These SR-71 Blackbirds
Discussion
Interesting story. I too wonder why it was so imperative top get the SR-71 down so fast - and at Kadena and nowhere else. Did it have a technical problem or was it carrying photos so important that it was worth the risk of wrecking the aircraft to get the film out and developed as quickly as possible?
OK - I'll spell it out.
Operations out of Kadena were already established by 1972. Operational SR-71 missions (and A-12 missions before them) were undertaken in conjunction with the use of the special Boeing KC-135Q aerial tankers. Fuel starvation would normally not be an issue UNLESS there had been a technical problem of some sort - either with the SR-71 itself or the KC-135Q tanker.
It was not NORMAL for SR-71s to be critically short of fuel as they came in to land.
Operations out of Kadena were already established by 1972. Operational SR-71 missions (and A-12 missions before them) were undertaken in conjunction with the use of the special Boeing KC-135Q aerial tankers. Fuel starvation would normally not be an issue UNLESS there had been a technical problem of some sort - either with the SR-71 itself or the KC-135Q tanker.
It was not NORMAL for SR-71s to be critically short of fuel as they came in to land.
Eric Mc said:
OK - I'll spell it out.
Operations out of Kadena were already established by 1972. Operational SR-71 missions (and A-12 missions before them) were undertaken in conjunction with the use of the special Boeing KC-135Q aerial tankers. Fuel starvation would normally not be an issue UNLESS there had been a technical problem of some sort - either with the SR-71 itself or the KC-135Q tanker.
It was not NORMAL for SR-71s to be critically short of fuel as they came in to land.
Approaching typhoon preventing a tanker from taking off to refuel it sufficiently to reach an alternate airbase outside the area the typhoon was affecting ? It should have had sufficient fuel onboard for a normal divert, but if its planned diversion field was already below weather minimums......Operations out of Kadena were already established by 1972. Operational SR-71 missions (and A-12 missions before them) were undertaken in conjunction with the use of the special Boeing KC-135Q aerial tankers. Fuel starvation would normally not be an issue UNLESS there had been a technical problem of some sort - either with the SR-71 itself or the KC-135Q tanker.
It was not NORMAL for SR-71s to be critically short of fuel as they came in to land.
slybynight said:
Yes, I know, but I have been here a while now and contribute on other threads - I kind of thought it was a bit tongue in cheek seeing as someone mentioned Concorde and I had posted on this thread before (hence the wording)- If it offends that much, then pls delete mods.
Its not really advertising as like I say - I have nothing for sale! - just treat it as a picture of my little hobby if you like. I like the planes, I build Lego models.
Thanks for not wishing a lego heatseaking missile up my jetpipe this time though!!
OK - I reworded it!
We have a special section for those who build models - including Lego. I often post there myself.Its not really advertising as like I say - I have nothing for sale! - just treat it as a picture of my little hobby if you like. I like the planes, I build Lego models.
Thanks for not wishing a lego heatseaking missile up my jetpipe this time though!!
OK - I reworded it!
Edited by slybynight on Tuesday 29th September 13:57
Did I read the article correctly? Did it say that he did one more fly around before final approach dumping fuel the entire length of the runway? Whats that all about, esp. when hes coming in with blown tires etc? I'd have thought dumping it nowhere near the runway would have been a better idea?
slybynight said:
Did I read the article correctly? Did it say that he did one more fly around before final approach dumping fuel the entire length of the runway? Whats that all about, esp. when hes coming in with blown tires etc? I'd have thought dumping it nowhere near the runway would have been a better idea?
The fuel used by the SR-71 would not have caught fire the way conventional fuels do - perhaps it was intended to lubricate the runway for a landing with blown tyres
When I was in Seattle I visited the Aviation museum, and had a sit in a cockpit of a Blackbird, talk about cramped, got to admire those pilots cooped up in their seat for the entire flight.
Cant imagine the noise of the starting power pack, they used TWO V8's on a trolly unsilenced, must have been something.
If you want a good read about the build etc of the Blackbird, get hold of a book called "Skunk Works" fantastic read.
Cant imagine the noise of the starting power pack, they used TWO V8's on a trolly unsilenced, must have been something.
If you want a good read about the build etc of the Blackbird, get hold of a book called "Skunk Works" fantastic read.
Vipers said:
When I was in Seattle I visited the Aviation museum, and had a sit in a cockpit of a Blackbird, talk about cramped, got to admire those pilots cooped up in their seat for the entire flight.
I was at an evening corporate event there back in the mid 90s iirc when I was working for Microsoft. I got talking to a security guy about the planes and he led me and my mate through a door and down some steps to a mini hanger type room. Just sitting there was an SR-71 which had recently arrived but was not on display yet. To say it was an exciting experience is putting it mildly.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff