From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V4 #60 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 11 November 1993 Volume 04 : Number 060 In this issue: Mach 3.5+ Re: Mach 3.5+ Re: Mach 3.5+ Re: Mach 3.5+ Re: Mach 3.5+ Re: Mach 3.5+ Re: Mach 3.5+ Re: Mach 3.5+ Re: Mach 3.5+ misc rememberance D-21 Arrived !! Re: Mach 3.5+ misc rememberance Re: Mach 3.5+ Re: Mach 3.5+ See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ron@habu.stortek.com (Ron Schweikert) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 08:50:38 MST Subject: Mach 3.5+ >This has all been rehashed before but: > >I just got the new MACH 1 cataloge in the mail. In it, they have a few books >that they are offering for sale. With each book, they have a little excerpt. >This comes from THE UNTOUCHABLES: mission accomplished by Brian Shul and >Walter Watson jr. "With spikes and doors as tight as they can get, we are >racing against the time it could atake a missile to reach our altitude. It is a race this jet will not let us lose. The Mach eases to 3.5 as we crest >80,000 feet. We are a bullet now--except faster. We hit the turn, and I feel some releif as our nose swings away from away from a country we have seen quite >enough of. Screaming past Tripoli, our phenomenal speed continues to rise,..." > >Mach 3.5+ our speed continues to rise? Hello! I thought the official speed >was just over Mach 3. Anyone care to comment? > >-- >I seem to be lying in a dark hole. | Tom Slager jr. The official speed for the SR-71 is "Mach 3.2+", with emphasis on the plus in my mind. The SR-71 has on-board tapes that keep track of a lot of information such as fuel flow, pump pressues, *altitude*, *speed* etc. that is used to help diagnose problems after flight. The speed line goes off the chart at 3.2. I've seen it off the chart for the majority of the flight. How far off of course is unknown. I asked a pilot and he said, "seriously, it isn't much more. The plane is capable potentially of much higher speeds but it is felt that the airframe couldn't take it." He said that at cruise speeds the plane is running in minimum afterburner. There is also something called "runaway plane" which apparently has the plane hitting some point (perhaps the pilots left the throttles up for too long) that the plane just keeps accellerating (perhaps like being on the "step" in a seaplane? (although once in the air there's no such thing (?)) in spite of pulling back on the throttles. My guess is that the SR didn't do much more than 3.4. This is just from talking with pilots. They wouldn't tell me how fast it *really* went but their answers (when asked in a variety of situations) seemed very sincere and honest when they said, "not much faster." The SR-71 is my favorite aircraft. The Aurora may be cooler (can't wait to find out) but I'll always have a fond spot for the Blackbird after putting so much blood, sweat and tears into it. That's saying a lot too IMO after literally busting knuckles on freezing nights and having fuel and hydraulic fluid run down your arms and soak you to the bone. Hmm... well wait, there were good times too, like the launches!!! Cheers, and thanks to all the list participants keeping us up on the latest technology! Ron ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 11:58:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Mach 3.5+ I asked Marta how big the plus is in 3.2+ and she said not very. Certainly not over 3.3. Lemme flip through my Dash 1 here (guess who's going to be the Chief Engineer on the SR-71 as soon as the Project Manager writes the memo) and see what we've got. The design Mach number is 3.2 and the Mach 3.2 to 3.3 speed region only usable when authorized by the Commander, with a note about not exceeding the limit CIT of 427 degC. I'd say you can forget 3.5. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com ------------------------------ From: Gerald.Welch@Corp.Sun.COM (Gerald Welch - Security Technical Specialist) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 09:36:58 PST Subject: Re: Mach 3.5+ Every aircraft, even of the same model, is different. One may have air conditioning, the other has a good stereo, one gets good gas mileage, the other does mach 3.6. - -Jerry - ----- Begin Included Message ----- From skunk-works-owner@ecn.purdue.edu Wed Nov 10 09:32:33 1993 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 11:58:32 -0500 (EST) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: Mach 3.5+ To: Ron Schweikert Cc: skunk-works@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: skunk-works-owner@ecn.purdue.edu Content-Length: 535 I asked Marta how big the plus is in 3.2+ and she said not very. Certainly not over 3.3. Lemme flip through my Dash 1 here (guess who's going to be the Chief Engineer on the SR-71 as soon as the Project Manager writes the memo) and see what we've got. The design Mach number is 3.2 and the Mach 3.2 to 3.3 speed region only usable when authorized by the Commander, with a note about not exceeding the limit CIT of 427 degC. I'd say you can forget 3.5. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com - ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 13:35:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Mach 3.5+ Give me a break. They don't vary that much. As I've said before, the SR-71 is a good plane but it's not a wonder plane. It's bounded by the laws of physics. All the fantasizing in the world won't change that. It was designed to be a Mach 3.2 airplane and you can, if you have an exceedingly good reason, eke out another 0.1 Mach if the conditions are right. That's it. As for Shul's book, I assume that it's just a difference between Mach indicated and Mach true caused by something like OAT being different from the Standar Atmosphere. Such things are common in air data systems. (I also find it interesting that people who have never even sat in an SR-71 doubt Marta. If this is more than just an isolated interest, this list, which I assumed was dedicated toward factual messages, is probably the wrong place for me.) Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com On Wed, 10 Nov 1993, Gerald Welch - Security Technical Specialist wrote: > > > > Every aircraft, even of the same model, is different. > > One may have air conditioning, the other has a good stereo, > one gets good gas mileage, the other does mach 3.6. > > -Jerry > > > ----- Begin Included Message ----- > > >From skunk-works-owner@ecn.purdue.edu Wed Nov 10 09:32:33 1993 > Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 11:58:32 -0500 (EST) > From: Mary Shafer > Subject: Re: Mach 3.5+ > To: Ron Schweikert > Cc: skunk-works@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Sender: skunk-works-owner@ecn.purdue.edu > Content-Length: 535 > > I asked Marta how big the plus is in 3.2+ and she said not very. > Certainly not over 3.3. Lemme flip through my Dash 1 here (guess who's > going to be the Chief Engineer on the SR-71 as soon as the Project Manager > writes the memo) and see what we've got. The design Mach number is 3.2 > and the Mach 3.2 to 3.3 speed region only usable when authorized by the > Commander, with a note about not exceeding the limit CIT of 427 degC. > > I'd say you can forget 3.5. > > Regards, > Mary > > > Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com > > > > > ----- End Included Message ----- > > > ------------------------------ From: Gerald.Welch@Corp.Sun.COM (Gerald Welch - Security Technical Specialist) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 10:58:00 PST Subject: Re: Mach 3.5+ you're right, I'm sorry. I've never even sat in an SR-71, but I do have a passion for these beautiful, mysterious aircraft. - ----- Begin Included Message ----- From shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com Wed Nov 10 10:53:06 1993 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 13:35:43 -0500 (EST) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: Mach 3.5+ To: Gerald Welch - Security Technical Specialist Cc: ron@habu.stortek.com, skunk-works@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2236 Give me a break. They don't vary that much. As I've said before, the SR-71 is a good plane but it's not a wonder plane. It's bounded by the laws of physics. All the fantasizing in the world won't change that. It was designed to be a Mach 3.2 airplane and you can, if you have an exceedingly good reason, eke out another 0.1 Mach if the conditions are right. That's it. As for Shul's book, I assume that it's just a difference between Mach indicated and Mach true caused by something like OAT being different from the Standar Atmosphere. Such things are common in air data systems. (I also find it interesting that people who have never even sat in an SR-71 doubt Marta. If this is more than just an isolated interest, this list, which I assumed was dedicated toward factual messages, is probably the wrong place for me.) Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com On Wed, 10 Nov 1993, Gerald Welch - Security Technical Specialist wrote: > > > > Every aircraft, even of the same model, is different. > > One may have air conditioning, the other has a good stereo, > one gets good gas mileage, the other does mach 3.6. > > -Jerry > > > ----- Begin Included Message ----- > > >From skunk-works-owner@ecn.purdue.edu Wed Nov 10 09:32:33 1993 > Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 11:58:32 -0500 (EST) > From: Mary Shafer > Subject: Re: Mach 3.5+ > To: Ron Schweikert > Cc: skunk-works@orchestra.ecn.purdue.edu > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Sender: skunk-works-owner@ecn.purdue.edu > Content-Length: 535 > > I asked Marta how big the plus is in 3.2+ and she said not very. > Certainly not over 3.3. Lemme flip through my Dash 1 here (guess who's > going to be the Chief Engineer on the SR-71 as soon as the Project Manager > writes the memo) and see what we've got. The design Mach number is 3.2 > and the Mach 3.2 to 3.3 speed region only usable when authorized by the > Commander, with a note about not exceeding the limit CIT of 427 degC. > > I'd say you can forget 3.5. > > Regards, > Mary > > > Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com > > > > > ----- End Included Message ----- > > > - ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ From: Timothy D Aanerud Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 13:02:44 CST Subject: Re: Mach 3.5+ |.... Lemme flip through my Dash 1 here (guess who's |going to be the Chief Engineer on the SR-71 as soon as the Project Manager |writes the memo) and see what we've got. This is somewhat of a bummer. Mary will know, but Mary won't be able to say, assuming the top speed is still classified. ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 14:05:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Mach 3.5+ On Wed, 10 Nov 1993, Gerald Welch - Security Technical Specialist wrote: > > I've never even sat in an SR-71, but I do have > a passion for these beautiful, mysterious aircraft. > Neither have I, but I too have a passion for the SR-71. When I walk over to our main building there's one stretch of the path that you can see all three of our Blackbirds (if the hangar door is open). I usually walk just a little slower in that section. Even if it's my third or fourth trip of the day. The summer after I graduated from high school (1966) I worked for the AFFTC here at Edwards. Right across the street from the building I worked in was the SR-71 test organization. They had them parked all over the ramp and I spent a lot of time looking at them. When I asked what kind of aircraft they were, I was told that they were secret and that I wasn't to talk about them to anyone but my coworkers. Notice that this was some time after the public announcement--but we were still admonished to keep quite about them. Of course, their performance was freely discussed and that was still restricted at the time. (In subsequent summers I worked here at NASA--I got to see things like the MiGs that USAF got from the Israelis and tested here. And we were flying the X-15s and the lifting bodies. Lucky me! We live under the pattern for Plant 42 and, of course, they used to fly SR-71s there--mostly FCFs after maintainence. We'd hear them coming and dash out into the back yard to see them. Blackbirds were the only planes my jaded collie would watch--he'd sleep through everything else. I forgot to mention that the SR-71B, with its extra cockpit, is a lot slower than the A. I think its maximum Mach number is less than 2.5. It's pretty amazing to me that the cockpit would make that much difference. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com ------------------------------ From: Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 15:14:05 -0500 Subject: Re: Mach 3.5+ I believe a couple of my professors here at U of M. Did a study a couple of years ago(informally) on the Mach cone at the front of the engine, and estimated that Mach 3.4 would cause the shock wave to enter the engine and cause a compressor stall(?). Just my $.02. Regards, Matt Aero, University of Michigan ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 15:12:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Mach 3.5+ On Wed, 10 Nov 1993, Timothy D Aanerud wrote: > |.... Lemme flip through my Dash 1 here (guess who's > |going to be the Chief Engineer on the SR-71 as soon as the Project Manager > |writes the memo) and see what we've got. > > This is somewhat of a bummer. Mary will know, but Mary won't be > able to say, assuming the top speed is still classified. > It's not still classified. My Dash 1 is marked UNCLASSIFIED in letters 1/2-in. high and every page has the classification marked out. I don't think my Dash 1 differs from the Dash 1 that you can buy on the open market. Mary will still babble on. Have I ever remembered to warn everyone that I have a terrible memory for numbers? I do and that's why I tend not to post many of them. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com ------------------------------ From: rh@craycos.com (Robert Herndon) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 14:11:50 MST Subject: misc rememberance Do I recall Mary posting sometime back that the ultimate speed of the SR-71 was mach 3.44 due to aerodynamic heating?? - -r ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 14:05:14 -0800 Subject: D-21 Arrived !! I just received word last night via phone that Seattle Museum of Flight's D-21 just arrived! I intend to go up and help restore it so I'll keep you all posted on that work. The initial poop on all this is that it doesn't look like the drone that Lockheed was trying to send them, which was a drone that had actually flown on their M-12 (captive flight only of course). Based on early inspection, after taking a few panels off, the serial number found seems to indicate a later number drone (sorry, I left the serial number at home). Therefore we are awaiting the experts (the guys who actually worked the "D" program back in the 60's and 70's) to arrive and classify this beast as an 'A' or a 'B'. Because of it's late serial number, it is expected that it most probably is a "B". I'm not sure yet what 'being a B' implies in trying to mate it with the M-12 for display. Evidently the mounting pylon isn't done yet, and also the drawings were not sent. Instead, the REAL pylon was LOANED to SMOF for them to duplicate. I talked to one of the ex-Marquardt experts who worked this program in the 60's, last night. He's quite excited that it finally arrived as well. He's ready to come up and help restore it. So we'll keep you all posted. It's great that this thing is finally here! Evidently, Minn. ANG will be getting theirs as well. I'm not sure if the USAF Museum has already gotten theirs. As these things go to museums, there are stories about them that get told as well. I'll keep you all informed! Larry ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 15:19:08 -0800 Subject: Re: Mach 3.5+ Mary says... >I asked Marta how big the plus is in 3.2+ and she said not very. >Certainly not over 3.3. Lemme flip through my Dash 1 here (guess who's >going to be the Chief Engineer on the SR-71 as soon as the Project Manager >writes the memo) Wow, congrats!! :) I was wondering who DLUX would tap for that spot with Al stepping down. I certainly hope you can see fit to pass along a few "Chief's Status Reports" for us every now and then... Also, I heard there were some new political/funding problems with the Blackbird program these days. Good luck with that! >and see what we've got. The design Mach number is 3.2 >and the Mach 3.2 to 3.3 speed region only usable when authorized by the >Commander, with a note about not exceeding the limit CIT of 427 degC. >I'd say you can forget 3.5. Well, except for one thing... According to another manual, way back in 1975 Lockheed had a study called "Documentation of Mach 3.5 Growth Capabilities", which says that "extending the speed to M3.5 for short periods of time is feasible, with the approach to that speed accomplished incrementally". It also says that "extension to Mach 3.4 can be achieved without any significant flight test program or change to the aircraft". The other thing is that Shul says he was going Mach 3.5+. Who knows, maybe he is just trying to sell books, but I suppose there is a chance that a few special aircraft could have this "Mach 3.5 Growth" work done on them. After all, they had a lot of time to work on things like that between 1975 and 1990. Especially for aircraft sent on those high-risk, high-priority missions such as over LYBIA. >It's not still classified. My Dash 1 is marked UNCLASSIFIED in letters >1/2-in. high and every page has the classification marked out. I don't >think my Dash 1 differs from the Dash 1 that you can buy on the open >market. Right... they are EXACTLY the same (with even the very same pages missing). >Mary will still babble on. Please do! :-) - -dean ------------------------------ From: rh@craycos.com (Robert Herndon) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 14:11:50 MST Subject: misc rememberance Do I recall Mary posting sometime back that the ultimate speed of the SR-71 was mach 3.44 due to aerodynamic heating?? - -r ------------------------------ From: Michael Matthew Guslick Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 21:11:14 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Mach 3.5+ <<>> Hey, Mary, you don't have any job openings down there, do you? :-) Pardon my ignorance, what is "Dash 1"? Have I missed something? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Guslick / ^ \ USnail: 711 Hwy. C NAR #53962 ---(.)==<-.->==(.)--- Grafton, WI 53024 michaelg@csd4.csd.uwm.edu SR-71 Blackbird ph.: (414) 377-4428 IRC: HaveBlue TIP #112 LIBERATE GROOM LAKE - SUPPORT THE SOC - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does anyone have a .gif of the skunk? ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 00:46:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Mach 3.5+ The US Air Force has a numbering system for the various manuals that go with each aircraft model. They all have the same main number and the various types are indicated with a suffix, separated by a dash. That is, somenumber-suffix. The pilot's manual always has a suffix of 1. Hence, Dash 1. The US Navy calls the pilot's manual the NATOPS Manual. I can never remember what NATOPS stands for, but it's something vaguely like Navy Test and Operations. Someone here will know and post the correct translation, of course. By the way, I think the tactical manual (the classified bits for fighter aircraft) is a Dash 1A, but I'm not certain. I've only looked at one a few times and couldn't spend a lot of time with it as I had to do the security rag with it (couldn't make copies, couldn't take notes, couldn't leave it unattended, etc). Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com On Wed, 10 Nov 1993, Michael Matthew Guslick wrote: > > Pardon my ignorance, what is "Dash 1"? Have I missed something? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Mike Guslick / ^ \ USnail: 711 Hwy. C > NAR #53962 ---(.)==<-.->==(.)--- Grafton, WI 53024 > michaelg@csd4.csd.uwm.edu SR-71 Blackbird ph.: (414) 377-4428 > IRC: HaveBlue TIP #112 LIBERATE GROOM LAKE - SUPPORT THE SOC > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Does anyone have a .gif of the skunk? > > ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V4 #60 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "listserv@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@ecn.purdue.edu". A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from harbor.ecn.purdue.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).