Need Haynes workshop Manual for my SR-71

Never mind, I found one.


Mikek
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 3:27:11 PM UTC-5, amdx wrote:

I drive past the one on display in New York on the way to one of my customers. I wonder if it will *ever* stop looking like the coolest thing that ever flew?
And maybe, with the help of this exhaustive (160 pages!) book, me & the boys will get it started up and take it out for a ride.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.blackbirds.net/sr71/index.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


I didn't have this bookmarked and had to search: http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 6:45:09 PM UTC-5, Jim Wilkins wrote:

0857331566

Jim - this is a tremendous find! Now I'll be up all night reading it, but i t ought to give me more than enough info to get the bird off the ground. Th e really hard part is that it's on the deck of an aircraft carrier which is , in my estimation, somewhat shorter than the required 8,500 feet to get th e thing in the air. Of course, we could fire up the catapult, but that's a whole other can of worms.
Seriously, though, this is going to be some interesting reading, and it WIL L keep me up at night. Thanks for the link.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Jim - this is a tremendous find! Now I'll be up all night reading it, but it ought to give me more than enough info to get the bird off the ground. The really hard part is that it's on the deck of an aircraft carrier which is, in my estimation, somewhat shorter than the required 8,500 feet to get the thing in the air. Of course, we could fire up the catapult, but that's a whole other can of worms.
Seriously, though, this is going to be some interesting reading, and it WILL keep me up at night. Thanks for the link.
================= I wonder if the pilots really memorize and strictly observe all those temperature restrictions and limits. The CIT limit of 427C is easy if you're into hot Chevys but the others would confuse me, and I have four temperature readouts visible from this chair to monitor and respond to; indoors, outdoors, the basement wood stove and a pot heating on it.
-jsw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/18/2016 6:05 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote: ...

Years ago I hired a (near) kid fresh out of Air Force who had served as air traffic controller at Kadena while the Blackbirds were stationed there. He said (amongst other stories) they had only a _very_ limited time of a few minutes to get traffic cleared and them off the ground before they leaked so much fuel they wouldn't have enough to get to the refueling rendezvous point. It took getting to airspeed and resulting friction heating to expand and seal the tanks, apparently.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not sure about that. While I wasn't in the SR-71 Squadron at Beal we did do a certain amount of support work for them, and our Squadron Commander even went through the up-grading program and was qualified on them. I never heard that they allowed fuel leaks.
But, depending on a lot of things they might have been taking off with minimum fuel which would limit their time on the ground.
--

Cheers,

John B.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/18/2016 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
...

Well, I always wondered but he swore was true. So, I just did some looking and whaddya' know...
"In order for the SR-71 to fly the worldwide missions, it has a special fleet of modified KC-135Q tankers for refueling. SR-71s run on JP-7 fuel, that fills the six large tanks in the fuselage. The component parts of the Blackbird fit very loosely together to allow for expansion at high temperatures. At rest on the ground, fuel leaks out constantly, since the tanks in the fuselage and wings only seal at operating temperatures. There is little danger of fire since the JP-7 fuel is very stable with an extremely high flash point."
From the page at
<http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/sr-71/ > But, depending on a lot of things they might have been taking off with

...
He said when it came time to roll 'em out, _everything_ else other than perhaps an immediate emergency landing took second fiddle 'til they were airborne (and if that aircraft could make one more fly around, it'd probably wait, too! ;) ).
Having been an air traffic controller, his tendency to not hesitate in making a decision was certainly quite out of the norm of most young engineers who had just graduated and taken their first employment (he had dropped out and done his tour prior to returning to school and, this time, doing well in getting his degree with honors). I became quite accustomed to "Please stand by!" when he was engrossed in a task and I wanted something. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, I read that but when the SR's first came to Beal the squadron was not fully manned and we (SAC) provided some basic support - sheetmetal, welding, machine shop, hydraulic, etc. What the A.F. called Field Maintenance. I have been near them when they start but never say any fuel drizzling out of them. But, they did fly a lot of short, say 30 minute, flights which would mean that they had a very small fuel load aboard. The Take off, climb to altitude and refuel was a fairly standard technique as a jet engine uses a huge amount of fuel at low altitudes so taking off with a very light fuel load and then refuel at some intermediate altitude was pretty standard. The B-52's did it on all long missions and I assume that is what the SR's did also as they flew Beal to Okinawa in one jump.

Not to make light of anything but controlling the local flight pattern is a pretty routine practice. When the U-2's landed or took off they cleared the pattern and the main runway had pickup trucks running up and down it. When the F-4's practiced tail hook landings they cleared the pattern, when the B-52's took off, one airplane every 60 seconds, they cleared the pattern.

--

Cheers,

John B.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/19/2016 6:31 AM, John B. wrote: ...

Of course it is; that was the whole point. The size/complexity of Kadena dwarfs Beale, however...
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Possibly :-) But when the Black Birds were flying there, which was in the late 1960's if I remember correctly, Kadena wasn't really a hub of activity.
--

Cheers,

John B.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On the ground the tanks leaked. They took off with nominal fuel and filled to full after the liftoff and at that level nominal leaking and at flight altitude there wasn't leaking. It was the design. At the flight characteristics, something had to give - design for flight to get the full bore ability. If not - altitude would cause leaks.
I got to be within maybe 50' from a U2 that landed in a Typhoon. Made it's run but the return was limited to our tiny island. They took off the wings and took it home in a C-130 as I recall.
Martin
On 1/18/2016 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:22:24 -0600, Martin Eastburn

But, the SR's flying out of Beal made some short training flights where they didn't do any in flight refueling. My Sgdn. Commander who went through the "up-grade" scheme that gave other pilots the chance to fly and theoretically qualify, in the SR, said that he made 30 minute training flights. No refueling.
It wasn't altitude that made the fuel cells leak it was temperatures.
I think that the take off and inflight refueling routine was more likely for longer flights. As I said, they took off from Beal and landed at Kadina, which is a longish flight.

I was at two bases where U-2's were stationed and they are a really close mouthed bunch. Keep the airplanes in the hanger and only let them out when they are flying :-)
One of the ground crew did tell me that preparing for a flight is a several hour long procedure as the pilot first makes his preflight inspection and then gets suited up and has to spend an hour or more breathing "pure oxygen" to purge nitrogen out of his blood. then he can go fly.
The ground crew guy said that the pilots get rather short tempered going through all that :-)

--

Cheers,

John B.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

There is an SR-71 at the Boeing Air and Space Museum in Seattle. It is actually a variant, made to carry a drone on top. My brother and I went on a "tour" of the plane several years ago given by one of the SR-71 pilots. He told us that the planes did indeed drip fuel when on the ground and cool. He told the tour group about how the plane was fueled for spy missions. The engines the plane used were designed for use in a boat, not a plane. But they had the power neded so the CIA employed designers chose those engines. They still needed many modifications though. The fuel used for the missions served three functions. Besides fuel it was also used as the hydraulic fluid and as a coolant for the aircraft, the cockpit in particular. Before a mission a refueling plane was sent up to a high altitude where the air was really cold. It then flew around for a time in order to cool the fuel load. On the ground the SR-71 was lightly fueled with some sort of conventional jet fuel. When it was airborne the tanks were filled with the special fuel the plane needed to operate at the high temperatures it was heated to. The fuel was very hard to ignite. The pilot told us that just switching over from regular jet fuel to the special stuff while the engine was running would not ignite the special fuel. So a small cannister, I think he said it held a pint, of some sort of hypergolic fluid was used to ignite the operating jet fuel. Just a little was used each time the engines needed igniting, around an ounce I think. The pilot told us that the skin of the aircraft around the cockpit was heated to 650 degrees, which shows why it needed cooling. Other parts of the skin were heated to much higher temperatures. Behind the engines, in the exhaust path, the skin was not a titanium alloy, but was instead some sort of nickel alloy because this area was heated much hotter than the titanium alloys could endure. Interestingly, much of the titanium for the skin came from the USSR. At the time these planes were first built the USA didn't have the skills yet to make the titanium alloy sheet needed. So the CIA purchased the titanium sheet through several devious channels so that the USSR wouldn't find out it was supplying the USA. The pilot told us that none of the SR-71 aircraft were shot down. He also told us that the pilots could watch missles on radar approaching the aircraft and then falling short and missing. Oh, he also told us that the top speed was still classified and that the SR-71 was still the fastest jets made. Eric
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:41:29 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@whidbey.com wrote:

Great description, Eric. Just one correction: The P&W J58 engine was designed for use in a jet-powered flying boat, not actually a boat. "J58" is a navy designation, which may have led to some confusion.
I forget the designation of the flying boat, but it was dropped when submarine-borne ballistic missiles became available. It was to be a high-speed, low-altitude nuclear bomber.
--
Ed Huntress

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_P6M
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:09:33 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"

Wow, what a cool seaplane. Reading the history, I'm reminded that flying horizontal stabilizers cause a lot of control problems back in the '50s.
--
Ed Huntress

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Ballistic missiles obsoleted many other clever advanced developments. Canada still blames us for the cancellation of their Avro Arrow bomber interceptor, ignoring that we abandoned substantially higher performing planes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XF-108_Rapier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12
I was drenched by the launching splash of this early missile sub, another dead end: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Growler_ (SSG-577)
-jsw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:00:37 -0500, Ed Huntress

I'm sure the pilot said that too, that it was a flying boat, and I just missed the part about it flying. Thanks, Eric
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.