The Aviation Thread [Contains Lots of Awesome Pictures]

At higher speed, it would heat up and expand into place and stop leaking fuel all over the place.

70418126_39a12c199f.jpg


S_lockheedsr71a-usaf-lebourget-64-17967-890618-01.JPG

Soooo... what you're saying is that old Land Rovers are just designed to be driven at Mach 3?
 
Last edited:
how do you fill the tank at ground level if its only airtight at mach 3? :/
 
At higher speed, it would heat up and expand into place and stop leaking fuel all over the place.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/18/70418126_39a12c199f.jpg

[IMG]http://atlantikwallbelgiumboulogne.boxhost.me/airshow/sr71/S_lockheedsr71a-usaf-lebourget-64-17967-890618-01.JPG[/QUOTE]


yeah, things have come a long way since then, so maybe it is possible to solve that by now.


[QUOTE="bone, post: 2383350, member: 25766"]how do you fill the tank at ground level if its only airtight at mach 3? :/[/QUOTE]


They did not fill it all the way up. It was refueled in route after it had warmed up enough to seal. :D
 
they already had in-air refueling in the 60s? :eek:

EDIT: they did!
Sir Alan Cobham's Grappled-line looped-hose air-to-air refueling system borrowed from techniques patented by David Nicolson and John Lord, and was publicly demonstrated for the first time in 1935. In the system the receiver aircraft, at one time an Airspeed Courier, trailed a steel cable which was then grappled by a line shot from the tanker, a Handley Page Type W10. The line was then drawn back into the tanker where the receiver's cable was connected to the refueling hose. The receiver could then haul back in its cable bringing the hose to it. Once the hose was connected, the tanker climbed sufficiently above the receiver aircraft to allow the fuel to flow under gravity.[11][12] (see reference #8 Gas Station in the Sky for detailed drawing of this type of operation.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_refueling
 
Last edited:
They did not fill it all the way up. It was refueled in route after it had warmed up enough to seal. :D

I don't think the post-departure refueling is because of the leaks on the ground, but to deal with the amount burned for taxi, takeoff and initial climb.
 
I don't think the post-departure refueling is because of the leaks on the ground, but to deal with the amount burned for taxi, takeoff and initial climb.

So there were several reasons not to fill it.
 
Soooo... what you're saying is that old Land Rovers are just designed to be driven at Mach 3?

Anything about 65ish MPH in an old Land Rover is absolutely terrifying so I can't even imagine what Mach 3 would be like. :lol:

they already had in-air refueling in the 60s? :eek:

EDIT: they did!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_refueling

Yep, and many of the planes doing the refueling in the 1960s are still doing it today. When I was in the Air Force I worked on a lot of tankers that were built in 1957-1964.
 
Yep, and many of the planes doing the refueling in the 1960s are still doing it today. When I was in the Air Force I worked on a lot of tankers that were built in 1957-1964.
I wonder how the top speed of a KC-97 compared to the stall speed of an SR-71. :lol:
 
I have the flight manual of the SR71 at my job, I can look it up when I have a minute tomorrow :)

From memory, I can tell you touchdown speed is 155kts at a certain weight.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how the top speed of a KC-97 compared to the stall speed of an SR-71. :lol:

Well the SR-71 had a special tanker cadre assigned to it called the KC-135Q. Nothing was particularly special about the airframe or engines, but it was the only ones of the fleet certified to carry the JP-7 fuel that the Blackbird used.
 
Well the SR-71 had a special tanker cadre assigned to it called the KC-135Q. Nothing was particularly special about the airframe or engines, but it was the only ones of the fleet certified to carry the JP-7 fuel that the Blackbird used.

Some of those are still in service as the re-engined KC-135T and they're a pain in the ass to refuel on the ground. On a normal 135 all fuel is shared between the tanker and receiver but fuel is only offloaded from two tanks. The Q/T separates these tanks with blanking plates and an isolated fuel servicing manifold so the SR-71 fuel never comes into contact with the normal jet fuel. The ground receptacle is at an awkward angle so hooking up a hose is tricky and using a solid pipe is downright torture. On top of that you have to make damn sure your calculations are correct because you're very limited on your fuel transferring ability because of the isolated tanks.
 
Some of those are still in service as the re-engined KC-135T and they're a pain in the ass to refuel on the ground. On a normal 135 all fuel is shared between the tanker and receiver but fuel is only offloaded from two tanks. The Q/T separates these tanks with blanking plates and an isolated fuel servicing manifold so the SR-71 fuel never comes into contact with the normal jet fuel. The ground receptacle is at an awkward angle so hooking up a hose is tricky and using a solid pipe is downright torture. On top of that you have to make damn sure your calculations are correct because you're very limited on your fuel transferring ability because of the isolated tanks.

So the normal KC-135s re-engined became the '-R' and the re-engined KC-135Q became the "-T"? Makes sense considering the abnormal layout
 
So the normal KC-135s re-engined became the '-R' and the re-engined KC-135Q became the "-T"? Makes sense considering the abnormal layout

Exactly. They took the older E models and, as a coworker put it, "riced the shit out of them". :lol:
 
[video=youtube;r-EHwYOfY94]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-EHwYOfY94[/video]

:eek:
:jawdrop:
 
:shock:

Saved by the skin of their teeth!
 
It can go the other way, too ...

[video=youtube;Qg0Jj-2x5rM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg0Jj-2x5rM[/video]
 
Top