence under protection from the elements. an air force senior tech took a sabre saw and carefully cut around the 6' long dumb rocket out of the tail, removed it, while others patched the hole with fibreglass and glue. the rocket was put in a casket, rolled into a helicopter, and dumped into the ocean.

but someone at the airport had seen the rocket in the tail, and had immediately tried to get action to impound the aircraft. seems the country's agreement was that 'no armed miliatry aircraft' could fly into its territory, and tried to twist it around to mean if an aircraft had a rocket stuck in it, it was armed. however, local assets managed to muck up the proccess well enough to delay any action on seizure. as soon as the glue was dry a few hours later, the plane was took off - too late to be grabbed.

the country filed a protest on the incident, and further denied any non-commercial US flights into its airspace.

later it was found that a real smart cookie from the target country that shot the missiles had figured out that since the flight was the same altitude/speed each track, he did an estimate, got together several hundred cheap unguided 'dumb' rockets, fired them at a certain angle when the SR-71 was spotted from the coast by people using telescopes, and was correct in determining the intercept point.

as of 1965, that was the closest any country got to shooting down or snapping up one of the Blackbirds. further, all tracks from that time forward were adjested enough so they couldn't be slapped in the same manner.

ma

that's an interestin story.
Do you have any links to articles that confirm that? Or any images perhaps?

Originally posted by barba007

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe

You are correct.

That you for pointing that out...

And I was fully aware of all the facts about the SR-71, I run a military aircraft website myself. But thanks for the info anyway.

But I have to disagree on your last statement:

If the SR-71 Blackbird can fly at an average speed of Mach 3. I'm quite surtain it could push to 4 or maybe 5. It was designed to do 9 after all.

That's kind of a weird statement. There have been many articles about the temeratures of the wigs leading edges and the nose of the plane. They get superhot, if the SR could fly at around mach 9, think about the massive increase in temperature. The airframe woud get SO incredibly hot, it would most certainly change shape permentantly, and electronics inside the plane would get damaged by the heath.

Because the aircraft can cruise at mach 3+, that doesn't mean in can fly any faster...



[Edited on 9-5-2003 by Zion Mainframe]

I accept your argument, though I have another question for you. What does "Cruise Speed" mean exactly?
I would say "Cruise Speed" means in simple terms, Flying Safely at a safe speed. Correct?
When I drive my car, I drive to the speed limit, though I could go double the speed limit if I wanted to.
Ponder that thought.

You are correct in your question. Cruise speed does mean "normal operating airspeed" and can be exceeded. Let's not talk in Machs for just a second, because I have a surprise for you. Depending on who is reporting the "mach number" is can either mean the actual defined Mach number (which is dependent on altitude and such) or it can mean (as NASA and often the military use it) as M x 1000 mph...no matter what altitude.

For instance, when they say the shuttle is at Mach 18 during re-entry...they mean 18,000 mph and they don't care about what altitude they report this at.

To sum up, the Blackbird has been clocked in excess of 3000 mph. SO, if a maximum airspeed of Mach 3.3 has been reported, I'll bet my next paycheck it means 3300 mph.

Interesting Valhall.
I would like to know more on 'Mach'.
Could you please elaborate?
Thank You.

Hi Barba007,

So you have THAT avatar and you need me to tell you about Mach???

Okay...I'll bite:

M = V/a

M = Mach number
V = velocity
a = local speed of sound

a = SQRT(kRT)

k = compressibility factor of media in which you are calculating (in this case air)
R = gas constant
T = temperature

so...since a (speed of sound) varies for the altitude at which you are analyzing and if M (Mach number) is held constant, V (velocity) varies at different altitudes. So M=1 at sea level is not the same velocity as M=1 at 30,000 ft...

unless, as I stated before, the reporting institution (such as NASA and some of the military) uses a bastardized definition M=1 is equivalent to 1000 mph (and it doesn't matter what altitude you are analyzing at).

Hope that clears it up.

Sorry for being a bit snippy on my reply. I am new to this board and I originally took your question as "testing" me...just a little "new kid on the block" syndrome.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The SR-71 would not be capable of -9 for the reasons stated at the link above.

As far as whether or not the U.S. has a plane capable of higher speeds, consider that it would never have retired the Blackbird if it didn't have something better in the works, and don't tell me satelites. A satelite doesn't replace the plane.

Originally posted by Valhall
Hi Barba007,

So you have THAT avatar and you need me to tell you about Mach???

Okay...I'll bite:

M = V/a

M = Mach number
V = velocity
a = local speed of sound

a = SQRT(kRT)

k = compressibility factor of media in which you are calculating (in this case air)
R = gas constant
T = temperature

so...since a (speed of sound) varies for the altitude at which you are analyzing and if M (Mach number) is held constant, V (velocity) varies at different altitudes. So M=1 at sea level is not the same velocity as M=1 at 30,000 ft...

unless, as I stated before, the reporting institution (such as NASA and some of the military) uses a bastardized definition M=1 is equivalent to 1000 mph (and it doesn't matter what altitude you are analyzing at).

Hope that clears it up.

Thanks Val, I was testing you!...... Na only kidding.
I am aware of how Mach works, though I wanted to know more in detail the Altitude.
What ratio do they use the more you raise the altitude? If they use one. Can you get info on this?
Eg. 1000mph at sea level, obviously the air is thinner the more you rise and enter different atmosheres.

P.S. Welcome to ATS Val.

Barba007,

Thanks for being understanding. No there is no "ratio". It is more non-trivial than that. You have to take into account density changes and thermal changes.

Since there are "isothermal" layers, when you look at the temperature from sea level to say 100,000 ft, it isn't a straight line. It will have a stairstep appearance.

Also, when you get up there as high as the SR-71, you are into "rarified air" and things get real jicky real fast.

Then, moving from just calculating Mach number at a given altitude, you also have changes in 1.) hp available, and 2.) drag. As you increase your altitude you decrease the available hp (you're running out of air and it is an air-breathing engine). However! As you increase your altitude you also decrease your drag (not as many little air molecules beating you up). SO, in order to establish a "cruise speed" and a maximum speed at a given altitude you have to construct both a thrust curve (dependent on hp available) and a drag curve for that specific altitude.

SO...when you read "Design cruise speed" and "Design cruise altitude" you can take that to mean the following:

This is the speed we designed this aircraft to cruise at AT THAT ALTITUDE...but you can't say that the listed "cruise speed" applies to ANY altitude.

THANKS FOR THE WELCOME!

Originally posted by barba007
What ratio do they use the more you raise the altitude?

It actually has alot to do with barometric pressure, humidity and a few other factors. You see they used sea level as a rule of thumb because it is easier and quicker. The ratios are and can never be the same exept in a controled atmosphere. And that can't happen in the outside world.

I talked once to a Retired airforce person who told me that the A-12 and SR-71 Blackbirds could reach Mach 5. I also heard that the friction and heat from long flight at that speed would begin to make the airframe expand, that's why there are ridges in the wings. But Mach 5 is defenently the limit.

Tim

I am pretty sure that the SR-71 would start to melt at speeds above mach 3.4.

As far as whether or not the U.S. has a plane capable of higher speeds, consider that it would never have retired the Blackbird if it didn't have something better in the works, and don't tell me satelites. A satelite doesn't replace the plane.

Truer words were never spoken. Considering that we have a fighter still under development that can already outrun just about any missile....I'd love to see what we're using now for the SR71 role....looks like I have a new question for pop...