Lockheed SR-71 / YF-12 Blackbird

Sundog said:
The performance they actually flew is from Paul F. Crickmore's books on the Blackbird. I can't remember where I found the design specs for the Blackbird. I don't know if it was Ben Rich's book or one of my engineering papers.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure you've got OXCART confused with FISH. Convair's FISH was the Mach 4 parasite jet competing against Lockheed's early designs before all of the contenders were basically thrown away. Lockheed came back with the A-11/A-12, and Convair came back with KINGFISH. OXCART was never intended to be a Mach 4 platform.

Sundog said:
IIRC in PFC's books, Blackbird pilots were allowed to normally go up to M=3.2 If they needed to they could push it to M=3.4. But above M=3.5 they needed permission as I noted above.
Click to expand...

Mach 3.2 was the design speed for the SR-71A. But...Mach number varies with temperature and altitude, so a more appropriate way to think of the performance is in relation to the engine CIT. I've never heard of an SR-71A going Mach 3.7 over Hanoi, and I've got everything Paul has written. Plus pretty much all of the other Blackbird books. There was one weird Hanoi overflight, but it happened at a much lower speed and altitude than planned due to engine issues. They ended up at Mach 1.7 and 41,000 feet over Hanoi, not someplace they really intended to be! Maybe you confused Mach 1.7 with 3.7?
Hobbes said:
According to the document posted by Gridlock, the big difference between A-12 and SR-71 was the sensor suite. What good is the extra speed if you need 3 A-12 sorties instead of one SR-71 sortie?
Click to expand...

They were designed to do different things. The A-12 was a survivable photographic intelligence platform for the CIA to replace the U-2. The USAF needed the SR-71 to gather more types of intel, so it had a more varied sensor suite. That being said, the camera in the A-12 was often better performing than the smaller cameras in the SR-71, and they were working on SLAR and ELINT packages for the A-12 when the program was cancelled. The A-12 did have a semi-ELINT capability, but it mainly consisted of gathering signals that painted the jet as opposed to sniffing out everything it could find.
 
Re: Have 1,000,000? Buy SR-71 Vertical Tail Rudderon Ebay!


SR-71A #61-7955 is on display at the Air Force Flight Test Center Museum at Edwards AFB, CA. Construction started on 13 May 1964 and #955 first flew on 17 August 1965 with Weaver and Andre at the controls. Throughout its career, this aircraft served as the Palmdale test aircraft until being replaced by SR-71A #61-7972 in 1985. Last flown on 24 January 1985, #955 accumulated 1993.7 hours of flight time.

SR-71 Online - SR-71A #61-7955 (17955)

Photos of SR-71A #61-7955
www.sr-71.org
 
Re: Have 1,000,000? Buy SR-71 Vertical Tail Rudderon Ebay!

He's also currently selling crochet hooks for seven bucks American. Kind of an interesting inventory spread no?
 
Re: Have 1,000,000? Buy SR-71 Vertical Tail Rudderon Ebay!

However historical and rare, I cannot see what could possibly justify paying a million bucks for this. Plus it doesn't even make for a nice coffee table or tool board... It's annoying enough when big money goes to warfare instead of schooling or medication, it's even worse when it goes to reformed military material! And if I DID have that much money and nothing to do with it, I'd much prefer a complete aircraft! A million bucks can get you some decent warbird to fly at the weekends and at fly-ins. But a rudderon??
 
You are familiar with the World Record top speed that was classified concerning a documented flight over Vietnam of A-12 Blackbird side #06931 (OXCART 128) of Mach 3.56 at 92,500 feet? That would put that A-12 going at 2,500+ mph at 17.5 miles up at altitude! We already know that the YF-12A Blackbird side #06936 flew its maximum speed of Mach 3.35 at 90,000 feet as well as it performed several World Absolute Speed records; 15/25 km straight course - 2,070.102 mph & 500 km closed circuit course - 1,643.042 mph & same day 1,000 km closed circuit course - 1,688.891 mph ..... all on May 1st, 1965. We also know that the XB-70 flew Mach 3.1. While we are talking record speeds...although I am not an SR-71 fan; it flew 2,193.2 mph at 85,069 feet on 28 July, 1974...however, many of the actual U.S.A.F. speed records, including the so called "Streak Eagle" flights were conducted with aircraft basically down! (Back seats removed, avionics removed, radars removed, etc.) Not with OXCART 128's flight...it was the "real deal" flying its mission with full gear!! Oh, I think I forgot the YF-12A flight on 21 Dec, 1966 where pilot Bill Parks covered 10,198 statute miles in 6 hours!! I hope that I didn't ruffle any feathers....I am a TRUE A-12 Blackbird fan, as well as a True XB-70 % YF-12 fan, too! I just thought I would throw my two cents into the fire.....
-Kerchan3
 
Kerchan3 said:
You are familiar with the World Record top speed that was classified concerning a documented flight over Vietnam of A-12 Blackbird side #06931 (OXCART 128) of Mach 3.56 at 92,500 feet?
Click to expand...

Source?

Kerchan3 said:
We already know that the YF-12A Blackbird side #06936 flew its maximum speed of Mach 3.35 at 90,000 feet as well as it performed several World Absolute Speed records;
Click to expand...

Source?

Kerchan3 said:
We also know that the XB-70 flew Mach 3.1.
Click to expand...

As I recall it was Mach 3.02.

[/quote][/quote][/quote]
 
In 1990 I had a conversation with Ben Rich and in it he talked about the March 6 record-setting flight delivering 17972 to the Smithsonian. He said that since it would be its last flight, Lockheed suggested that the trip be made using a safe, but above normal operating speeds, profile. Apparently the difference would be notable. ,USAF (which didn't want the record flight to happen at all), firmly nixed that. Some years later in correspondence with COL. Richard Graham the topic of ultimate speed came up again. I asked him about certain flights wherein the elapsed time meant speeds way above M3.2-3.3. His answer: "Don't forget tailwinds".
 
F-14D said:
I asked him about certain flights wherein the elapsed time meant speeds way above M3.2-3.3.
Click to expand...

Mach number was never the limiting factor anyway, it was always CIT. Reading one of Col. Graham's books and seeing all of the "temp dev" and CIT stuff explained was really interesting.

What I want to know is if anyone ever figured out what booming the Hanoi Hilton with two SR-71s was all about...
 
SOC said:
F-14D said:
I asked him about certain flights wherein the elapsed time meant speeds way above M3.2-3.3.
Click to expand...

Mach number was never the limiting factor anyway, it was always CIT. Reading one of Col. Graham's books and seeing all of the "temp dev" and CIT stuff explained was really interesting.

What I want to know is if anyone ever figured out what booming the Hanoi Hilton with two SR-71s was all about...
Click to expand...

There was also the issue of the aircraft's shockwave. As the airspeed increased, its angle started translating aft. If the a/c went fast enough it would impinge on the wingtips which would have had "unfortunate" results. Temperature, though, would limit speed somewhat before that point was reached.

For years the story was it was to signal to the POWs that they weren't forgotten, but later it was rumored that it was to communicate something to them, whatever it might have been is still classified.
 
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/sr-71-blackbird-pilot-explains-how-the-cockpit-works-fr-1659613504
 
Dear friends,
during a research on the Mach 3 aircraf I came across this picture.
As always, I forgot to write down the source and now I do not know where it came from. I saw it published at least twice and labeled as "the first A-12" or "the first YF-12".
The picture, however, seems a bit suspicious because there is no trace of the chines typical of the whole Blackbird family. Is it an optical effect, is it a fake or did a first Blackbird exist with a tubular fuselage?
Thanks in advance
Nico
 

Attachments

  • 23.jpg
    23.jpg
    63.3 KB · Views: 512
Look closely at the fuselage, you will note the triangular pattern near the lower edge. That pattern is the outward manifestation of the chine's internal structure. The chine's lower surface is completely invisible, because of the angle at which the image was taken.
This is an image of an A-12. The YF-12's two-man cockpit sat higher on the fuselage to offer the pilot a view over the YF-12's very prominent radome.
 
Arjen said:
Look closely at the fuselage, you will note the triangular pattern near the lower edge. That pattern is the outward manifestation of the chine's internal structure. The chine's lower surface is completely invisible, because of the angle at which the image was taken.
This is an image of an A-12. The YF-12's two-man cockpit sat higher on the fuselage to offer the pilot a view over the YF-12's very prominent radome.
Click to expand...
Another clue it's not a YF-12 is the radome on the only flying models did not have chines reaching to the tip of the nose, unlike the other versions of the Blackbird. I believe the production F-12Bs were supposed to get a revised radome that did have chines, but the prototypes did not.
 
Evening all,

The SR-71 is often referred to as the first "stealth" aircraft, but do we know how good it was? is there any record or information as to how small it's radar return was?
Obviously it's not as good as the F117 but was it successful?

Cheers
 
Seemed to have been relatively stealth, unfortunately when it flew at Mach 3 the heat / IR signatures ruined the day, somewhat. Plus its large reflective size... probably not too good.

The D-21 drone was an atempt to shrink the size and make it less visible on radar. Seemed to have been a success: the four (failed) missions at least completely evaded chinese radars.

The real breakthrough was when they slowed back to subsonic. The first stealth (reconnaissance) flying vehicle was neither the Have Blue nor the F-117, but the Ryan AQM-91 drone.

Same mission as per the D-21, but much slower and more stealth: spying the chinese Lop Nor nuclear test site. Corner of no and where, 2000 miles inland. Even SR-71s could not fly there and back, plus the goddam SA-2s...

And then Nixon got his breakthrough with China and both "super drones" (D-21B and AQM-91) were canned, respectively with 4 failed and 0 missions.

en.wikipedia.org

Ryan AQM-91 Firefly - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
galgot said:
Post here just for the picture , rare to see a good res image (1151x2048) of the top in bare titanium :

View attachment 614233

Twin seat A-12 Titanium Goose Displayed at California Museum of Science, Los Angeles, Ca.
Click to expand...
Interesting that the periphery of the airframe (chines, leading edge, trailing edge) appear to be metal, I had always understood these areas to be composed of wedges of a RAM material, explaining why they're usually black even on otherwise unpainted airframes. A couple of theories:
- Titanium skin was used on the peripheries of some airframes not expected to fly in harms way in order to reduce maintenance costs
- The RAM material is removed from aircraft when they're retired to museums (for security and/or hazmat reasons) and somebody decided not to paint this example.
Also, I wonder why the fleet was painted at all. At the speed and altitude at which operational missions were flown, visual camouflage can't have been the reason. The paint may have had RAM properties, which would explain why it was initially applied to the periphery only (which would seem prone to generating tactically important radar reflections). Or maybe it helped with heat rejection.
 
Another Blackbird question:
Why are there no photos available of a blackbird flying at it's operational speed. These would be distinctive because the airframe, as every description notes, glows cherry red and the shock cones retract into the inlets.
I'm certain that such photos were taken. After spending billions developing a ground-breaking system, what sort of test program would neglect photographic documentation of the hardware performing in it's operational environment? I suspect that the photos reveal something about high-speed flight technology that the USG preferred to keep to itself. With the Chinese and Russians deploying hypersonic missiles though, I suspect the security concerns are moot these days.
I once put this question to Brian Shul, noted sled driver and author, and he replied with a dismissive question about "Well, how could you take a photo like that - from another SR-71 flying in formation?" It was an unworthy response, the USAF (or maybe now its the Space Force) routinely photographs satellites in orbit from the ground and if nothing else, the cameras used in the SR-71 could be turned upside down and mounted on the ground to take such a photo.
The same question could be asked about the space shuttle or any other reentry vehicle. Photos of the damaged Columbia shuttle in orbit taken from the ground are publicly available but, as far as I know, nothing of the shuttles during reentry (other than those taken by bystanders of Columbia breaking up over Texas).
I wonder if such photos will ever be released and, if so, what they'll reveal.
 
So-called “plastic” parts, consisting of silicone-asbestos and phenyl silane glass laminates, made up most of the peripheral assemblies on the A-12 and SR-71 series aircraft. The forward fuselage chines, wing edges, inlet spike cone, tailcone, and vertical stabilizers used these materials extensively. Composite honeycomb sandwich skin panels, some over one inch thick, were fastened to the underlying titanium framework and were easily removed for maintenance or replacement. They were applied to areas that typically experienced 400˚F to 750˚F during high-speed cruise. Not all Blackbirds used such extensive amounts of plastic components. On the first A-12, the A-12T trainer, and all three YF-12A interceptors, the silicone-asbestos panels were replaced with A-110AT titanium alloy skin supported by hat-section stiffeners.

The Blackbirds ultimately earned their nickname because they were coated with a high-emissivity black paint for improved heat radiation, thus reducing thermal stresses on the airframe. Although the first A-12 flew unpainted, engineers soon realized it would be advantageous to exploit Kirchoff’s law of Radiation that describes how a good heat absorber, such as any extremely dark object, is also an efficient heat emitter. Although convective heating decreases with increasing altitude, heat radiation occurs independently of altitude. Initial efforts involved application of black paint only to the airplane’s edges and cockpit area. The earliest paint scheme used on the A-12, AF-12 (YF-12A), and M-21, and intended for use on the R-12 (SR-71), involved painting the periphery black and leaving the rest of the airframe natural metal. Beginning in late 1963, however, Skunk Works engineers began painting the A-12 fleet and subsequent variants entirely black. This improved heat emission and made the airplanes less visible from the ground since they no longer strongly reflected the sun during high-altitude flight.

Many sources have called this material "iron ball" paint, implying that it contained ferrites for radar signature reduction. I have, however, found the paint used on the Blackbirds to be non-magnetic. I suspect it was more likely a copper oxide material, which has excellent dielectric qualities.


taildragger said:
galgot said:
Post here just for the picture , rare to see a good res image (1151x2048) of the top in bare titanium :

View attachment 614233

Twin seat A-12 Titanium Goose Displayed at California Museum of Science, Los Angeles, Ca.
Click to expand...
Interesting that the periphery of the airframe (chines, leading edge, trailing edge) appear to be metal, I had always understood these areas to be composed of wedges of a RAM material, explaining why they're usually black even on otherwise unpainted airframes. A couple of theories:
- Titanium skin was used on the peripheries of some airframes not expected to fly in harms way in order to reduce maintenance costs
- The RAM material is removed from aircraft when they're retired to museums (for security and/or hazmat reasons) and somebody decided not to paint this example.
Also, I wonder why the fleet was painted at all. At the speed and altitude at which operational missions were flown, visual camouflage can't have been the reason. The paint may have had RAM properties, which would explain why it was initially applied to the periphery only (which would seem prone to generating tactically important radar reflections). Or maybe it helped with heat rejection.
Click to expand...
 
taildragger said:
Another Blackbird question:
Why are there no photos available of a blackbird flying at it's operational speed. These would be distinctive because the airframe, as every description notes, glows cherry red
Click to expand...

"Every description" would seem to be wrong. The external skin of the SR-71 generally reaches a max temperature of less than 600 degrees F, which is well below incandescence in the visual spectrum. Things begin to visibly glow a dull red at about 977 degrees F.


SpuoD0QAIMsux8mjSJQIEgT-ptfKlgZboRLhGed0xSk.jpg



taildragger said:
I once put this question to Brian Shul, noted sled driver and author, and he replied with a dismissive question about "Well, how could you take a photo like that - from another SR-71 flying in formation?" It was an unworthy response,
Click to expand...

No, it's a perfectly cromulent response. An aircraft is a more difficult target than a satellite. A satellite - when caught in sunlight - is a bright speck against a dark background. An aircraft (in particular one 17 miles up) is a dark speck against a bright background. A satellite moves on a path so mathematically predictable that you can get within inches of it hours in advance, while aircraft are buffeted and subject to random jittering at the best of times.
 
We have famous pictures like the one shot from one SR-71 while crossing the path of another above the Pacific at Mach 3.

We also have the M-21 camera shot.

We also have the ejection sequence filmed from the ground.

However, the A-12 high speed early flights should be interesting to see (plasma stealth?).
 
TomcatViP said:
We have famous pictures like the one shot from one SR-71 while crossing the path of another above the Pacific at Mach 3.

We also have the M-21 camera shot.

We also have the ejection sequence filmed from the ground.

However, the A-12 high speed early flights should be interesting to see (plasma stealth?).
Click to expand...

Where can I see those ??
 
Archibald said:
Even SR-71s could not fly there and back, plus the goddam SA-2s...
Click to expand...
It's technically possible to get to Lop Nor with a U-2 or SR-71, provided you can base from, or refuel over, northern Pakistan. The U-2 mission isn't much more demanding than some of the early overflights into Soviet Central Asia from Turkey; with an SR-71, you'd need to get tankers very close to the Chinese border over the Karakorum Mountains. Politically very dodgy of course, since the refuelling might actually be over the India/Pakistan disputed area, and carrying out a manned overflight is inherently risky.

There's a second entry point further east over Bhutan, but you need to stage out of Diego Garcia and refuel over Bangladesh. Again politically challenging. Coming in from the east requires an aircraft with much more range than an SR-71. Of course, the original ARCHANGEL was supposed to have a 2,000 nautical mile unrefuelled radius, which would be adequate for the job, and I suspect that isn't entirely coincidence. D-21 would need a launch site over the Yellow Sea or Bay of Bengal, not impossible but not ideal, and COMPASS ARROW couldn't do it at all.
 
bob225 said:
Evening all,

The SR-71 is often referred to as the first "stealth" aircraft, but do we know how good it was? is there any record or information as to how small it's radar return was?
Obviously it's not as good as the F117 but was it successful?

Cheers
Click to expand...

D-21
d21 rcs.png

Freedom of Information Act Electronic Reading Room | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)

www.cia.gov www.cia.gov

A-12 - of doubtful usefulness since this is earlier in the program
a-12 rcs.png
 
It's technically possible to get to Lop Nor with a U-2 or SR-71, provided you can base from, or refuel over, northern Pakistan. The U-2 mission isn't much more demanding than some of the early overflights into Soviet Central Asia from Turkey;
- with an SR-71, you'd need to get tankers very close to the Chinese border over the Karakorum Mountains.
Politically very dodgy of course, since the refuelling might actually be over the India/Pakistan disputed area, and carrying out a manned overflight is inherently risky.
Click to expand...

books.google.fr

Spyplane

Book discusses the requirement for and the design, development, and operation of the U-2, from 1954 when the design began, to the current overflights of the Balkans and Iraq. Includes extensive discussions of U-2 overflights of hostile countries (USSR, China, North Korea, North Vietnam) and...
books.google.fr

They did it. Not from Pakistan (not after Gary Power) but from India, after the 1962 war angered Nehru against both USSR and PRC.

This blew my mind. Charbatia ? Seems they flew three U-2 missions from Charbatia to Lop Nor and back, circa 1964. From memory, with ROCAF pilots.

Thanks for the info on SR-71.
 
taildragger said:
I once put this question to Brian Shul, noted sled driver and author, and he replied with a dismissive question about "Well, how could you take a photo like that - from another SR-71 flying in formation?" It was an unworthy response,
Click to expand...

No, it's a perfectly cromulent response. An aircraft is a more difficult target than a satellite. A satellite - when caught in sunlight - is a bright speck against a dark background. An aircraft (in particular one 17 miles up) is a dark speck against a bright background. A satellite moves on a path so mathematically predictable that you can get within inches of it hours in advance, while aircraft are buffeted and subject to random jittering at the best of times.
[/QUOTE]

The photo below was taken about 5 years after the start of the Blackbird's test program and I'm unaware of any revolutionary advances in tracking or photography that occurred in the interim. The subject vehicle is somewhat larger but is moving faster (6,164 mph) and at higher altitude (220,000 ft.) than the Blackbird family is generally believed capable of. As can be observed from the exhaust plume and shockwave (or whatever), aerodynamic forces are still in play. My understanding is that there was plenty of buffeting and random jittering going on. I'm not sure what cromulent means but don't think it applies.
1594153648509.png
 
Last edited:
taildragger said:
The photo below was taken about 5 years after the start of the Blackbird's test program and I'm unaware of any revolutionary advances in tracking or photography that occurred in the interim. The subject vehicle is somewhat larger but is moving faster (6,164 mph) and at higher altitude (220,000 ft.) than the Blackbird family is generally believed capable of.
Click to expand...


1) It's not just somewhat larger, it's a *lot* larger.
2) The vehicle isn't approaching from the dim vague distance, but was clearly observed from the beginning, RIGHT OVER THERE, with massive camera tracking rigs built for the purpose.
3) Launch vehicles go up and over, not more or less purely horizontal. That Saturn V isn't visible low in the sky, but *high* in the sky. Far less air to look through than something lower-yet-closer but closer tot he horizon.
4) Launch vehicle trajectories are pre-programmed; but whenever there's a divergence the manual trackers tended to lose them almost instantly.
5) Launch vehicles were painted *white* in large part so that they could be clearly seen. Look at the bottom of the Saturn V S-IC stage in your photo: it's dark... and essentially the same color as the background. All that you can see of the Saturn V is what's painted white; the black bits are truly invisible.

In order to be seen for a 1965 speed record run, a YF-12A was painted with a white cross. Without it, it would have been damned difficult to see at altitude.

Lockheed-YF-12A-60-6936-with-white-cross-on-belly-2.jpg


Before assuming some whackaloon conspiracy about the SR-71 family using "plasma stealth" or some such rubbish as an excuse for why it hasn't been photographed... find some photos of the U-2/TR-1 at altitude. Roughly the same color as the SR-17, roughly the same size (TR-1 span 103 feet, SR-71 length 107 feet), but flies a little lower (70K vs 85K) and a *lot* slower. Should be vastly easier to spot and photograph. Go ahead, look 'em up. Should be oodles of them.
 
I am eager to learn more about radioactivity induced plasma and if (and then how) it was used on early A-12.
No bizarre theory here.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom