-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Thunder on the ground
- Thread starter knarfeng
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,045
Anyone notice the stealth bomber flying over Yankee Stadium last night?
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 43,065
SR71 Blackbird, right??BTW - what was top end speed for this monster??
Cool pic :thumbup::thumbup:
Yes. SR-71.
Mach 3+
It held many speed records:
Speed Over a Straight Course (15-25km): 2,193.167 mph
Actual top speed has never been released.
Bronco
Moderator
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2000
- Messages
- 7,580
I noticed something very interesting with regards to the SR-71. When you compare the empty weight of any aircraft with its maximum takeoff weight, it's fairly rare to find a practical aircraft whose max takeoff weight is more than double its empty weight. Even for military aircraft designed to carry heavy bomb loads, or capacious civilian airliners with large hollow areas capable of hauling tons of cargo, this 2 to 1 ratio is hard to beat significantly. To illustrate, here are a few comparisons of the the empty weight vs. max weight ratios for some well known aircraft:
Aircraft: Empty weight/ Max takeoff weight
F-4 Phantom II: 30,000 lbs/ 41,000 lbs
F-14D: 43,000 lbs/ 74,000 lbs
B-52: 185,000 lbs/ 265,000 lbs
Boeing 747: 392,000 lbs/ 833,000 lbs
Now compare this with the Blackbird specifications available on any of the SR-71 websites. They list the empty weight of the SR-71 at 59,000 lbs, and the max takeoff weight at 170,000 lbs. I'm no math whiz, but that's that's almost triple the difference. I'm not suggesting that the SR-71 routinely took off at this weight, but I can't imagine how you could possible add 110,000 lbs to it under any circumstances. Amazing.
Aircraft: Empty weight/ Max takeoff weight
F-4 Phantom II: 30,000 lbs/ 41,000 lbs
F-14D: 43,000 lbs/ 74,000 lbs
B-52: 185,000 lbs/ 265,000 lbs
Boeing 747: 392,000 lbs/ 833,000 lbs
Now compare this with the Blackbird specifications available on any of the SR-71 websites. They list the empty weight of the SR-71 at 59,000 lbs, and the max takeoff weight at 170,000 lbs. I'm no math whiz, but that's that's almost triple the difference. I'm not suggesting that the SR-71 routinely took off at this weight, but I can't imagine how you could possible add 110,000 lbs to it under any circumstances. Amazing.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 3,018
True, but the fuel capacity took into account the fact that the tanks leaked like sieves until it got up to speed/temperature (note the fuel slicks on the tarmac in that photo)
Bronco
Moderator
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2000
- Messages
- 7,580
I guess that explains a good bit of it. According to the specs, the SR-71 had a fuel capacity of 80,000 lbs. That's pretty remarkable. To put things into perspective, the total fuel capacity of a KC-130F aerial refueling tanker is only about 66,000 lbs. Wow. And then we still have another 30,000 lbs to account for.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 3,018
Cameras were payload, so I guess the cameras and film (and there was a lot of film) would not be considered in the empty weight. I gotta get a book dedicated to this plane. I only have Skunk Works by Ben Rich (which is an awesome book in its own right)
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2006
- Messages
- 3,734
In 1987 I was at Kadena AFB, Okinawa. My BN was rotating back to the States after a 6 month deployment to [sarcasm] beautiful [/sarcasm] Camp Hansen with a side trip to Korea. We had gone through processing and customs and were lounging in some open-lattice brick structures perhaps 500ft from the flightline trying to stay cool and catch a nap. All of a sudden the loudest noise I've ever heard in my life came over us. I looked up and saw a SR-71 taking off on the far runway. Unfortunately I didn't have enough time to grab the camera out of my bag. :grumpy: I've been less than 200ft from two F4s taking off in tandem and the noise of the SR-71 dwarfed that.
A month or so later that same year I went to Miramar NAS for the air show. There was a SR-71 on display with approximately 30ft around the plane roped off. The crewmembers were inside the roped off area and were answering questions. When it finally was my turn to talk to one of them I asked two questions. I don't recall the first but the second was "I know these are stationed at Kadena, Beale and Mindenhall, are there any other bases they're at?" I received the same answer to both questions..."I can't tell you that". After the second time I said "I suppose there's not much point in me asking you anything is there". He just smiled and said "No".
A month or so later that same year I went to Miramar NAS for the air show. There was a SR-71 on display with approximately 30ft around the plane roped off. The crewmembers were inside the roped off area and were answering questions. When it finally was my turn to talk to one of them I asked two questions. I don't recall the first but the second was "I know these are stationed at Kadena, Beale and Mindenhall, are there any other bases they're at?" I received the same answer to both questions..."I can't tell you that". After the second time I said "I suppose there's not much point in me asking you anything is there". He just smiled and said "No".
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2002
- Messages
- 1,351
Nice story BlackHills! The SR-71 is by far my favorite airplane of all time, created by a team of engineers and craftsmen of a different era, solving problems decades ahead of their time with essentially their wits, crude computers (probably comparable to a palm pilot), pen, and paper. I've a Habu story also.
When I lived in Seoul, Korea in the late 70's, every afternoon (maybe between 2-4?) I would hear a loud double boom, a boom followed by another a fraction of a second apart. This was not like a "thunder in the distance" boom, but a window rattling "BOOM!-BOOM!" of lightning strikes a block or so over. At the time I assumed it was some artillery practice on the base nearby. Decades later, while reading a book about the SR-71 and the Lockheed Skunkworks projects, I read a story where the Kelly Johnson (the head designer of the Blackbird) visited Korea and was having tea with a Korean general. Right after they'd both heard the double boom Kelly was thanked by the general for providing them with the ability to get daily detailed looks of the area north of the 38th parallel, making any undetected massing of troops impossible. I'd been listening to my favorite plane fly over every day for several years of my life and never even knew it!
When I lived in Seoul, Korea in the late 70's, every afternoon (maybe between 2-4?) I would hear a loud double boom, a boom followed by another a fraction of a second apart. This was not like a "thunder in the distance" boom, but a window rattling "BOOM!-BOOM!" of lightning strikes a block or so over. At the time I assumed it was some artillery practice on the base nearby. Decades later, while reading a book about the SR-71 and the Lockheed Skunkworks projects, I read a story where the Kelly Johnson (the head designer of the Blackbird) visited Korea and was having tea with a Korean general. Right after they'd both heard the double boom Kelly was thanked by the general for providing them with the ability to get daily detailed looks of the area north of the 38th parallel, making any undetected massing of troops impossible. I'd been listening to my favorite plane fly over every day for several years of my life and never even knew it!
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 43,065
The SR took off with enough fuel to climb to ~30K ft where she would meet up with a tanker. She would fill her tanks, then scat. Bloody thing was all fuel tank.
Most fighters fly on afterburner for about a couple of minutes. That's all they have enough fuel to support and still fly their mission. But the SR CRUISED on the equivalent of AB. That's why she had to be so large and carry so much fuel.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 43,065
Yeah but the the KC-130 is a prop bird. Too slow to fuel an SR
SRs refueled from KC-135's. The civilian version is the 707. They hold about 80,000 lbs of fuel. When the SR was almost stalling and the KC-135 was firewalling, they could match speeds. They also used some KC-10's. (civilian = DC-10) They hold even more fuel.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2008
- Messages
- 340
I saw one at Kadena AFB, Okinawa too, back in the 70s though. Very impressive!!!
StuntDouble
Gold Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,445
If you visit the Virginia Aviation Museum, you'll see one sitting there in front of the building. They are beautiful machines.
Bronco
Moderator
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2000
- Messages
- 7,580
Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that the KC-130 would be able to refuel an SR-71, I was just marveling at the fact that the SR-71 could actually carry more fuel on board than a dedicated tanker aircraft. Pretty amazing to consider.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2005
- Messages
- 18,769
The fifth generation fighter F-22 Raptor can fly quite a while on an afterburner equivalent. I wonder if they borrowed SR-71 technology...
Hmmm might be a connection:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 43,065
No sir.
Completely different.
The SR flew 3+ by dumping extra fuel into the aft part of the engine. This really is flying on after burner.
The F-22 has enough thrust without kicking in AB and has low enough drag that she can fly past Mach 1 without afterburner at all. I don't think the actual speeds have been published but it can't be far past Mach 1.