TSMB - because of the high speed the SR-71 actually did get quite hot, resulting in the unusual construction techniques required (lot of titanium, etc.). But I would wonder about mixing fuels - do they have a ‘Flex Fuel’ sticker on them? 
My guess - to maximize range.
When I was a young lad studying aircraft design, I absorbed up the tidbit (don’t recall where) that the SR-71 actually leaked fuel until the skin panels heated up enough to expand and close the gaps. There was so much thermal expansion that the panels had to be given quite a lot of room to expand in flight, and until the gaps closed up, the fuel tank(s) leaked. Probably not related to the fueling question here, though, as an SR-71 flying at refueling speed after takeoff would be flying way too slow to get hot.
We considered it “general knowledge” that they leaked until the panels were heated up, but I never really was allowed close enough to one to find out if that was true.
On its way to its cruising altitude I’ve no doubt that the Ti skin got hot, but there’s not much air at 80K…there is, however, a lot of cold.
I suspect that there’s some bit of truth to most of the “general knowledge” about the plane, but most of the actual truth will probably remain classified for the remainder of my old age. The only thing I can tell you for certain is that once you see one take off the vision of it stays with you forever.
I only got to see one in an aviation museum in the state of Washington, but even in an enclosed setting, the SR-71 was an awesome thing of beauty.
The fuel leaking certainly WAS true…in fact despite being sort of well publicized now…there is a rather common movie clip of one taking off and you can see the planes belly…you can literally see the fuel coming out of the plane in the pattern of the panel seams…it is smeared all over the belly…Pretty WILD stuff…can you imagine having the Ba&%s to make a plane like that and knowing that you had to build that feature into such a sophisticated machine? Mind Boggling…Even more brain melting was that it was designed in the late 50’s Early 60’s? WOW…I mean WOW… WITHOUT COMPUTERS simulators or computer design checks… ALL slide ruler stuff I guess… Talk about getting it right… What a machine… My Superbike is nicknamed after that plane…and several design elements went into the bike…heavily influenced by the shapes found thru that Aircraft. The tail section of my bike has that spoon shape to it…like the nose of the plane…pretty bike…AWE-INSPIRING PLANE.
Also…I don’t think I am getting this term “Hanger Queen”…scratch that, I KNOW I don’t get it… Help?
Blackbird
I was lucky enough to watch an SR-71 take off during the late 70’s. My shop chief knew one of the pilots and he let him know when the plane would be taking off on the next mission. My boss and the SR-71 pilot had been on a U-2 crew years before in California. He asked us to guess the time it took to take off from a standing start until the plane disappeared. None of us were even close. The SR-71 took off just before sunrise on a beautiful Georgia morning. The SR-71 lit up the afterburners and was completely out of sight in about 7 seconds. That’s fast by any comparison. It’s something I will never forget.
I got to see the YF-12A at an airshow at Pt Mugu when I was a kid. It was the for-runner to the SR-71. It took off right after the pregnant guppy. It seemed like it took forever for the guppy to get off the ground. As the guppy cleared the sand dunes, the YF-12A took off, nosed up about 70 degrees and was out of site before the guppy got over the first waves on the beach.
The leading edges of the wings get so hot at speed and altitude that the fuel used is not only oxygenated, it is a gel at room temperature. The heat of wings liquifies it so that it can be pumped to the engines. This in turn acts as the cooling system for the wings. Thats where the dual fuel theory comes from, but I don’t know that for a fact. It does carry 80,000 pounds of fuel fully loaded.
One more little known tidbit. When it made its famous run across the country and back in 5.5 hours, it spend 90 minutes subsonic cruising up and down the east coast so the wings could cool down enough for refueling.
The biggest secret behind the SR-71 accidently slipped out in an article in Popular Science in the early 80’s. It got by all the government censors because Clarence Kelly Johnson never classified it, it was too important. Johnson was a believer that the best place to keep a secret was in plane sight.
The secret was that only Snap-On tools were used on the engine and the fuselage. Snap-On was the only tool company that didn’t use cadmium in its plating process. If cadmium touches titanium, then the titanium will crack when it gets hot.
As an actuary, I’d suggest that one not take a lead from the tags section. At one point in time, the Ford Taurus was the most stolen car in the country. I don’t really believe that this was a function of the Ford Taurus being really desirable to thieves, there were just so many out there that chances are if you were looking for a car to steal it would be a Ford Taurus.
On the other hand, I think we ought to find out who the garage queens really are. Then again, we might only identify those that don’t do proper maintenance. I can admit (reluctantly) that even a GM might be a survivor if maintained properly.
You are on point, MCVMW. It really does make a difference between “Queens” that are there due to poor design, vs. those that are there due to poor maintenance; in which case they ought not to be defined as “Queens”. Any car can be made to survive an almost unlimited miles and years if agressive maintenance is provided. I have come to know the term “Queen” as a vehicle (car/plane/boat) that requires a higher than normal (whatever that term means) level of maintenance due to shortcomings in design, including design that interferes with access to normal maintenance items to the point where maintenance is put aside because of the PITA access.
For example, I recall, I believe it was a 60’s era Camaro, that had to have the engine unbolted from the mounts and lifted a few inches in order to remove that corner sparkplug. One enterprising approach was to drill a hole in the fender well and use a long extension. Now THAT was a prime example of poor design.
I should have added to my definition of “Queen” as referring to a vehicle that needs to spend an inordinate percentage of its life in the shop due to the complexities of poor design.
“Queen” in my circles generally referred to a vehicle that spent too much of its life hanger-bound (or garage-bound) for any reason. When that happens with aircraft they become “cann” birds. The parts are stripped one-by-one to keep other birds flying. When it happens with cars they become “used car for sale - runs perfectly”.
I believe it was the large-block "Vette that you’re thinking of. Although early on in the Camaro’s history Chevy stuffed 396 and 454 c.i. motors in them, and that might also have required innovation to get at the rear plugs.
I think that issue with the spark plug was when you put headers on that Camaro…Thats when access was nil…At Least I think so…or it could’ve been the TRUCK motor GM shoved in there…LOL…
Blackbird
I don’t have any knowledge about spark plug access problems with Camaros, but I can tell you that the Buick Skyhawk, Chevy Monza, Olds Starfire, and Pontiac Sunbird, (all mechanically identical) of the 1974-80 model years definitely had this problem when equipped with the optional V-6 engine. In order to replace the rear spark plug on the passenger side, it was necessary to disconnect the motor mounts and hoist the engine a few inches.
For that reason, very few owners opted to replace ALL of their spark plugs when it came time for a tune-up. The result was that these cars–which were of poor quality to begin with–ran really badly after a few years and had incredibly bad emissions. If not for this design defect, many owners would not have had to scrap these cars as rapidly as they did.
I agree with VDC"s comments and would like to add that the 79’ Monza Spyder with the 305 V8 had the same problems as the V6 equipped models. Maybe a little worse. The owners manual read like science fiction when it came to replacing the spark plugs. You had to disconnect the motor mounts and raise the engine and then you had to remove the right or left front tire to gain access to the plugs. I sold the vehicle to a guy I worked with before the plugs ever needed changing again.
Docnick, a few years ago, I asked about reliability on the Rolls and Bentley. A man who had owned one said they were broke more than they ran, and it was alleged the dealers sent closed trucks so people would not know how often they broke. He said at times you could get a fairly new one at a very low price, because repairs are so horrid no one can keep them running. I think he said a tail light lens was like $1000, by my memory.
I realize UK has an electrical problem, ala MG, but do not know if Rolls/Bentley ownership changes has fixed those problems.
Given that modern Bentleys are (mostly) VWs, and Rolls are heavily BMW influenced, I bet the reliability has taken a HUGE jump. But maintenance still is expensive, for sure.
In 1970, stationed at Okinawa, weather conditions forced aircraft to take off over the island and an SR-71 was in plain view one afternoon. At the time it occurred to me that the plane was probably secret. The Air Force personnel at Kadena AFB weren’t aware of what it was. Fuel planes seemed to be ahead of it as was the SOP with B-52s as they ascended. Although the SR-71 was much faster than the B-52s they didn’t seem to leave like a shot from a cannon. It was several years later that I saw a news story on the plane and recognized what I had seen.
Irlandes; years ago I had a summer job working for a small company where the owner was a proud “England Forever” type. He had a black Rolls, which seemed to break down regularly and would not start in cold weather. Since he did not have a chauffer to take care of these things the car became a standing joke. My old 1957 Plymouth (bought for $300) was more reliable.
Agree that the purchase by VW and BMW of these brands and more use of standard components has greatly increased their reliability. For years a small company in Texas made the air conditioners for Rolls Royce and Bentley. This task was apparently beyond the capability of their own engineers.
With respect to parts prices, in 1965 a buddy of mine worked in a car detailing shop. He accidently backed out a Rolls with the passenger door still open and tore off the door. The repair job in 1965 was $2800! You could buy a new compact car for that at that time.
For the ‘new’ Bentleys (the Continental and its variants) VW uses their W12, and now V8, engines, all tracing their roots back to the 1991 VW VR6. It’s also is the basis for the Bugatti Veyron’s W16 - a pretty amazing family of engines.