Here is some text I received froma friend of mine about the SR-71.
Enjoy
Big John
****************************************************8
Subject: SR-71 Data
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 22:17:03 -0400
Be sure to read notation at the end of this very interesting article
on the SR-71 "Blackbird."
Recently, at the museum of flight (Boeing Field, Seattle) was the
2007 Blackbird Forum. SR-71 pilots, reconnaissance officers, and crew
chiefs discussed their experiences with the airplane and answered
questions. The capabilities of that airplane built with 1960
technology are mind boggling. The engine is a masterpiece. At mach
3.2, 75% of the thrust comes from the inlet. (The nose spike moves aft
26 inches.) Air pressure in front of the compressor increases from 0.5
psi to 14.5 psi over a distance of 5 feet, while internal airflow
slows from mach 3.2 to mach 0.8 so the compressor blades can handle it
without stalling. Bypass tubes divert extra air around the engine
directly to the afterburner and cause it to perform like a ram jet.
Airspeed is not the limiting factor. At mach 3.2 a primary
instrument is compressor inlet temperature. If it exceeds 427 degrees
Centigrade, the compressor blades disintegrate. The pilot monitors the
CIT and lets the airspeed take care of itself.
At mach 3.2, the titanium skin heats considerably. The fuselage
stretches six inches. The fuselage is six fuel tanks. They leak all
the time on the ground, but at altitude they heat up and expand,
sealing the joints. After some fuel is consumed, the fuel still cools
the bottom of the tanks, but is no longer in contact with the top.
Therefore the top of the fuselage stretches more than the bottom,
causing it to actually bend down somewhat at each end.
When the USSRshot down our U-2 in 1960, Kelly Johnson immediately
realized we needed something higher and faster that no enemy could
reach, so the Skunk Works went back to the drawing board. The first
flight was 22 months later. Try that today. We lost three out of 50
due to accidents. (One broke up after colliding with the drone it had
just launched.) No enemy was ever able to touch it.
SecDef Robert McNamara ordered all the SR-71 manufacturing tools
destroyed so he would have more tax dollars to waste on the F-111. In
1994 William Jefferson Clinton used line item veto to cancel all
funding for SR-71s. They are now in museums. The pilots said that we
really need that airplane today for reconnaissance over places like
Iran, Iraq, Syria, Korea:country-region>, China, Russia, etc. If it
were not for Clinton, SR-71 would still be performing that
reconnaissance today. The argument that satellites can do the job is
not correct. Any school boy with a lap top can tell you when a
satellite will be overhead, so the bad guys simply shut things down,
and later restart them. On the other hand, the enemy never knows where
or when the SR-71 will suddenly appear out of nowhere.
At 80,000 feet the cameras can see 80 miles. From 20 miles off the
coast, the airplane can photograph objects 60 miles inland.
The requirement for a rock solid gyro stabilized camera platform
was paramount. My favorite analogy was this:
Nail a four foot square sheet of plywood to the bottom of the
airplane. Drill a quarter inch hole through the middle of it. Insert a
quarter inch dowel that is 16 MILES long. Drag the dowel across the
surface of the earth at 30 miles per MINUTE.
Program the camera to take one photo per second of a specified set of
coordinates for four minutes, in order to examine the spot from all
angles. Do this in such a way that all photos are crystal clear, with
no blurring.
Pilots, who are not trained as photo interpreters, say they can
read the photos easily. One pilot looked at an Infrared photo of a
USAF base and immediately recognized the shadow (heat signature) of a
spot where a B-52 had been parked one hour earlier.
Celestial navigation is automatic. There are about 50 stars
programmed into the computer. These stars can be observed by the
navigation system while parked on the ramp during broad daylight.
Although the pilot takes off and lands the airplane manually, the
navigation system is accurate enough to put the airplane on the runway
in zero-zero conditions after flying nonstop from Californiato Iraqand
return with four inflight refuelings.
Some of you on this distribution list may be aware that in addition to
being a line B-52 pilot, I also had a tour of duty as a SAC command
post controller at Beale AFB, Calif in the mid 70′s. In addition to
B-52′s and KC-135(Q)s, the base was home to the the famous SR-71
Blackbird and later, to the U-2 reconnaissance aircraft formerly from
Davis Monthan AFB in Tucson, Arizona. The term controller in this
case does not mean "air traffic controller" but rather more like an
shift operations controller for the base. It was my job to know where
all of the base’s aircraft were at any given time and to be able to
give immediate updates to the wing commander and the air division
commander (a 2 star general) on aircraft status. As such, I was fully
advised on SR-71 missions and results. I’m sure I know many of the
SR-71 pilots who recently attended the "Blackbird Forum." Needless to
say and to no one’s surprise, we were regularly overflying Cuba, China
and North Korea. There also were the fun missions, like setting
international speed records from NY to LA and from London to NY–very
carefully executed missions requiring exact timing for air refueling
just moments before the Blackbird hit the "timing gate" to begin the
record run. So much for background on my involvement with the SR-71.
The following is one of many recollections of that involvement that I
have never forgotten.
One of the Blackbird’s missions was for humanitarian purposes at the
request of the Japanese government. A Japanese fishing trawler went
missing, but the Japanese "coast guard" could not find any trace of
the ship or it’s crew, so they requested that a Blackbird fly some
recce sorties in support of their efforts (the Japanese were very
aware of the capabilities of the SR-71 because the U.S. used Kadena AB
in Okinawa as a forward airbase for the SR). I recall being the duty
controller the night this mission was scheduled out of Kadena. Later
in the shift, the intelligence officer in charge of the
photo-reconnaissance lab asks to be cleared into the command post to
see me. He brings in some photos just downloaded and sent to him from
that mission. He shows me a picture (taken from 80,000++ feet and
mach 3++ mind you) of a lone Japanese fisherman in an inflatable life
raft. He is looking skyward (right into the camera) and his Asian
features–slanted eyes, etc) are easily discernable. Absolutely
amazing! The U.S. passed along the coordinates of the photo and he
was rescued. He was the only survivor. I thought you might find this
"first-hand" account of the amazing capabilities of the Blackbird to
be of interest.
Source deleted.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1096 – Release Date:
10/27
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:40:23 -0500, Big John <BigJ…@hotmail.com>
wrote in <7oaci3pg8mbv8jqge7jli30m43kefb3…@4ax.com>:
>Here is some text I received froma friend of mine about the SR-71.
>Enjoy
Thanks for sharing.
"Big John" <BigJ…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7oaci3pg8mbv8jqge7jli30m43kefb380p@4ax.com…
> We lost three out of 50 due to accidents.
I heard 12, including the one that’s on display at the Boeing Museum of
Flight. This very fascinating site seems to indicate 20:
http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/srloss~1.htm
Still….
If they recommissioned the remaining birds tomorrow I’d call it tax money
well-spent, if nothing but on the very principle of flying it over people’s
heads for the simple psychological value. "We built this in the ’60s and
you still can’t do anything about it…look, it shits pure money. We can
afford it…"
-c
In a previous article, Big John <BigJ…@hotmail.com> said:
>destroyed so he would have more tax dollars to waste on the F-111. In
>1994 William Jefferson Clinton used line item veto to cancel all
>funding for SR-71s. They are now in museums. The pilots said that we
The line item veto was declared unconstitutional soon afterwards, Congress
offered to re-authorized the money, but the Air Force declined because
they wanted to spent the money on Predator and Global Hawk. And let’s not
forget that try as you might, you can’t blame the first SR-71 retirement
on Clinton.
–
Paul Tomblin <ptomb…@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
Better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish. And if he can’t
be bothered to learn to fish and starves to death, that’s a good enough
outcome for me. – Steve VanDevender
"Gatt" <g…@damnnearwiley00.com> wrote in message
news:13icklpn198fd65@corp.supernews.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Big John" <BigJ…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7oaci3pg8mbv8jqge7jli30m43kefb380p@4ax.com…
>> We lost three out of 50 due to accidents.
> I heard 12, including the one that’s on display at the Boeing Museum of
> Flight. This very fascinating site seems to indicate 20:
> http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/srloss~1.htm
> Still….
> If they recommissioned the remaining birds tomorrow I’d call it tax money
> well-spent, if nothing but on the very principle of flying it over
> people’s heads for the simple psychological value. "We built this in
> the ’60s and you still can’t do anything about it…look, it shits pure
> money. We can afford it…"
It would be a lot cheaper to fly over their heads with much slower aircraft
and purge the toilets.
"Paul Tomblin" <ptomblin+netn…@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:fg5l7g$u4k$2@xen1.xcski.com…
> In a previous article, Big John <BigJ…@hotmail.com> said:
>>destroyed so he would have more tax dollars to waste on the F-111. In
>>1994 William Jefferson Clinton used line item veto to cancel all
>>funding for SR-71s. They are now in museums. The pilots said that we
> The line item veto was declared unconstitutional soon afterwards, Congress
> offered to re-authorized the money, but the Air Force declined because
> they wanted to spent the money on Predator and Global Hawk. And let’s not
> forget that try as you might, you can’t blame the first SR-71 retirement
> on Clinton.
Why not?
"Matt Barrow" <mbar…@performancehomes.com> wrote in message
news:ogtVi.29$4N1.4@newsfe13.lga…
>> The line item veto was declared unconstitutional soon afterwards,
>> Congress
>> offered to re-authorized the money, but the Air Force declined because
>> they wanted to spent the money on Predator and Global Hawk. And let’s
>> not
>> forget that try as you might, you can’t blame the first SR-71 retirement
>> on Clinton.
> Why not?
It was first deactivated in the ’80s, before the Clinton administration.
-c
"Gatt" <g…@damnnearwiley00.com> wrote in message
news:13icpvvku8qfqa4@corp.supernews.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Matt Barrow" <mbar…@performancehomes.com> wrote in message
> news:ogtVi.29$4N1.4@newsfe13.lga…
>>> The line item veto was declared unconstitutional soon afterwards,
>>> Congress
>>> offered to re-authorized the money, but the Air Force declined because
>>> they wanted to spent the money on Predator and Global Hawk. And let’s
>>> not
>>> forget that try as you might, you can’t blame the first SR-71 retirement
>>> on Clinton.
>> Why not?
> It was first deactivated in the ’80s, before the Clinton administration.
"Deactivated" is not the same as "retired".
"Matt Barrow" <mbar…@performancehomes.com> wrote in message
news:AIuVi.86$6Z1.0@newsfe16.lga…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Gatt" <g…@damnnearwiley00.com> wrote in message
> news:13icpvvku8qfqa4@corp.supernews.com…
>> "Matt Barrow" <mbar…@performancehomes.com> wrote in message
>> news:ogtVi.29$4N1.4@newsfe13.lga…
>>>> The line item veto was declared unconstitutional soon afterwards,
>>>> Congress
>>>> offered to re-authorized the money, but the Air Force declined because
>>>> they wanted to spent the money on Predator and Global Hawk. And let’s
>>>> not
>>>> forget that try as you might, you can’t blame the first SR-71
>>>> retirement
>>>> on Clinton.
>>> Why not?
>> It was first deactivated in the ’80s, before the Clinton administration.
> "Deactivated" is not the same as "retired".
PS: IIRC
On Oct 29, 6:09 pm, "Gatt" <g…@damnnearwiley00.com> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Matt Barrow" <mbar…@performancehomes.com> wrote in message
> news:ogtVi.29$4N1.4@newsfe13.lga…
> >> The line item veto was declared unconstitutional soon afterwards,
> >> Congress
> >> offered to re-authorized the money, but the Air Force declined because
> >> they wanted to spent the money on Predator and Global Hawk. And let’s
> >> not
> >> forget that try as you might, you can’t blame the first SR-71 retirement
> >> on Clinton.
> > Why not?
> It was first deactivated in the ’80s, before the Clinton administration.
> -c
I think it’s pretty likely they deactivated it because they had a
replacement that was even better. They don’t generally give up
capabilities unless they can be replaced by something just as good or
better. Why stick with 60s technology when you can bring it up 20
years and take advantage of newer technology? They just haven’t
decided to publicize it yet.
Phil <pjacob…@comcast.net> wrote:
> I think it’s pretty likely they deactivated it because they had a
> replacement that was even better.
I was under the impression that improvements in recon by satellite made use
of the SR-71 obsolete.
"Jim Logajan" <Jam…@Lugoj.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99D8BDE948A4BJamesLLugojcom@216.168.3.30…
> Phil <pjacob…@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I think it’s pretty likely they deactivated it because they had a
>> replacement that was even better.
> I was under the impression that improvements in recon by satellite made
> use
> of the SR-71 obsolete.
That’s what they say.
I’m not saying he is right, or is wrong, but what he says does make sense.
How long did the SR-71 exist, before anyone knew about it?
What he is hinting at is probably the Aurora. You know, the one that leaves
donut shaped con trails?
—
Jim in NC
"Morgans" <jsmor…@charterJUNK.net> wrote in message
news:TOwVi.170$v%4.148@newsfe05.lga…
> I’m not saying he is right, or is wrong, but what he says does make sense.
> How long did the SR-71 exist, before anyone knew about it?
Not very long. I remember reading an article about it in about 1970, and it
wasn’t news then.
IIRC, the SR-71 was "outed" early as a peace keeping effort.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:42:31 -0500, "Maxwell" <luv2fl…@cox.net> wrote:
> "Morgans" <jsmor…@charterJUNK.net> wrote in message
> news:TOwVi.170$v%4.148@newsfe05.lga…
> > I’m not saying he is right, or is wrong, but what he says does make sense.
> > How long did the SR-71 exist, before anyone knew about it?
> Not very long. I remember reading an article about it in about 1970, and it
> wasn’t news then.
> IIRC, the SR-71 was "outed" early as a peace keeping effort.
An article I read a while back indicated that "outing" the Blackbird was a
political move by Johnson; he was under increasing pressure about Vietnam, and
unveiled the RS-71 as a distraction.
Yes, *RS*-71. Johnson transposed the letters, and the Air Force had to call it
"SR" forever after….
(RS: Reconnaissance Strike)
Ron Wanttaja
> What he is hinting at is probably the Aurora. You know, the one that leaves
> donut shaped con trails?
Bill Fox, the man who donated everything for our awesome "Blackbird
Suite", has confirmed that there was, indeed, an Aurora. He won’t say
anything more about it. (He worked at the Skunkworks for over 30
years, and ran the famous "Area 51" for a couple of years.)
BTW: Bill says we lost nearly half of the SR-71s ever built, none to
enemy fire. It was a VERY dangerous bird to fly.
—
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
http://www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Ron Wanttaja <ron.wantt…@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:42:31 -0500, "Maxwell" <luv2fl…@cox.net> wrote:
> > "Morgans" <jsmor…@charterJUNK.net> wrote in message
> > news:TOwVi.170$v%4.148@newsfe05.lga…
> > > I’m not saying he is right, or is wrong, but what he says does make sense.
> > > How long did the SR-71 exist, before anyone knew about it?
> > Not very long. I remember reading an article about it in about 1970, and it
> > wasn’t news then.
> > IIRC, the SR-71 was "outed" early as a peace keeping effort.
> An article I read a while back indicated that "outing" the Blackbird was a
> political move by Johnson; he was under increasing pressure about Vietnam, and
> unveiled the RS-71 as a distraction.
> Yes, *RS*-71. Johnson transposed the letters, and the Air Force had to call it
> "SR" forever after….
> (RS: Reconnaissance Strike)
> Ron Wanttaja
In the late 60′s I was in air defense in Korea.
Every once in a while we would track (well, not really, it was going too
fast for a track lock) something that was going at "impossible" speeds for
the time, almost always either coming in from the Pacific and up
across North Korea or leaving North Korea and heading out to the
Pacific.
While on mid tour leave, I was standing by the runway at Kadena AFB
killing time until my ride to the States watching airplanes when the
ground started shaking and there was this hellacious noise.
I looked down at the end of the runway (I was about midfield) and
saw this little black spec getting bigger and bigger until it
was almost in front of me, at which point it basically stood on it’s
tail and disappeared in the sky within a few seconds.
There was a guy standing behind me; I turned to him and said "Did
you see that!".
I then noticed he was an AP and he said "Did I see what?"
I got the drift real quick and changed the subject.
A few years later the existence of the SR-71 was acknowledged and I
put two and two together.
–
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Big John writes:
> Although the pilot takes off and lands the airplane manually, the
> navigation system is accurate enough to put the airplane on the runway
> in zero-zero conditions after flying nonstop from Californiato Iraqand
> return with four inflight refuelings.
I’m not so sure about that. The ANS was accurate to within half a mile or so,
as I recall. It wasn’t good enough for a landing in zero visibility. Of
course, the published accuracy for the ANS could be (dramatically)
understated.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:09:55 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:
> has confirmed that there was, indeed, an Aurora.
Must be true… it’s on the internet.
http://wave.prohosting.com/aurora85/images/montana.html
–
Dallas
Mxsmanic <mxsma…@gmail.com> wrote:
> Big John writes:
> > Although the pilot takes off and lands the airplane manually, the
> > navigation system is accurate enough to put the airplane on the runway
> > in zero-zero conditions after flying nonstop from Californiato Iraqand
> > return with four inflight refuelings.
> I’m not so sure about that. The ANS was accurate to within half a mile or so,
> as I recall. It wasn’t good enough for a landing in zero visibility. Of
> course, the published accuracy for the ANS could be (dramatically)
> understated.
As could be your understanding of anything that deals with real flight.
–
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Mxsmanic <mxsma…@gmail.com> wrote in
news:nigdi3lc8481929tf4m0jdov1432ila4ns@4ax.com:
> Big John writes:
>> Although the pilot takes off and lands the airplane manually, the
>> navigation system is accurate enough to put the airplane on the
>> runway in zero-zero conditions after flying nonstop from Californiato
>> Iraqand return with four inflight refuelings.
> I’m not so sure about that. The ANS was accurate to within half a
> mile or so, as I recall.
How the fuck would you know, idiot boi?
It wasn’t good enough for a landing in zero
> visibility. Of course, the published accuracy for the ANS could be
> (dramatically) understated.
Ya think?
Bertie
Big John <BigJ…@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:7oaci3pg8mbv8jqge7jli30m43kefb380p@4ax.com:
drone it had
> just launched.) No enemy was ever able to touch it.
> SecDef Robert McNamara ordered all the SR-71 manufacturing tools
> destroyed so he would have more tax dollars to waste on the F-111. In
> 1994 William Jefferson Clinton used line item veto to cancel all
> funding for SR-71s. They are now in museums. The pilots said that we
> really need that airplane today for reconnaissance over places like
> Iran, Iraq, Syria, Korea:country-region>, China, Russia, etc. If it
> were not for Clinton, SR-71 would still be performing that
> reconnaissance today.
Does he know that Kingfish isn’t?
Bertie
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> Yes, *RS*-71. Johnson transposed the letters, and the Air Force had
> to call it "SR" forever after….
> (RS: Reconnaissance Strike)
> Ron Wanttaja
Interesting, I always thought the SR was short for strategic reconnaissance.
"Matt Barrow" <mbar…@performancehomes.com> wrote in message
news:lKuVi.90$6Z1.31@newsfe16.lga…
>>> It was first deactivated in the ’80s, before the Clinton administration.
>> "Deactivated" is not the same as "retired".
Interesting point.
> PS: IIRC
Ha! That should be my sig file, or standing caveat.
-c
"Morgans" <jsmor…@charterJUNK.net> wrote in message
news:TOwVi.170$v%4.148@newsfe05.lga…
> What he is hinting at is probably the Aurora. You know, the one that
> leaves donut shaped con trails?
That’s no longer with us, is it?
Anybody ever hear about Pumpkinseed? I -think- that was the external
combustion (for lack of better term) project.
-c
Gatt wrote:
> "Morgans" <jsmor…@charterJUNK.net> wrote in message
> news:TOwVi.170$v%4.148@newsfe05.lga…
>> What he is hinting at is probably the Aurora. You know, the one that
>> leaves donut shaped con trails?
> That’s no longer with us, is it?
Well according to THE GOVERNMENT it never was. And the plane that
didn’t/doesn’t exist was supposed to be pulse jet.