Xref: utzoo rec.aviation:12948 sci.space.shuttle:2580
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!marque!carroll1!dtroup
From: dtroup@carroll1.UUCP (Dave Troup)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: SR71 to be retired October 1st, rumors regarding SR-71
Message-ID: <321@carroll1.UUCP>
Date: 16 Mar 89 00:11:25 GMT
References: <524@gonzo.UUCP> <1475@petsd.UUCP> <13987@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> <976@nbife.NBI.COM> <1993NU052179@NDSUVM1> <7593@june.cs.washington.edu>
Reply-To: dtroup@carroll1.UUCP (Dave Troup)
Organization: Carroll College-Waukesha, WI
Lines: 26

In article <7593@june.cs.washington.edu> robertb@uw-june.UUCP (Robert Bedichek) writes:
>
>Another, much more believable, is that the SR-71 does not have fuel
>batters in the wings, like the B-1, and leaks when taxing.  Once the
>wings are stressed by flight it stops leaking.  Have they fixed the
>B-1 in this respect?
>
>	Rob Bedichek  (robertb@cs.washington.edu)

	The '71 had to have a special fuel (mentioned in my other message)
	because they used the very walls of the internal wing structure to keep
	the fuel. Thus the need for a HIGH flashpoint.

	And whats the problem with the B-1?

	BTW, does anyone have a poster of the '71 @ the Paris Airshow when they
	had a fuel surge in the engine that they were using during an
	'engine-out'(wing low, full opposite rudder) and the flame from the
	exhaust was about 40ft! Real impressive with the vortices and such...



-- 
"We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, knowin' that ain't allowed"__         _______  _______________    |David C. Troup / Surf Rat                  
    _______)(______   |         |dtroup@carroll1.cc.edu : mail             
________________________________|414-524-6826 : voice______________________