Xref: utzoo rec.aviation:13004 sci.space.shuttle:2598
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!rutgers!att!cbnewsl!sw
From: sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: SR71 to be retired October 1st, rumors regarding SR-71
Message-ID: <281@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>
Date: 16 Mar 89 21:51:01 GMT
References: <524@gonzo.UUCP> <1475@petsd.UUCP> <13987@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> <9667@ihlpl.ATT.COM> <5983@homxc.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink)
Organization: Interface Systems at AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 17

In article <5983@homxc.ATT.COM> h16@homxc.ATT.COM (D.JACOBOWITZ) writes:
>I think the reason for taking off light on fuel (50-60% capacity,
>I thought), was to increase the safety margin in case of engine
>failure during takeoff.

Talking about engine failure, if this happens during a high-Mach run, the 
resulting asymmetrical drag yaws the aircraft around so fast that the crew's
heads (or rather, their helmets!) are banged against the cockpit's windows.
[The engines can flame out at supersonic speeds if the inlet shock-cones are 
not set to the correct position for that particular speed...]

(I read about the above many years ago in some aviation magazine.)
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"PENTAGON OFFICIALS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
AN ANTIMATTER SHORTAGE"  ("WHAT'S NEW")  | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <-----------