The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird - A Senior Capstone Re-Engineering Experience

45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit AIAA 2007-698
8 - 11 January 2007, Reno, Nevada
The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird –

A Senior Capstone Re-Engineering Experience
Bryan D. Mixon* and Bernd Chudoba†
The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, 76019-0018
The two-semester Senior Aerospace Vehicle Design I & II Capstone Course at UTA’s
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (MAE) Department has been restructured to
directly respond to industry’s demand for aerospace graduates with an understanding of
how to size a flight vehicle to a mission, including industry-style reporting, teamwork,
disciplinary and systems integration experience. The objective of the capstone course is to
expose the aerospace senior student body to solving open-ended design problems related to a
total system in a highly organized and systematic fashion, to self-manage a project from
‘cradle-to-grave’, and most importantly to experience the power and pitfalls of teamwork
when operating under pressure. The paper begins with an outline of the course organization
as it has been implemented at UTA-MAE from Fall 2006 onwards. The main body of the
document is devoted to the perspective of the capstone senior design teaching assistant for
the re-engineering of the Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird with a 27-strong capstone student
‘engineering organization’. The rationale for selecting a design case study at the caliber of a
Mach 3+ aircraft is outlined. The general approach to the organization, data mining,
methodology development, and finally quantification of this prominent aircraft is discussed.
Special emphasis has been placed on discussing the team-challenges attributed to the
technical domain of this still ‘out-of-the-box’ aircraft and the resulting student interactions
throughout the project.
Nomenclature
AVD = Aerospace Vehicle Design

CD = Conceptual Design
PD = Preliminary Design
DD = Detailed Design
TOA = Total Obligation Authority
RTD&E = Research, Design, Testing & Evaluation
LCC = Life Cycle Cost
Pr ADO = Preliminary Aircraft Design and Optimization
VATES = Virtual Autonomous Test and Evaluation Simulator
*
Teaching Assistant, Graduate Student, The University of Texas at Arlington, AIAA Member
†
Assistant Professor (chudoba@uta.edu), Director AVD Lab, The University of Texas at Arlington, AIAA Member.
Copyright © 2007 by Bernd Chudoba. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
I. Introduction
T he two-semester aerospace flight vehicle design sequence at UTA-MAE exercises a structured lecture program
and a capstone design project to develop aerospace system designs. Both course elements are executed over the
two-semester sequence. The Aerospace Vehicle Design I, II course sequence seeks to provide a complete aerospace
flight vehicle design systems experience. The course emphasizes on engineering knowledge, disciplinary design
analysis, design synthesis, and if possible experimentation. This lab class fosters a learning environment where
students have to develop and apply teamwork skills, technical skills, business skills while experiencing the interplay
between a disciplined working style and knowledge gained, ultimately leading to informed decision-making while
minding imposed constraints like time pressure and quality expectations. The course interfaces, when required, with
the AVD (Aerospace Vehicle Design) Laboratory research environment and research students. There is a clear focus
on exposing the student teams to industry style working methods, tools, time schedules, and deliverables while
minding ABET requirements.
A. Capstone Design Approach

The above outlined educational goals require a rigorous and highly structured approach in teaching aerospace
flight vehicle systems design. Clearly, this requires highly involved interdisciplinary teaching and demanding
application, rather than a series of discrete and individually assessed modules. Dependent on the design project
selected, the capstone design experience may contain either a subset or the entire sequence of the following
engineering design elements:
1. Disciplinary Analysis and Multi-Disciplinary Conceptual/Preliminary Design
2. Simulation
3. Construction
4. Wind Tunnel Test
5. In-Flight Test
Overall, the ‘design it, build it, test it’ or ‘design it and simulate it’ philosophy lies at the core of the two semester
course sequence. On average, each student contributes some 500 man-hours of effort to the project.
In industry we do witness fewer new-

start projects, severely compromising
aircraft conceptual and preliminary
design engineering proficiency. Howard
Smith, from Cranfield University,
comments that “… it is in this
environment no longer possible for
engineers to gain the breadth of
experience obtained by seeing projects
through from start to delivery and
beyond.” The UTA-MAE senior
capstone class attempts to redress this
deficiency by exposing student teams
through a significant portion of the
design cycle by way of a conceptual to
preliminary design study. This way, the
team comes closest to real world Figure. 1-1. Comparison of capstone design team with orchestra
problems that can only be solved through and formation flying.
effective co-operation while matching
the interfaces correctly, design synthesis effort, adequate analysis, and, where necessary, carefully considered
compromise. It is this course organization which offers the students a platform to mature their skills to become more
employable in the process. The end product of the exercise is a design of a system described in about 500 pages of
text and analysis along with multiple engineering drawings. Clearly, this is not the true ‘deliverable’ of the exercise,
which is really to prepare the engineers for an exciting career to meet the needs of the modern aerospace industry.
2
B. Disciplinary Analysis and Multi-Disciplinary Design
The two-semester design sequence begins during the Fall semester of the senior year. The course is structured
along (a) 90 minutes lectures and (b) the capstone design project discussions, both twice per week. Each class starts
with the question “What is New in Aerospace?” The purpose is to encourage the students to read Aviation Week,
Flight International, Interavia, and other aerospace-related magazines and journals. The week’s aerospace events
are usually discussed for five to ten minutes at the start of each class. The discussion is prepared and hosted on a
weekly basis by the students. The class usually continues with a lecture. The lecture series concentrates on the
conceptual design process, disciplinary analysis, and design synthesis of highly integrated flight vehicles. Clearly,
fundamental understanding is required to enable the students to solve multi-disciplinary open-ended design
problems throughout the capstone design encounter. Since design is an iterative process in which perfection is
neither possible nor necessary, overall emphasis is on physical understanding of the product solution space.
The capstone project challenges the students to apply the theoretical design process to an open-ended design
problem. The project is run within a virtual industrial environment formed by the student team. This setting aims to
maximize assimilation of the material taught throughout the engineering curriculum until the senior year. The
students are required to respond to a given RFP (request for proposal) either provided by industry, a national design
competition or the design faculty. The RFP are usually selected to confront the students with projects requiring
innovative designs, which they cannot extract from existing applications. This approach definitely encourages
creativity while simultaneously teaching skills that are traditionally only acquired through years of industrial
practice. At the start of classes in fall, the RFP is presented in detail to give the students an idea of what is likely to
be involved the project.
A multi-disciplinary design course will be ineffective if the student does not participate in a team. Therefore, a
project manager and chief engineer are appointed. Each disciplinary group (aerodynamics, stability & control, etc.)
is organized by a head engineers. Obviously, the course instructor has to reduce the scale of the typical industry
engineering organization and problem solving capability in an educational environment. The overall direction of the
project has to be assured by the project manager and chief engineer with the guidance of the CEO acting like a
consultant (the course instructor). As a result, there are few hiding places to be found and peer pressure usually
ensures that all team members pull their weight. During the first class each student is asked to indicate preferences
on areas of contribution and willingness to serve as a head engineer if asked. The course instructor then chooses the
head engineers and makes group assignments. A tentative organization chart is presented at the beginning of the
second-class meeting. A PERT chart and a schedule must be constructed so the ‘executive committee’ (the project
manager, chief engineer and head engineers) can ascertain what the ‘tent’ poles are and where the emphasis should
be placed.
After being issued the request for proposal (RFP), the team and possibly sub-teams then form a corporation with
a specific identity (‘mythical’ organization), by drafting a corporate mission statement (statement of work – SOW)
and selecting a corporate name and logo. The corporate mission statement specifies the philosophy, goals, and
mission unique to the corporation (opportunity description, project objectives, requirements and constraints, data
requirements, model requirements). The design teams respond to the RFP by usually embarking first on a conceptual
design phase spanning the first semester. The conceptual design phase closely follows the classical hands-on
procedures outlined by either J. Roskam, E. Torenbeek, or any other source that supports the project. The conceptual
design phase is documented and progress is monitored by professional quality, weekly individual design reports.
Weekly project meetings are usually held with the entire class; this ensures that each team is exposed to the
problem-set and lessons-to-be-learned from the other teams. The first semester mid-term status team presentations
and team reports have to be delivered to an audience of UTA-MAE faculty and students, where all engineers from
each team present their effort to (a) subject familiarization, (b) design parameter identification, (c) methodology
development, and (d) actual hardware design and quantification. Results from those interim milestones, like
feedback on the reports and presentations, are incorporated into the designs.
Dependent on the RFP, either (a) a conceptual design has to be developed by the student team, or (b) the design
is provided leading to a quantification effort of the given design at conceptual/preliminary design level. In case the
conceptual design has to be developed by the student team, the design has to be frozen within a set time frame to
provide sufficient time for a preliminary design study while minding as well those team members embarking on later
wind tunnel testing and/or in-flight testing of an R/C model. The first semester is concluded by an end-of-semester
presentation and report documenting the conceptual design. Each disciplinary team gives a 30 minute presentation
3
on their conceptual design contribution to an audience of students, faculty, and professional engineers from the
aerospace industry, who provide critical written and verbal assessment as to whether or not each design is
responsive to the mission specification and RFP. Such feedback is iterated back into the individual conceptual
design contributions.
Having completed the conceptual design towards the end of the fall semester, the lecture program will
concentrate during the spring semester on disciplinary design subjects like aerodynamic, propulsion, structures, etc.,
residing at the preliminary design level. The spring semester is organized in analogy to the Fall semester. The
contribution to the design project usually resides at preliminary design level. Again, a mid-term presentation and
report prepare the students and their designs for the final presentation to an audience of students, faculty, and
industry representatives. The final team report is a professional quality write up of the entire team project.
II. SR-71 Senior Capstone Design Project Description
A. Project Introduction
The A-12, YF-12, SR-71 Blackbird family of aircraft were designed in the early 1960s. As a product from
Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Development Projects, the “Skunk Works”, the Blackbird represents the technological
boundary of the period. To this day the speed, altitude, range and intelligence gathering capabilities of the airplane
are unsurpassed in air breathing, manned flight. It was the goal of this Senior Capstone Design class to perform a
total aircraft analysis of the Mach 3+ SR-71A at the
conceptual/preliminary design level. The culmination of which
resulted in a professional quality final report outlining the overall
analysis process, comparing quantified results to all available real
world performance data of the SR-71, and providing justification for
results where no real world performance data could be found.
B. Why Choose the SR-71?

The overall emphasis of the capstone course is to expose the
students to aerospace industry as much as possible through a
conceptual to preliminary design study. As stated before, this
process serves to promote engineering proficiency, bring the
students closest to real world aerospace problems requiring design
synthesis efforts, adequate analysis, interdisciplinary cooperation,
Fig. 2-1 SR-71 Blackbird and eventually compromise. With this in mind, what was the
rationale for choosing such an exotic, not to mention top secret,
aircraft? It would likely have been sufficient to have simply chosen a more conventional vehicle on which to base a
total aircraft quantification effort, as many universities do. All of the above educational goals would have been met.
Also, doing so would most certainly have ensured a greater availability of actual aircraft data and a larger pool of
‘similar aircraft’ upon which to validate approaches and results. But what would the students have missed out on had
this been the case?
The course instructor could easily have chosen a conventional subsonic aircraft for which to perform analysis, as
many courses do. Instead the decision was made to have the students perform a multi-disciplinary analysis of the
SR-71. This was by no means an arbitrary decision. The SR-71 is to this day one of the most intriguing and exciting
aircraft ever created. Conceived under the veil of secrecy, purposed for the protection of our country,
groundbreaking in its time, and yet nearly 50 years later is still considered a futuristic aircraft. With a surprising
amount of data available to the public on the top secret vehicle, a basis for attempting a total aircraft analysis was
formed. The data would serve useful for the calibration and validation of both tools and results. Also, the aircraft
does not solely exist in the often difficult supersonic regime. It must fly subsonic as well, which was a perfect place
for the students to begin.
The most intriguing aspect of re-engineering the SR-71 may actually be the most important reason of all. How
many people outside of the Lockheed Martin design environment have attempted to quantify the SR-71’s
performance? Since its design so many years ago, how many design groups have attempted to re-create, at the
design level, the success of Lockheed’s Skunk Works? Future design environments hoping to improve on the great
successes of the past must first be capable of recreating the success themselves to know that they truly have the
4
capability. With this in mind, the very interesting prospect of having a capstone senor design class attempt this with
all available data was very attractive.
C. Overall Project Approach

The capstone senior design course has been organized from the top down to simulate the atmosphere found
within an industry design environments. The organizational structure for the SR-71 analysis included positions for
CEO, project manager, chief engineer, and eight disciplinary leads. The remaining students worked under the
disciplinary leads in one of the following fields:
SR-71 Capstone • Aerodynamics

• Stability and Control
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
• Geometry/CAD
CEO • Structures
Dr. Bernd Chudoba • Propulsion
AVD Lab
Bryan Mixon
Industry • Systems
Gary Coleman Consultants • Performance
Amit Oza
Chief Engineer
Benjamin Lottes • Testing
Deputy Chief Engineer
Michael Richards Each disciplinary group was tasked
with the possibly overwhelming
responsibility of performing a
Aerodynamics Performance Structures Stability &
Lead: Tim Lewis
Lead: Jade Baillot
Lead: Keith Sheridan
conceptual design level analysis of the
Control
Eric Saavedra
Katie Weckwerth
Isao Kita
Mark Yebra Lead: Jayme Tucker SR-71 Blackbird. Given the enormity
Takashi Yoshimoto Tomotaka Mizuno
Kumar Khatri
Nobuyasu Chihara
Jonathon Moore
of such a task, it was crucial for all
Propulsion
Chizuru Hamasaki
involved to be very smart in how they
Testing CAD Systems
Lead: Kosuke Ota
Lead: Averyl Pinto Lead: Adam Brandon
Ramirez Lead: Hernan approached the problem. A well
Kengo Noguchi
Takafumi Miura
Annahita Isfahani
Hanae Enari
Christen Soto Shinnosuke Fukuta
Steve McCalley
organized and executed approach can
mean the difference between success
Fig. 2-2 Capstone Senior Design Organization structure
and failure in any endeavor, whether it
takes places in industry or a senior design course. Beginning in spring semester, 2006, emphasis was placed on the
importance of subject familiarization, establishing clear objectives based on critical design parameters, and
implementing a smart methodology with appropriate analysis methods and tools.
Subject familiarization can best be described as the process involving an intensive literature search and data
mining. Initially, each student was asked to search for all available data pertaining to the SR-71’s mission,
development history, and performance. Secondly, a search was conducted for any information on aircraft of similar
classification as the Blackbird in the event that analysis methods and/or results may be more readily obtainable.
Thirdly, a search was conducted for each specific discipline by which the students were to become familiar with
their individual subject matter through key papers and texts. During this process the students utilized industry
contacts, an extensive aerospace library found at the AVD Lab, various online databases, the university library, and
other university libraries through interlibrary loan.
Design parameter identification describes the process following the literature search in which each discipline
was required to identify the design parameters/deliverables necessary for quantification of the SR-71. The difficultly
involved here becomes apparent when realizing that the allotted analysis time frame given to the students was not
remotely long enough for every aspect of the aircraft to be analyzed. Therefore, each group was charged with the
task of choosing analysis deliverables that would provide an adequate representation of the SR-71, given the one
semester project time frame.
Having performed an intensive literature search and developed a finalized set of deliverables, each disciplinary
team was instructed to develop a methodology by which analysis was to proceed. Their methodology should
breakdown in a clear, logical manor the analysis methods and tools planned to complete each step towards project
completion. In other words, every step of the analysis process should be defined by the required input, analysis, and
resulting output (deliverable).
5
At anytime during this process the capstone students were encouraged to interface with AVD Lab graduate
students as anther means for external support.
D. Weekly Operations
Class time each week consisted of two 90 minute class periods which were reserved for conceptual/preliminary
design lectures pertinent to class needs. Outside the typical classroom setting, the senior design class, organized by
the project manager, set up weekly project meetings spanning all levels of management. The project manager and
chief engineer would meet with the senior capstone design, teaching assistant to discuss project status and direction.
Continuing down the change of command, meetings were held among the project manager and all disciplinary team
leads. During this time vital interdisciplinary needs and concerns were addressed as well as project status and the
overall time plan. Finally, disciplinary teams would assemble to discuss group progress throughout the previous
week and goals for the next week. If at any time, an interdisciplinary need arises, the data request form shown in
Figure 2-3 below was used to promote more efficient means of communication and data transfer.
Fig. 2-3 Interdisciplinary Data request form Fig. 2-4 Weekly report format
In addition to all of the necessary weekly meeting, a weekly progress report and personal journal of activities ,
seen in Figure 2-4, were required of each individual. All progress related to the senior design project was to be
documented in the standardized, professional report format given to each students at the beginning of the course.
Serving as a means to monitor progress, weekly reports were submitted to the instructor for review. Also, when
continued throughout project development, this easily translates into the student’s individual final report.
6
III. SR-71 Senior Capstone Design Disciplinary Analysis
In the following sections, a summary of each disciplinary team’s deliverables, analysis methods, and
corresponding results are presented.
A. Project Management
1. Objectives and Deliverables

The capstone senior design project was managed by a single project manager whose responsibility it was to
guide the direction of the project under the CEO’s supervision. The fulfillment of this broad objective was seen
through the enactment of the following:
• Facilitate interdisciplinary group interaction

• Schedule and maintain weekly management meetings
• Monitor group progress and time planning
• Investigate the issue of project development and operational cost for the SR-71 (See Section B)
• Coordinate and assemble the final report and presentation
Fig. 3-1 Example of Project Management time planning
One of the first guiding acts set by the project manager was to choose the SR-71mission description that was to
be used as the ‘standard mission’ for the analysis portion of the senior capstone design project. It was felt that the
mission provided below was representative of a standard short leg mission over Europe along the Finish and former
Soviet border. It was also representative of the missions from Det1 Kadena to the DMZ between North and South
Korea. The mission profile was compiled from the SR-71 Pilot’s Manual1-50.
Mission profile assumptions:

• Standard day – no wind, flat runway, dry conditions
• Sea level temperature: 15° C (60° F)
• Flight level temperature: -56.5°C (-69.7° F)
• Sea level pressure: 29.92 in-Hg. (2116 lb/ft2)
• Take-off gross weight: 124,000 pounds with recon payload
• Fuel weight: 65,000 pounds
Take-off
• Ground roll: 4600 ft
• Rotation speed: 180 KIAS
7
• Take-off speed: 210 KIAS
• Angle of attack at lift-off: 8° to 10°
• CG location: 22%
• When airborne landing gear retract takes 12-16 seconds
• At Mach 0.5 surface limiter engaged
• Climb distance:
o Altitude 50 ft: 2750 ft
o Altitude 200 ft: 4900 ft
Climb
• Hold 400 KEAS until Mach 0.9 is intercepted
• Hold Mach 0.9
• Climb pitch: 35° to 40° decreasing to 25° approaching level off altitude
• Climb rate with 45,000 pounds of fuel: 10,000 foot-per-minute
Subsonic cruise
• Level off altitude: 25,000 ft
• Mach 0.9
• Standard KC-135Q orbit: 150 nm
• After refuel gross weight: 140,000 pounds
Acceleration climb
• Optimum supersonic airspeed: 450 KEAS between Mach 1.25 and 2.6
• Climb-and-descent acceleration climb profile is recommended
Set minimum afterburner and climb to 30,000. Set maximum afterburner. At 33,000 ft
accelerate to Mach 0.95. Nose over transition to 2,500 to 3,000 feet-per-minute descent.
Exceed Mach 1.05 early in the descent and avoid turning. Transition to climb at 435
KEAS and intercept 450 KEAS for climb. At level off use standard KEAS bleed
procedure.
Cruise
• Altitude: 71,000 ft
• Mach 3.15
• Range for cruise leg is dictated by fuel requirements. Need to land with 10,000 pounds of fuel
remaining.
• The cruise leg will have one turn of 180°
Deceleration descent
• Starting altitude 78,000 ft
• Set throttles to 720°C EGT
• Maintain cruise Mach number while descending until 365 KEAS intercepted
• Set throttles to 6,900 RPM at Mach 2.5
• Descent will be directly into landing pattern
Landing
• Landing design weight 68,000 pounds
• 10 foot-per-second maximum sink rate
• CG at 17% forward
• 10,000 pounds fuel
• Final approach speed: 175 KIAS
• Landing speed: 155 KIAS
• Angle of attack: 9.5°
• Pitch angle: 10.5°
8
B. Cost

A unique aspect of the Capstone Senior Design course was the issue of cost. Cost is one of the most important
factors driving the development of commercial aircraft, but for military aircraft, this is not necessarily the case. The
SR-71 Blackbird was meant to fulfill the highly important national
security needs of the time. Often this translates into a ‘sky is the limit’
mentality with cost being of lower priority. Therefore, the project
manager was tasked to perform a detailed cost analysis of the SR-71,
in an attempt to depict the degree of cost associated with the design
and operation of such an aircraft.
Because the A-12 and SR-71 were shrouded in secrecy for their
entire operational lives, very little information was available publicly.
This was especially true for the breakdown of development and
operations cost data. The development cost data are Lockheed
proprietary and most of the operations cost data are still hidden in the
“black world.” As a result, the costs presented here are estimates.
Luckily a document was obtained detailing the operational cost of

the SR-71 for fiscal years 1970 to 1976. Figure 3-1 shows the total
obligation authority (TOA) for the fiscal years 1970 to 1976. The UE
line is classified in the original document, but UE stands for unit
equipment. O&M is operations and maintenance. FYDP refers to
future year defense program.
Table 3-1 details the same information as the figure as well as

Fig. 3-1 SR-71 Operational Cost Data estimated TOA for 1989 and 2005. Estimates for 1968 and 1980 were
also produced, but not shown here. These estimates are based on the
consumer price index data for all major cities in the U.S. The data shows that at the time of retirement in 1989, the
operating cost of the SR-71 fleet ranged from $245million to $345million. These data were used to validate the
operations cost models used.
Other data used to generate the cost model came from the work of collaborators on this project and a detailed
search of available literature. The data included items such as operational life, loss rate, and maintenance man-hours
per flight hour to wing area, thrust and aspect ratio.
Table 3-1 Operations Cost Data in “Then Year Dollars”

Sr-71 UE Aircraft and Costs ($ Millions 1989 dollars )
FY 70 FY 71 FY 72 FY 73 FY 74 FY 75 FY 76
UE
Investment
Other procurement 74.7 83.9 64.6 64.6 64.6 64.6 64.6
Operations
O&M 226.6 210.6 186.8 196.9 238.5 146.0 140.2
Military Personnel 42.6 39.2 34.3 38.3 41.6 41.9 41.9
Total Operations 269.1 249.8 221.1 235.1 280.1 188.0 182.2
TOA 346.6 336.8 286.0 299.7 344.8 252.6 246.8
Sr-71 UE Aircraft and Costs ($ Millions 2005 dollars )

FY 70 FY 71 FY 72 FY 73 FY 74 FY 75 FY 76
UE
Investment
Other procurement 117.7 132.1 101.7 101.7 101.7 101.7 101.7
Operations
O&M 356.8 331.8 294.2 310.1 375.7 230.0 220.9
Military Personnel 67.0 61.7 54.0 60.3 65.6 66.1 66.1
Total Operations 423.9 393.5 348.2 370.3 441.2 296.1 286.9
TOA 545.9 530.4 450.4 472.1 543.0 397.8 388.7
9
2. Analysis
The life cycle of an aircraft is broken down into six phases: planning and conceptual design, preliminary design,
detail design, manufacturing and acquisition, operations and maintenance, and disposal.
Operational Refine
Requirement Configuration The cost models used in this study are for
use during the conceptual design phase. The
Initial Design Detail Flight models specifically dealt with the RDT&E
And Trade Studies Design Testing
(Research, Design, Testing & Evaluation),
RFP Manufacture manufacturing and acquisition, and operations
and
Acquisition
and maintenance phases of the life cycle.
Preliminary Trade Studies RDT&E
Sizing Operations Planning The specific methodologies used for cost
and
WTO TTO A
WE WE CL Maintenance
Conceptual
Preliminary
determination were developed by Roskam1-39,
WPL S Detail Woodford1-48, and Boren1-10. Roskam’s cost
Disposal approach was the major focus of this study;
Preliminary Configurations
Layout and Propulsion
Trade Studies the DAPCA model and Woodford’s Life
System Integration
Cycle Cost Model were used as validation for
Roskam’s method. DAPCA was used to
Fig. 3-2 Cost components
validate Roskam’s methods for RDT&E costs,
while Woodford’s method was used to validate
operation’s cost. The cost models used for this study were
Cost Escalation Factor
based on cost estimation relationships (CER’s). The CER
5.50 is a curve fit of various data points to determine a
5.00
statistical equation in order to provide a method for
4.50
4.00
estimation.
CEF Base 1971
3.50
3.00 In order to validate against the SR-71 historical data
2.50
and to put the results into a perspective that represents the
2.00
1.50
current value of money, the costs generated by the models
1.00 must be multiplied by a cost escalation factor. In this case
0.50 the cost escalation factor was based on consumer price
0.00
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
index data and is shown in Figure 3-3. The data was
Year normalized to 1971 in order to allow easy comparison to
the operations cost data in Figure 3-1.
Fig. 3-3 Cost escalation factor
The cost flow methodology for Roskam’s cost model
is presented in Figure 3-4 in order to give an under standing of how the various aspects of any cost model lead to the
description of the life cycle cost for an aircraft. For the purpose of this study the cost of disposal is not analyzed.
LCC
CRDTE C ACQ COPS CDISP

RDT&E Manufacturing Operations Disposal
And
Acquisition
Fig. 3-4 Basic Roskam Life Cycle Cost Components
3. Results
The results section consists only of key cost analysis data. For complete results please see UTA MAE Capstone
Senior Design Final Report (Reference).
10
Table 3-2 Roskam cost model comparisons to DAPCA and Woodford
Roskam
DAPCA
Woodford
Table 3-3 Operations cost models From the total cost Table 3-2 and the historical data provided by
compared to actual operation cost Figure 3-1 and Table 3-1, the models for the operations portion of life
Difference in Model and Actual Cost cycle cost are shown to have been a close approximation to the actual
1968 values as demonstrated by Table 3-3. Differences of approximately
% Roskam % Woodford 3.5% to 8.3% demonstrate fairly high fidelity in the cost models. From
8.5% 3.7%
the literature the expected difference was any where from 20% to 50%
Base 1971
for the operations cost.1-28
% Roskam % Woodford
8.2% 3.6%
As there was no available real world data for the RDT&E and
1980 Manufacturing cost, it was a hope that the two cost models used for
% Roskam % Woodford those sections would show the same accuracy. However when the
8.0% 3.4% Acquisition and RDT&E totals from Roskam and the results generated
1989 from DAPCA were compared there was an approximate 17% difference
% Roskam % Woodford between the two models.
8.2% 3.5%
2005
% Roskam % Woodford
8.2% 3.6%
11
C. Geometry/CAD

The primary purpose of the two student Geometry/CAD team was to provide all known data on the physical
properties of the SR-71 for distribution throughout all disciplines of analysis. This was accomplished through the
following deliverables:
• Creation of a SR-71 Geometry Reference Manual

• Production of technical drawings and CAD solid model of SR-71
2. Analysis
With the overall class objective being to perform a multi-
disciplinary analysis of the SR-71, it was necessary for the
students to use the physical features of the aircraft as inputs.
Thus, the main focus of the Geometry/CAD group was to locate
and document all available physical data on the SR-71 that
would serve to foster better quantification throughout all
disciplines. In certain cases, necessary data was not available.
These requirements translated into the creation of an extensive
reference manual that included readily available published data,
technical drawings, and photos, as well as original technical
drawings and CAD models produced for the project used to
estimate unavailable physical data.
SR-71 CAD Model

The Geometry/CAD group referred to the flight manual and
a few other publications to begin creating a model of the SR-71,
initially using Catia. Due to time constraints, the group
transitioned to using Pro-E as their modeling tool. Before, too
much time was spent modeling the aircraft, the group was very
Fig. 3-5 Geometry/CAD analysis approach fortunate to receive a model of the SR-71 from an industry
contact. The model had been produced in the Rhinoceros 3D
modeling software by Martin Hepperle of DLR, in Germany.
The model was through difficulty, imported and converted by the Geometry/CAD group into the Pro-E solid
modeling environment. Using the CAD model in conjunction with Pro-E, previously unavailable information about
the aircraft could potentially be generated from this model. Technical 3-view drawings were also produced from this
model for the presentation of desired data to the class.
SR-71 Reference Manual

In order to respond to the needs of other disciplines the Geometry/CAD group spent considerable time and effort
compiling a reference manual of all available SR-71 information unearthed during the literature search and from the
solid model. The reference manual included the following sections:
• Aircraft Overview- Contains Main Data Sheet

• External Geometry- Details the aircraft specifications, provides photographs of several views
of the aircraft, 3-view drawings, isometric CAD models, and cross-sectional drawings.
• Structural – Contains photographs that depict structural members of the aircraft and various
cut-away drawings.
• Systems – Provides information on the locations and operations of systems such as; fuel,
propulsion, stability and control, hydraulics, electronics, avionics, surveillance, environmental
control, and landing gear.
• Payload Bays – Supplies information on the arrangement and location of payload bays of the
SR-71.
• Cockpit – Details both the outer and inner cockpit areas including the cockpit hatch, instrument
and control panels, video displays, and indicators.
12
• Comparison Database – Contains statistics and information from SR-71, its derivatives, and
similar aircraft compiled into one database.
• Component Weight Database– Contains the weights of the various components of the SR-71
as compiled along from the structures team.
3. Results
The Geometry/CAD group, having converted the Rhino file to use in Pro-E, was able to generate dimensions
needed by other disciplines.
Fig. 3-6 Rhino CAD Model, Martin Hepperle of

DLR Model
Fig. 3-7 Pro-E version of Rhino file
An example of a CAD deliverable requested by the Stability and Control team was of wing cross-sectional data.
The S&C team required cross-sectional data at stations 6 inches apart down the span of the wing. Figure 3-8 below
displays one of these cross-sections. An additional example shows the fuel tank center of gravity locations also
requested by the S&C team; see Figure 3-9 below.
Fig. 3-8 Wing Cross Section 162 inches from the Fig. 3-9 Fuel Tank C.G. Locations
Root
13
D. SR-71 – Aerodynamics

The Aerodynamics team consisted of four student engineers. Using several different aircraft conceptual
design texts, the team identified the parameters it deemed as necessary deliverables in order to perform the most
complete analysis possible of the SR-71 from an aerodynamic standpoint. In doing so, time and resource constraints,
as well as interdisciplinary needs, have shaped the number and type of parameters chosen. The parameters chosen
for analysis are outlined below.
1. Lift: CL vs. α, CLα

2. Drag: CD vs. CL, CD0, L/Dmax
3. Pitching moment: CM , CM vs. CL
4. Aerodynamic center: xac (for subsonic flight)
5. Center of pressure: xcp (for supersonic flight)
6. Estimated wing and fuselage pressure/lift/normal force distribution
7. Maximum and average vehicle surface temperature
2. Analysis
Following the literature search, the aerodynamics group identified the analysis methods and tools necessary to
arrive at the desired objectives. The approach was two pronged. Two members of the group went down a theoretical
path to locate the basis of the SR-71’s aerodynamics grounded in the physical explanations of lift and drag
generation to serve as a basis for validation of other methods to be used. Simultaneously, the other two members
took an approach running along a
more numerical path, utilizing
Mach number, altitude Mission Loop Digital DATCOM and limited use of
CAD Team
CFD analysis tools in order to obtain
results to deliver to other disciplines.
CAD Model Drawings
For both approaches a build-up
Wetted areas and method was employed during
Λ, b, S, A, λ, t/c, MAC reference lengths M, T∞
analysis. A delta wing was first
considered alone. This served to
Computational
Fluid Dynamics
Digital Classical Lift Component Drag Compressible warm up the team and to provide a
DATCOM Theory Buildup Flow Eqns.
way to validate their analytical tools
Normal force
CL, CD, CM, xac, xcp CL, CDi CD0 T0
against a simpler case. Following
distribution
that, analysis was continued
incorporating the fuselage and chine.
Other Teams
The SR-71 has an integrated
Fig. 3-10 Aerodynamics Analysis Methodology wing and chined fuselage with
complex, three-dimensional curves and blended surfaces. In order to
simplify the analysis of the SR-71 at the conceptual design level it
was deemed necessary to make certain geometry reductions.
Therefore, the known SR-71 geometry was distilled to a simplified
wing planform that could approximately represent the real aircraft.
Theoretical Analysis
The theoretical analysis performed by the aerodynamics group set
out to perform a classical lift and drag analysis for the SR-71. The
theoretical lift coefficient was calculated using a leading-edge suction
analogy proposed by Edward Polhamus. The aircraft was simplified as
a double delta. Through this method it is assumed that the total lift
Fig. 3-11 SR-71 Chine Simplifications coefficient consists of a potential flow term and a vortex lift term3-11.
A calculation of the drag was also performed using the component
build up method as presented in Raymer’s “Aircraft Design: A
14
Conceptual Approach”. The results of these analyses are used as a check on the validity of future calculations
obtained from Digital DATCOM.
Numerical Analysis
USAF Digital DATCOM3-17 was used to obtain deliverables 1 – 5
listed above. Since DATCOM was the most complete of all of the
tools selected by the aerodynamics group, it was chosen as the primary
source of data for delivering results to the other teams. Additionally, it
served as a benchmark for comparing between real SR-71 data and the
output from the methods that other team members pursued. DATCOM
had little difficulty modeling an aircraft with a simple delta wing, such
as the SR-71’s. The SR-71’s chined forebody however did cause some
problems. DATCOM has no direct provision for a feature such as the
chine, thus several alternate chine models were considered. A double-
delta model was used for subsonic cases and a chine-equivalent canard
Fig. 3-12 Digital DATCOM SR-71 Models that intersected the wing itself was used for the supersonic cases. Even
though not physically possible, this model was deemed reasonable for
the project.
Finally, the group utilized CFD analysis in order to obtain a normal force distribution for the aircraft. Initially,
this was not considered a useful method. However, to satisfy the need of structures group, a simplified CFD analysis
using FEM (finite element method) was performed to estimate the normal force distribution during the most critical
load factor maneuver case.
3. Results
The results section consists only of key data acquired from DATCOM and CFD analysis. For complete results
please see UTA MAE Capstone Senior Design Final Report1.
Lift
1.4
Flight Manual "low speed"
1.2 Flight Manual M = 2.5

Flight Manual M = 3.25
Table 3-4 Lift curve slope
DATCOM M = 0.30
1
DATCOM M = 0.60
DATCOM M = 1.50
0.8
DATCOM M = 2.50
CL
DATCOM M = 3.15
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
α [degrees]
Fig. 3-13 DATCOM lift curve compared to actual SR-71A lift

curve data 3-13
Figure 3-13 shows the lift curve slope calculated at different points in the flight envelope. The double-delta
model was used for the subsonic cases and the equivalent-canard for the supersonic cases. These models appear to
be fair approximations of the SR-71 wing, fuselage, and chine when compared to the lift curves given in the SR-71A
Flight Manual. Table 3-4 gives the lift curve slope of the linear region of each curve in Fig. 3-13. The ground effect
CLα is taken directly from the SR-71A Flight Manual; no ground effect analysis was performed in DATCOM.
15
Normal Forces - Case 2
100000
90000
80000
Normal Force [lb]

70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Longitudinal Section
Normal Forces - Case 2
25000
20000
Normal Force [lb]

15000
10000
5000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Spanwise Section
Fig. 3-14 Pressure Distribution and Stream traces
Fig. 3-15 Longitudinal and Span wise
Normal Force Distributions
Figures 3-14 and 3-15 represent the CFD analysis performed to obtain normal force distributions for use by the
structures team. A lift comparison of the results obtained via CFD analysis to the lift required by the SR-71 during
critical loading flight phase was performed illuminating a 20% error.
Drag Polar and L/D Ratio
1.4
1.2
1.0
Table 3-5 Maximum L/D
0.8
CL
0.6 M = 0.30
M = 0.60
0.4 M = 1.50
M = 2.50
0.2 M = 3.15
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
CD
Fig. 3-16 Drag Polar at specified Mach numbers obtained

from DATCOM
The DATCOM drag polars above are presented by themselves in Figure 3-16 since no drag data was located for
the SR-71. While the results look reasonable, this underscores the importance of having appropriate data for
validating design tools, in the conceptual design phase especially.
Table 3-5 lists the maximum lift to drag ratios for the mission. These were taken from the drag polar plots in Fig.
5.16. The ratio remains relatively constant at 12 for subsonic speeds and at 6 for supersonic speeds. These values
closely match results given found in Ref. 3-4. Since no drag polar was available at M = 0.90 from DATCOM, the
value in Table 3-5 is reported directly from Ref. 3-4.
Aerodynamic Center and Center of Pressure
16
Table 3-6 Aerodynamic center and
center of pressure
The center of pressure and aerodynamic center locations in Table 3-6 are given as fractions of the mean
aerodynamic chord. The aerodynamic center at subsonic speeds is near the quarter-chord point 3-2. At supersonic
speeds, the aerodynamic center becomes roughly coincident with the center of pressure. The Flight Manual indicates
that the center of pressure should be slightly aft of 25% MAC at supersonic cruise speeds; the value of 32% MAC at
M = 3.15 was too far aft to fit this description. This was possibly due to the same effect of the chine-equivalent
canard that caused a larger supersonic pitching moment to be predicted than is expected from known data.
E. SR-71 – Stability and Control
The Stability and Control team consisted

of four student engineers. Using key aircraft
conceptual design texts and stability and
control texts, the team identified several
parameters it deemed as necessary
deliverables in order to perform the most
complete analysis possible of the SR-71 from
a stability and control standpoint. In doing so,
time and resource constraints, as well as
interdisciplinary needs, further shaped the
number and type of parameters chosen. The
parameters chosen as analysis deliverables are
outlined below.
1. Quantification and Comparison of

SR-71 Static Stability
2. Quantification of SR-71 Dynamic
Stability
3. Quantification of SR-71 Trim
Capability
4. Quantification of SR-71 Neutral
Fig. 3-17 Stability and Control Analysis Methodology Point and Static Margin
2. Analysis
Following the literature search, the stability and control team identified analysis methods and tools necessary to
arrive at the desired objectives and to, in the end, compare those results with actual SR-71 data and MIL-specs. In a
similar fashion as the aerodynamics team, Stability and Control initiated two simultaneous, but separate paths for
analyzing and validating initial results obtained for the SR-71.
Static Stability Analysis

Initially, static stability analysis was performed using two alternate methods. The stability analysis tool
VORSTAB was the primary method for obtaining these values. VORSTAB was developed by Prof. Lan at the
17
University of Kansas. It runs a quasi-vortex lattice methodology for baseline calculations and can handle wings,
vertical tails, horizontal tails, leading edge flaps, strakes, ailerons, trailing edge flaps and winglets. The fuselage can
be either a body of revolution or non-circular. Arbitrary camber and airfoil thickness distributions can be used.3-20
The way in which VORSTAB calculates the stability derivatives enabled the stability and control team to
simplify the engine nacelles in the wings as vertical plates on which the vertical fins could stand. Unfortunately, due
to time constraints and software complications, it was necessary to choose between either a configuration in which
the chine intersected with the fuselage, resulting in extremely undesirable outputs, or leaving a separation between
the chine surface and the cone nose. The team opted for the latter, which may have introduced some error into the
software calculations. Fig. 3-18 depicts the SR-71 model that was produced by the students. VORSTAB was able to
produce derivatives for every flight condition required in the mission profile as set up by the project manager.
As a validation of these results, other members of the team

followed the more traditional handbook methods outlined by Dr.
Jan Roskam in his eight-book “Aircraft Design” series as well
by the USAF DATCOM analysis handbooks in conjunction with
MATLAB. Unlike the VORSTAB analysis that was performed
at several different mach numbers and altitudes throughout the
chosen mission profile, the handbook methods were unable to
calculate for supersonic conditions due to a lack of available
data. Therefore a mach number of M=0.6 was chosen to perform
their calculations. The choice of this speed was heavily
influenced by inputs needed from the aerodynamics team. All
deliverables obtained from VORSTAB, once validated, were
intended for use during the determination of the remaining
Fig. 3-18 SR-71 VORSTAB model stability and control deliverables.
Dynamic Stability Analysis

The methods used to perform a dynamic stability analysis on the SR-71 were obtained from Roskam9,10. These
methods were coded into MATLAB to calculate the aircraft dynamic stability characteristics at a subsonic (Mach
0.9) and a supersonic (Mach 3.15) cruise condition. Unfortunately, no dynamic stability data was uncovered
specifying real aircraft performance in this regard providing no direct means of validation. Therefore, the dynamic
stability calculations presented in Table 4.7 are useful only as a general estimation for comparison to the MIL-SPEC
requirements for piloted aircraft handling qualities.
Trim Analysis
In order to check the controllability and trim condition numerically, equations of the moment equilibrium were
used following the methods set out by Roskam9,10. Control surface deflections must be within the limits of the
aircraft configuration to achieve the trim condition. Two inboard and two outboard elevons, which move
simultaneously, provide longitudinal and lateral control for the SR-71. However, the magnitude of the outboard
elevon deflection is three degrees larger than the inboard elevons8-14. It was assumed by the stability and control
team that the outboard deflection angle was the same as the inboard one because the VORSTAB code, which was
the source of the input aerodynamic derivatives, did not account for slight difference8-14. Only subsonic and
supersonic cruises were considered.
Neutral Point and Static Margin
The neutral point of the SR-71 was calculated using methods set out by Roskam8-9,8-10. For this analysis certain
assumptions and approximations were necessary and were likely candidates for the introduction of error into the
neutral point calculations.
3. Results
The results section consists only of key stability and control analysis results. For complete results please see
UTA MAE Capstone Senior Design Final Report. 1
18
Static Stability
Table 3-7 Stability derivatives and desired criteria8-10

Actual static stability
derivative data was only available
for the subsonic and supersonic
cruise segments of the SR-71’s
mission profile. Because of this,
all other stability derivatives were
merely checked for correctness of
sign. as stated by Table 3-7.
Table 3-8 was used only to
compare the VORSTAB result
signs with the signs suggested by
Roskam in Table 3-7.
Table 3-8 SR-71 Static stability derivatives throughout mission profile

Roskam Criteria Takeoff Climb Roskam
Subsonic Supersonic
Sea level 5,000 ft 10,000 ft 15,000 ft 20,000 ft 25,000 ft
Criteria
Derivative Sign
M=0.317 M=0.663 M=0.728 M=0.806 M=0.900 M=0.900 Derivative Sign M=0.90 M=3.15
Cyβ - - - - - - - Cyβ - - -
Clβ - - - - - - - Clβ - - -
Cnβ + + - - - - - Cnβ + - -
Cmq - - - - - - - Cmq - - -
Cyp - - - - - - - Cyp - - -
Clp - - - - - - - Clp - - -
Cnp + or - - + + + + + Cnp + or - + +
Cyr + + + + + + + Cyr + + +
Clr + + + + + + + Clr + + +
Cmα - - - - - - - Cmα - - -
Cnr - - - - - - - Cnr - - -
CLq + + + + + + + CLq + + +
Cdq + + + + + + + Cdq + + +
Roskam Criteria Deceleration Landing

Derivative Sign M=3.15 M=3.00 M=2.75 M=2.50 M=0.265
Cyβ - - - - - - From Table 3-8, it is noticed
Clβ - - - - - - that the only offending resultant
Cnβ + - - - - + sign comes from the yawing
Cmq - - - - - -
moment-due-to-sideslip
Cyp - - - - - -
derivative, which is highlighted
Clp - - - - - -
Cnp + or - + + + + -
red. The VORSTAB result was
Cyr + + + + + +
negative when it needed to be
Clr + + + + + + positive.
Cmα - - - - - -
Cnr - - - - - -
CLq + + + + + +
Cdq + + + + + +
19
Table 3-9 Actual derivatives compared to
Table 3-10 Actual derivatives compared to
VORSTAB for subsonic case
VORSTAB for supersonic case
Values for the subsonic and supersonic cruise derivatives were available from the SR-71 Pilot’s Manual. In
Table 3-9, the majority of the subsonic cruise derivatives for which a reference was found yielded results that are off
by at least one degree of magnitude, but do follow the trends in sign given by Roskam, with the exception of Cnp.
From Table 3-10, it is evident that the values for Clp and Clβ match those values from the references well, but the
remaining derivatives are off by one order of magnitude and/or a change in sign.
Dynamic Stability
Table 3-11 Dynamic stability results
From Table 3-11, it can be seen that some of the dynamic stability results calculated by the stability and control
group fall within the limitations of Level 1 handling qualities, while other results fall under the Level 2 or 3. While
the supersonic cruise short period damping frequency indicates a Level 1 condition, the subsonic cruise exhibits a
damping frequency higher than is desirable for Levels 1 or 2. The short period natural frequency is too short for any
of the levels, indicating unacceptable pilot handling qualities for both cruise conditions and the requirement of a
stability augmentation system for aircraft control. However, these undesirable natural frequency values may be the
result of approximation errors present in the variables used in the dynamic stability methods utilized.
F. SR-71 – Structures

The structures team consisted of three student engineers. Using key aircraft conceptual design texts and
structural texts and papers, the team identified several parameters it deemed as necessary deliverables in order to
perform the most complete analysis possible of the SR-71 from a structural standpoint. In doing so, time and
resource constraints, as well as interdisciplinary needs, further shaped the number and type of parameters chosen.
The parameters chosen as analysis deliverables are outlined below.
20
• Produce component weight database
• Formulate Center of gravity on three view drawing
• Mission loading scenario- V-n diagram, bending, shear, torsion
• Analysis of materials
2. Analysis
Following a literature search and the
development of a finalized set of deliverables, the
structures group identified analysis methods and
tools necessary to arrive at the desired objectives.
The approach taken by the structures team can be
seen in Figure 3-19. It describes the process by
which the above objectives were accomplished.
The process boils down to a component weight
analysis, an aircraft force analysis, and a
qualitative materials analysis. All results were to
then be validated against available SR-71
structural data.
Fig. 3-19 Structure Analysis Methodology
Component Weight Analysis
For the first objective, the team gathered
Structure weight comparison between available component weight information from
14 aircraft
several similar aircraft in order to provide an
Structure component weight / Design gross weight, GW
0.2000
0.1800
estimate of the component weight of the SR-71.
0.1600 The component weight estimation methods found
0.1400 Wing group / GW
0.1200 Tail group / GW
in Roskam’s “Airplane Design Part V: Component
0.1000
0.0800
Body group / GW
Engine secton / GW
Weight Estimation” text and Raymer’s “Aircraft
0.0600 Alighting group / GW Design: A Conceptual Approach” were utilized for
0.0400
0.0200
this process.
0.0000
After obtaining the component weight
1
0A
ET
0
C
0F
4E
1B
2A
5B
6A
7A
A
ise
10
-7
information, the team then located the center of

15
18
-7
10
XJ
F-
10
10
10
10
10
SR
T-
ru
F-
A-
XB
F-
SS
F-
F-
F-
F-
F-
r -C
AS
F/
pe
gravity of the SR-71. To determine its location, all

Su
Fig. 3-20 Structural weight comparison of 14 aircraft aircraft component c.g. locations were identified.
From this information, the c.g. point for the entire
aircraft was calculated.
Force Analysis
Quantifying the loading scenario throughout the given mission profile for major aircraft components was the
next step in analysis for the structures team. Only basic components that are critical for flight were addressed.
Initially the wing, fuselage, landing gear, elevon, and rudders were to be analyzed in the load analysis calculating
shear, moment, and torque values under the most critical condition on each component. However, due to time
limitations, only the fuselage and the wing were analyzed with shear and moment calculations.
The V-n diagram of the SR-71 was calculated using Bruhn’s “Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures”
and compared to the actual V-n diagram in SR-71 Flight Manual. Even though, there are several flight segments, V-
n diagrams are plotted for super-sonic and sub-sonic cruise conditions only.
Limit load factors and design speed information came from the SR-71 Flight Manual. Values for C Lα , C Lmax ,
and C Lmax,neg came from the aerodynamics group. Shear and bending diagrams were also produced using methods
found in Bruhn, and reducing the analysis down to a simple cantilever beam model.
3. Results
The results section consists only of key structural analysis data. For complete results please see UTA MAE
Capstone Senior Design Final Report. 1
21
Table 3-12 SR-71 Component weight estimation
Fig. 3-21 Actual and calculated C.G. locations

versus gross weight
Table 3-12 shows the resulting component weights for the

SR-71 using both the Roskam and Raymer method. It was seen that the Raymer method provided better results for
this case. Figure 3-21 shows center of gravity location as a function of gross weight for the Blackbird. The red stars
on Figure 3-21 indicate values for the center of gravity as
calculated by the structures team. The results of this
V-n diagram
(Supersonic cruise W=11200 [lb], Alt=72000 [ft])
2 analysis matched up decently for most of the range.

1.5
Figure 3-22 shows the structure team’s result for a V-n
Va=393.59 [KEAS]
diagram for the SR-71. No direct validation was available

Vs1=321.37 [KEAS]
1
for the result, but it is of the proper form. Calculations
Limit load factor
0.5
were performed under the following conditions:
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
-0.5
Supersonic cruise: Altitude = 72000 ft, M=3.15,
Vd=450 [KEAS] W=112000 lb
-1
Vc=400 [KEAS]
-1.5
Equivalent air speed, [KEAS]
Fig. 3-22 V-n diagram for supersonic cruise
G. Propulsion
1. Deliverables
The Propulsions team consisted of three student engineers. Using key aircraft conceptual design and engine
design texts, the team identified several parameters it deemed as necessary deliverables in order to perform the most
complete performance analysis possible of the SR-71 propulsion system. In doing so, time and resource constraints,
as well as interdisciplinary needs, further shaped the number and type of parameters chosen. The parameters chosen
as analysis deliverables are outlined below.
1. SR-71 engine familiarization

2. Inlet mass flow rate and thrust calculation
3. Cycle performance parameters
4. Nozzle performance, ideal thrust, and actual thrust
2. Analysis
22
The propulsions team split the engine analysis into three subgroups. The first subgroup contains all calculations
pertaining to the inlet. The second subgroup consists of the gas generator, and the third subgroup is composed of the
ejector nozzle. Each member of the group took charge of
SR-71 Propulsion System one of these subgroups, working in parallel to carry out the
engine performance analysis. Prior to their analyses, each
Inputs student conducted a literature search directed at gathering
Geometry more information regarding their respective analysis topics.
Mission Profile Conditions A combination of handbook and numerical methods along
Assumptions with propulsion software was used to perform analysis.
Air Intake Gas Generator Ejector Nozzle The Figure 3-23 illustrates the basic methodology
implemented by the propulsions group. Further description
of the inlet, gas generator, and ejector nozzle analyses will
Parameter Familiarization
follow.
Parameter Quantification
Inlet Analysis
The inlet analysis methodology is displayed in Figure 3-
Output
24. Through inlet analysis, the student engineer sought to
Final Report
Thrust, SFC, Efficiency, etc calculate air mass flow rate and uninstalled thrust. The inlet
total air mass flow rate, m0, was calculated directly using
Fig. 3-23 Propulsion group main methodology
the handbook methodology found in J. Mattingly’s text,
“Elements of Gas Turbine Propulsion”. Using a figure
from “Case Studies in Engineering- The SR-71A” for the
Air Intake inlet mass flow ratio, the actual mass flow was derived
from the total, m0. This information was then used to aid
Inputs
Geometry
the uninstalled thrust calculations.
Mission Profile Conditions
Uninstalled thrust calculations for the SR-71 were
Assumptions performed using Jack Mattingly’s ONX software for a
turbojet engine with afterburner. The design point was
Parameter Familiarization & Basic Data Acquisition chosen to be at an altitude of 80,000 ft at Mach 3. ONX
was used to generate specific thrust, specific fuel
SR-71 Pilot Manual
Parameter Quantification consumption, and propulsive efficiency vs. mach number
SR-71 Case Study
Complete Document
performance curves. Uninstalled thrust was then easily
Pressure Recovery Air Mass Flow Drag
obtained by multiplying the specific thrust by the mass flow
Elements of Gas Turbine rate.
Propulsion by Mattingly
Output
Thrust, SFC, Efficiency, etc Ejector Nozzle Analysis
Aircraft Design: Conceptual
Approach by Raymer
Figure 3-25 shows the methodology chosen for the
Final Report study of the ejector nozzle. It utilizes handbook methods
Fig. 3-24 Methodology map for air inlet study found in Jack Mattingly’s “Elements of Gas Turbine
Propulsion” and Daniel Raymer’s “Aircraft Design:
Conceptual Approach”. Through the methods above, the
nozzle coefficients were calculated. These include the gross thrust, flow, and velocity coefficients. A table of these
coefficients was generated for use from mach at .1 to mach 3.15.
23
Ejector Nozzle Gas
Inputs Inputs
Geometry Dimension Assumptions
Assumptions
Parameter Familiarization & Basic Data
“SR-71 Pilot
Parameter Familiarization & Basic Data Acquisition Temperatures
Tt4 & Tt7
Manual”
SR-71 Pilot Manual
Parameter Quantification Parametric Engine “SR-71 Case
SR-71 Case Study Cycle Analysis of Real Study” Complete
Complete Document Engine
Area Ratio Air Mass Flow Pressure Ratio
V i bl S ifi “Elements of Gas
Elements of Gas Turbine
Propulsion by Mattingly Turbine
FAIR
Output Thermodynamic Output Propulsion”
Aircraft Design: Conceptual Properties b J kD
Thrust, Nozzle Coefficients
Approach by Raymer
Specific Thrust, SFC,
Efficiencies
Final
Final Report
Fig. 3-25 Methodology map for ejector nozzle Fig. 3-26 Methodology map for gas generator
study study
Gas Generator Analysis

Figure 3-26 illustrates the methodology devised by the student responsible for the gas generator section of the
engine analysis. The cycle analysis for the gas generator portion utilizes Mattingly’s software and a subroutine
called FAIR. The objective was to calculate specific thrust and fuel consumption.
3. Results
The results section consists only of key propulsion analysis data. For complete results please see UTA MAE
The propulsion results section consists mainly of inlet mass flow rates, uninstalled thrust, and estimates for the
nozzle coefficients. (Results for the gas generator study were not completed)
Inlet mass flow

30000
350
mass flow that inlet could capture, m0
300 25000
Unistalled Thrust, F, lbf
250 20000
mass flow rate, lb/s
200
15000
150
10000
100
Actual engine mass flow rate, m
5000
50
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Free Stream Mach Num ber, Mo Free Stream Mach Number, Mo
Fig. 3-27 m0 and m (mass flow rates) vs. free Fig. 3-28 Uninstalled thrust vs. free stream mach
stream mach (Uninstalled Engine)
Inlet mass flow

Figure 3-27 shows the inlet mass flow analysis results. It contains the ideal (total) mass flow rate, m0, and the
actual mass flow rate, m, calculated using the mass flow ratios found in Ref. 4-2. No validation with actual SR-71
data was possible.
Uninstalled Thrust
24
Figure 3-28 above, displays the variation in uninstalled thrust over the operating speed of the SR-71. These
results were derived from specific thrust data obtained using the ONX software for an altitude of 80,000 ft.
Nozzle Coefficients
Table 3-13 shows the propulsion groups calculated values of the nozzle flow, velocity, and gross thrust
coefficients. The students were not able to correlate the accuracy of these results to the SR-71 since no information
regarding propulsion performance was available. It was noted that some of the nozzle coefficient values exceed the
value 1.
Table 3-13 Uninstalled Thrust vs. Free

Stream Mach number
M CD Cv Cfg
0.1 0.98 1.0051 10.687
0.2 0.98 1.0052 3.337
0.3 0.98 1.0051 1.958
0.4 0.98 1.0057 1.506
0.5 0.98 1.0061 1.286
0.6 0.98 1.0068 1.162
0.7 0.98 1.0078 1.086
0.8 0.98 1.0092 1.04
0.9 0.98 1.0109 1.007
1 0.98 0.9935 0.947
1.1 0.98 0.994 0.939
1.2 0.98 0.9954 0.936
1.3 0.98 0.9966 0.937
1.4 0.98 0.9975 0.939
1.5 0.98 0.9981 0.945
1.6 0.98 0.9985 0.949
1.7 0.98 0.9988 0.953
1.8 0.98 0.9991 0.957
1.9 0.98 0.9993 0.961
2 0.98 0.9994 0.965
2.1 0.98 0.9995 0.968
2.2 0.98 0.9996 0.971
2.3 0.98 0.9997 0.973
2.4 0.98 0.9997 0.975
2.5 0.98 0.9998 0.977
2.6 0.98 0.9998 0.979
2.7 0.98 0.9998 0.98
2.8 0.98 0.9999 0.981
2.9 0.98 0.9999 0.981
3 0.98 0.9999 0.98
3.1 0.98 0.9999 0.981
3.15 0.98 0.9999 0.981
3.15 0.98 0.9999 0.98
H. SR-71 – Systems

The systems team consisted of three student engineers. Using key aircraft conceptual design texts and technical
books and papers related to the SR-71, the team identified several systems it deemed as vital to the flight of the SR-
71 throughout its mission profile. The specific systems chosen are listed below.
• Fuel system
• Hydraulic system
• Flight control system
• Avionics system
• Payload
• Environmental control system
25
• Landing gear system
• Electrical system
• Fire protection system
The choice for each system is justified easily. Without the hydraulic system, the aircraft would be
uncontrollable at any speed; without the fuel system the aircraft would not be able to provide propulsive power to
the engines; without the environmental control system, the pilots and equipment cannot perform properly; without
the landing gear, the aircraft will not be able to take off nor land; without the electrical system, the aircraft will not
be able to run its different electrically driven components resulting in a major failure; without the fire protection
system, several aircraft components will be caching fire due to the high temperatures that a Mach 3 plus flight
implies; without the avionics, the pilots will not be able to properly guide the aircraft through out its mission course
and with out the payload, the aircraft
cannot serve its spy purpose.
2. Analysis
The systems group performed an
expansive survey of the SR-71 systems
listed above researching their operations,
including purpose, location in aircraft,
reliability, influencing system variables,
etc. Finally, the students provided a
qualitative analysis of each system based
on their inputs and outputs. The fuel
system and hydraulic system were the only
exceptions to this however. A slightly
more detailed analysis of these systems
was performed offering a closer look at
their operational requirements.
Fuel System Analysis

Figure 3-29 depicts the
Fig. 3-29 Fuel System Methodology methodology used by the
systems group for the
purpose of examining the fuel system employed on the SR-71. When the systems group analyzed
the fuel system over the entire flight envelop based on Ref. 7-3 and 7-8, the following variables
were seen to vary throughout.
• Pressure inside fuel tanks

• Fuel leakage
• Heat transfer of the fuel system
Depending on how these variables change over the flight loop, the functionality of the fuel system
will be affected. In order to understand the extent to which the fuel system could be affected by the
above changes, the systems group focused analysis here.
Hydraulic System Analysis
Figure 3-30 depicts the methodology used by the systems group for the purpose of examining the
hydraulic system employed on the SR-71. When the systems group analyzed the hydraulic system
over the entire flight envelop, the following was chosen for analysis.
26
• Dynamic pressure on actuated components
Fig. 3-30 Hydraulic System Methodology
I. SR-71 – Performance

The performance team consisted of three student engineers. Using key aircraft conceptual design texts and
performance texts and papers, the team identified several parameters it deemed as necessary deliverables in order to
carry out the most complete analysis possible of the SR-71 from a performance standpoint. In doing so, time and
resource constraints further shaped the number and type of parameters chosen. The parameters chosen as analysis
deliverables are outlined below.
• Takeoff performance
• Weight Fractions throughout mission
• Range for supersonic cruise
• Endurance
• Turning performance
• Operational limits
2. Analysis
The supersonic cruise segment of the SR-71 is without a doubt the most important aspect of the aircraft’s
mission profile. It is desirable to achieve the largest range possible for given performance. In light of this, the
performance group placed its focus on the supersonic cruise segment. Taking the SR-71’s physical features as an
input, the task of the performance team was to assimilate all analysis results from the other teams, to determine what
the corresponding mission profile would be yielding the best performance possible with special emphasis on
maximizing the supersonic cruise segment. The performance analysis was produced through the use of hand
calculations rooted in textbook methods. Actual SR-71 performance data was used for validation purposes in the
end. The general analysis methodology as described in Figure 3-31 can be seen below.
27
Takeoff Performance
Values for ground roll distance, rotation
distance, climb out distance, and balanced
field length of the SR-71 were utilized
from Warren Phillips “Mechanics of
Flight”.
Climb Performance
In this section, the students attempt to
determine the “optimum” speed for the
aircraft to reach its intended cruise
altitude. Retrieving wing loading data
from a figure in the SR-71 Flight Manual,
the students were then able to calculate
the climb angles for a range of velocities
after takeoff. The optimum climb angle
was determined from the tangent to a plot
Fig. 3-31 Performance Analysis Methodology
of the vertical and horizontal components
of velocity for the aircraft after takeoff.
Weight Fractions
Change in weight of the aircraft during each flight segment was an essential detail. This is given in the form of
weight fractions. For the SR-71, the only weight lost during each mission segment is the weight of fuel consumed
by the engines. Weight fractions for each segment of the flight profile are calculated using the Raymer and Roskam
handbook methods.
Supersonic Range
The range of the SR-71 in supersonic flight was determined using the Constant Velocity Breguet Range equation.
Required input for this analysis was SFC, L/D, and cruise velocity.
Endurance
The performance team gathered specific range data from the SR-71 flight manual. This information was used in
conjunction with range factor and gross weight for altitudes from 72000 ft to 82800 ft to obtain the fuel flow per
engine at that altitude. The team then was able to estimate the average fuel flow between each of these altitudes
leading to the endurance of the aircraft in the cruising segment.
Turning Performance
The turning performance of the SR-71 was analyzed by comparing the general turning radius equation results to
actual turning performance listed in the SR-71 flight manual. Turn rate was analyzed in a similar manner.
Operational Limits
In order to achieve equilibrium when the aircraft is in level flight, the lift must at least equal the weight of the
aircraft, and the thrust must equal the drag. This sets the minimum condition for all the forces. From this
perspective the minimum required thrust was determined for the SR-71 during its subsonic and supersonic cruising
segments at altitudes of 25,000 ft, 71,000 ft, and 78,000 ft.
The performance group also examined the operational aspects of the SR-71 using excess power plots. For highly
maneuverable aircraft specific excess power plots can be a means of comparing performance. Due to time
constraints the performance group was unable to complete this aspect of the analysis. The team created an excess
power plot as a function of Mach number but was unable proceed further.
The handbook methods used to perform these studies in the operation performance section were derived from
performance equations in Daniel Raymer’s “Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach”.9-9
28
3. Results
The results section consists only of key performance analysis data. For complete results please see UTA MAE
Table 3-13 Weight Fractions Table 3-14 BFL and Cruise Range Comparisons
W 2/W 1 0.98563
W 3/W 2 1.14550
W 4/W 3 0.99688
W 5/W 4 0.96772
W 6/W 5 0.83274
W 7/W 6 0.68823
W 8/W 7 0.85916
W 9/W 8 0.97740
Weight Fractions:
The weight fractions calculated by the performance group for Table 3-15 Endurance analysis
the SR-71 during its mission profile are listed in Table 3-13
above. The second row in Table 3-13 represents the refueling
segment of the vehicles flight and therefore has a value
greater than 1.
BFL and Supersonic Cruise:
The results found in Table 3-14 above show first the
performance calculated BFL and supersonic cruise ranges
then the quoted values from the SR-71 Pilots Manual
(reference). The students acknowledge a high sensitivity in
the range calculations to the assumed value of the specific
fuel consumption. They noted that a SFC of 2.0 achieved
better correlation with actual values than an SFC of 1.9.
Endurance:
Endurance results are shown in Table 3-15 above. The
actual endurance value stated in performance reference 10
lists a time near the calculated result. However, reference 10
does not include in air refueling in the actual value of
endurance whereas the performance team’s results do.
29
IV. Final Capstone Senior Design Presentation
As a finale to a very full semester of analysis, the Capstone Senior Design Class presented the culmination of
their efforts. In the same way that the course was structured to mimic a professional atmosphere found outside
university life, so too did the final presentation. The Project Manager reserved one of the University’s prominent
conference rooms and prepared an advertising scheme to invite both university faculty and major industry
representatives.
Fig. 4-1 Final Capstone Senior Design Presentation, Spring 2006
The following comments are excerpts from a letter provided by an industry representative whom attended the
final presentation offering a professional critique of the capstone project:
Dr Chudoba,
I've finally been able to burn through enough of my action items to compile some observations from your team's
Blackbird Capstone briefing.
My top four take-always:
The value of the program is immense. These people were put into an organizational structure to
perform as a fairly large team, possibly for the first time in anything other than athletics. This stresses
leadership, character, and communication.
The team became quickly lost when they didn't have real data to calibrate against. In this case, and for
future teams, I suggest that you have all of the teams perform sensitivity studies to assess the
implications to the design if their point solution is incorrect and discuss lessons-learned (technical,
(optional) programmatic and (optional) personal) in their final briefing.
The students struggled with problems that weren't closed-form. Excellent. A great exposure to the real
world problem of aircraft design.
Inconsistency in execution - not sure of the source of this, but a clear set of ground rules at kickoff
along with full-team-level heading checks/reviews always helps by providing perspective on adjacent
tasks.
There appeared to be a general lack of senior direction. Having a student as Program Manager is fine,
but it is incumbent on you to make sure that they don't stray too far down low value paths. There was
way too many failures that consumed valuable time without understanding why it happened and what
the lessons learned were.
30
Everyone should be proud to have taken on the imposing task of trying to recreate what the "Grandfathers" of the
Skunk Works achieved in the Blackbird. Everyone sustained growth in their understanding of the Blackbird (in my
opinion one of the greatest aircraft of all time), their understanding of how to work as a team, how to encapsulate
their learning in a concise final presentation, and how to survive final presentation jitters. Every individual grew as
a result of their participation. They experience a dose of the real world. They, and you, should be proud.
V. Conclusion
The senior design course at the University of Texas at Arlington strives to provide the students with an
educational atmosphere that is as close to the ‘real world’ as possible. By assigning a multi-disciplinary assessment
of such a prominent aircraft as the SR-71, aligning the students to mimic an aerospace corporation in organizational
structure and professional responsibility, they experience a level of exposure not typically found in an educational
setting. The exposure serves to promote engineering proficiency, requiring design synthesis efforts, adequate
analysis, interdisciplinary cooperation, and in some cases compromise.
The capstone students, through performing the above analysis and teamwork, have truly come to appreciate
exactly how difficult such a task can be. The project has been demanding, requiring the students to apply all that
they have learned from their years at the university, towards solving multi-disciplinary problems. The students have
been taught the importance of conducting a detailed literature search to draw from the rich history of accumulated
aerospace knowledge, thereby experiencing the difficulty to determine for themselves what parameters are important
to their specific discipline, then to identify the necessary methods and tools to carry out the analysis, and finally to
see the need for the calibration of their tools at hand leading to a validation of the results.
The students are instructed to justify all results attained throughout the process. In some cases, validation has
been achieved through simple comparison of calculated results to the actual performance of the SR-71 found from
literature. If no actual data for the aircraft was available, data from aircraft of similar characteristics has been used to
provide a basis for correctness. As can be expected, the students struggled with many aspects of this design analysis,
and the results obtained throughout the semester varied in degree of correctness, while still other results were left
un-validated. As with any large class, there are naturally those students who are stronger and those who are weaker
resulting stronger and weaker disciplinary teams as is evident from the depth of analysis performed by some team
members and, in the rarer case, entire teams.
Overall, the students, regardless of results, have experienced an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the
professional process and tools of the trade that awaits them within industry. But one is forced to ask after such an
assignment, where is the set of guidelines which direct the student engineer and practicing engineer through the
design process? Since its inception so many years ago, how many design groups have attempted to re-create, at the
design level, the success of Lockheed’s Skunk Works? Design environments hoping to improve on the great
successes of the past must first be capable of recreating the success themselves to know that they truly have the
product development capability. It has been seen that the abilities of a senior design class make this a difficult task
to accomplish, but what about the aerospace industry today? The following question is apt: Who has really taken the
opportunity to calibrate and validate engineering tools and capabilities against this historic case study? How long
would it take? How difficult would it be?
VI. Application to a Parametric Aircraft Accident Investigation Approach
In 2005, approximately 19 million flight departures took place combining for a total of over 40 million flight
hours2. Numbers for 2006 will undoubtedly be higher than this. One unfortunate certainty that can be drawn from
these figures is that aircraft accidents and incidents are inevitable. No matter how much we might try, something is
going to go wrong eventually. The best anyone can hope for is to minimize the occurrence of accidents and incidents
as much as possible.
For this very reason the National Transportation Safety Board was created. Formed in 1967, their objective is to
promote safety through the investigation of accidents and incidents, “preventing future accidents, saving lives, and
reducing injuries.” Since 2003, the NTSB has investigated more than 4,500 aviation accidents, issuing more than
450 safety recommendations3. In an ideal situation, the NTSB would have the ability to investigate aircraft incidents
31
first, solving the problem before it evolves into an accident situation. But with an investigative force of
approximately 400 employees, the organization stays very busy as it is with its primary focus on accidents, which
are more immanently life threatening3.
What then can be done to bring the investigative focus more toward incidents? One solution would be to increase
the number of employees working at the NTSB in order to facilitate larger investigation capabilities. Perhaps a
better answer can be found among investigative tool development. Accident/incident investigation is a very multi-
disciplinary activity concerning all aspects of aircraft design and operation. By utilizing the proper analysis
environment, the NTSB could increase their potential for carrying out investigations.
With this in mind, the AVD-Lab at the University of Texas at Arlington is currently working toward the
creation of a Parametric Aircraft Accident/Incident Investigation capability within the life-cycle synthesis system
AVDS-PrADO4 (Preliminary Aircraft Design and Optimization) and VATES5 (Virtual Autonomous Test and
Evaluation Simulator). This combined analysis environment is useful not only in aircraft accident/incident
investigations, but also for use in early design stages. In both cases the analysis may be initiated at the design level
where all aircraft design parameters remain “unfrozen”. This allows the aircraft accident/incident investigators a
fully parametric analysis capability in which it is possible to identify ‘down to the spar’ where the aircraft failure
had to occur. Ultimately, a more capable accident and incident analysis may e possible, with quick trade study
capability leading to more informed safety recommendations. Alternatively, this environment provides the
conceptual designer the ability to analyze aircraft design concepts under typical aircraft accident/incident scenarios
that it might face in the future, checking for failures, and modifying the design accordingly.
Sprouting from the Capstone Senior Design SR-71 analysis outlined in this paper, it seems appropriate to utilize
the SR-71 Blackbird as a case study for the proposed Parametric Accident/Incident Investigation presented here. In
1965 during the early stages of flight testing for the SR-71, Lockheed learned that the cruise drag was higher than
was predicted. In an attempt to counteract this adverse affect, a modification was devised which would raise the
nose of the aircraft by about 20, bringing the elevons back into their correct trim position for minimum cruise drag,
making it possible to regain the lost range. However, before the fuselage modification was ready for implementation
on the Blackbird, Lockheed wanted to confirm their range calculations with the elevons in their correct position.
Doing so required that the center of gravity be shifted 2% aft of the aft limit. Calculations performed before the
flight showed that the aircraft would remain safe throughout the flight despite the aft c.g. violation and increased
instability. Unfortunately, through a chain of uncontrollable events, the aircraft experienced a loss of control and
pitch up at M3+ speeds leading to its eventual destruction. It was later discovered that the engine inlets stalled,
unsymmetrical, which further altered the pitching and yawing moments that caused loss of control.6 The scenario
described above will prove to provide an exotic case for the AVD-Lab using the outlined Parametric Aircraft
Accident/Incident Investigation methodology within the AVDS-PrADO synthesis system coupled with VATES.
Acknowledgements
The presented design trade was originally performed and documented by the Aerospace Senior Design Capstone
class of 2005-06 at the University of Texas at Arlington.
References
1. Senior Design Class, “Capstone Senior Design Final Report.” University of Texas at Arlington, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, 11 Aug 1971.
2. Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents- Worldwide Operations 1959-2005. Boeing. Boeing.
3. Rosenker, Mark V. United States. Cong. House. Reauthorization of the National Transportation Safety Board. Washington: GPO, 2006.
4. Chudoba, B., “Managerial Implications of Generic Flight Vehicle Synthesis,” Invited Lecture, New Airplane Product Development, The Boeing Company, Renton, Seattle, 17
December 2004
5. Burdun, Ivan Y. Prediction of Aircraft Safety Performance in Complex Flight Situations. SAE International, Jan. 2003, Siberian Aeronautical Research Institute.
6. Stiliker, Fred, Bob Hoey, and Johnny Armstrong. Flight Testing At Edwards- Flight Test Engineers’ Stories 1946-1975. 190-193.
X.1 Project Manager
7. Anonymous. “A Study of SR-71 Utility for Post-Strike Reconnaissance.” United States Government, 11 Aug 1971.
8. Anonymous. “Black Shield” Air Force Magazine, Jan 1995 Vol. 78, No. 1.
9. Anonymous. “DoD Customer Fuel Prices” United States Government, 2005.
10. Anonymous. “Operating and Support Cost-Estimating Guide” United States Government, May 1992.
11. Anonymous. “The Oxcart Story” Air Force Magazine, Nov 1994 Vol. 77, No. 11.
12. Anonymous. “The Skunk Works Approach to Aircraft Development, Production and Support” Lockheed Martin. Aug 1992.
32
13. Anonymous. “The U-2’s Intended Successor: Project Oxcart, 1956-1968” CIA Working document. Released Oct 1994.
14. Aronstein, David and Piccirillo. “Have Blue and the F-117A: Evolution of the Stealth Fighter” AIAA.
15. Bohn-Myer, Marta. Reply to letter of Paul Crisafulli, Request for SR-71 Weight Statement Aug. 1994.
16. Boren, H.E. “Dapca a Computer Program for Determining Aircraft Development and Production Costs” RAND Corporation, Feb. 1967.
17. Boyne, Walter. “Reconnaissance on the Wing” Air Force Magazine, Oct 1999 Vol. 81, No. 10.
18. Boyne, Walter. “The Early Overflights” Air Force Magazine, June 2001 Vol. 84, No. 6.
19. Burns, Wayne. Aircraft Cost Estimation Methodology and Value of a Pound Derivation for Preliminary Design Development Applications” SAWE No. 2228, May 1994.
20. Cheney, Dick. “SR-71 Program Termination” Memo to Secretary of the Air Force, 21 June 1990.
21. Classified. “Comments to W.R. Thomas III Memorandum to the Director, BOB” Memo to Director of Special Activities, 27 July 1966.
22. Crickmore, P.F. “Lockheed SR-71 - The Secret Missions Exposed” Osprey Aerospace, 1993, pp. 42-67.
23. Dighton, Robert. “The Hornet Program: A Design to Life Cycle Cost Case Study” McDonnell Aircraft Company, Undated.
24. Drendel, L. “SR-71 Blackbird in Action” Squadron/Signal Publications, Aircraft No. 55, 1982.
25. Fischer. “Advanced Reconnaissance Aircraft” Memo to President of United States, 26 Dec 1966.
26. Goodall, J. and Miller, J. “Lockheed’s SR-71 ‘Blackbird’ Family, A-12, F-12, M-21, D-21, SR-71” Aerofax, 2002.
27. Graham, R.H. “SR-71 Revealed The Inside Story” Motorbooks International, 1996.
28. Harris, H.F., Huie E. “Balanced Design – Minimum Cost Solution” Northrop Corporation, Undated.
29. Head Quarters Strategic Air Command. “History of SAC Reconnaissance Operations: 1978, 1979, and 1980” 1 June 1982.
30. Hess, R.W. Romanoff, H.P. “Aircraft Airframe Cost Estimation Relationships” RAND Corporation, Dec. 1987.
31. Jenkins, Dennis.” Lockheed SR71/YF-12 Blackbirds” Warbird Tech Series Vol. 10.
32. Johnson, C.L. “Some Development Aspects of the YF-12A Interceptor Aircraft” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 7, No. 4, July-Aug. 1970, pp. 355-359.
33. Johnson, C.L. and Smith, Maggie. “Kelly: More Than My Share of It All” Smithsonian Books, 1985.
34. Lamar, William. “The Role of Preliminary Design in Reducing Development and Operational Costs of Aircraft Systems” USAF Flight Dynamics Lab, Undated.
35. Ledford, Jack. “Bureau of the Budget Recommendations for the Oxcart Program” Memo to Director of Central Intelligence, 16 Nov 1965.
36. Lynn, William. Under Sec. Of Defense. Reply to letter of Norman Dicks. 21 Aug 1998.
37. McIninch, Thomas. “Oxcart Story” Government document # DON: SC-86-010115.
38. National Photographic Interpretation Center. “Black Shield Mission BX6723” 17 Sept 1967.
39. Pace, S. “Lockheed Skunk Works” Motorbooks International, 1992, pp. 153-218.
40. Parker, James. “Mission Requirements and Aircraft Sizing” AIAA-86-2622, Oct. 1986.
41. Rainey, James. “Metrics Handbook for Maintenance Leaders” USAF Logistics Agency, Dec. 2001.
42. Rich, B.R, “The Skunk Works Management Style – It’s No Secret” AIAA-88-4516. 1988.
43. Rich, B.R. “F-12 Series Aircraft Aerodynamic and Thermodynamic Design in Retrospect” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 11, No. 7, July 1974, pp. 401-406.
44. Rich, B.R. and Janos, Leo. “Skunk Works” Little, Brown and Company, New York, 1994.
45. Roskam, Jan. “Airplane Design Vol. VIII – Airplane Cost Estimation: Design, Development, Manufacturing and Operating” Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation, 1990.
46. Roskam, Jan. “Understanding Cost” Lecture Notes, May 1986.
47. Senate Conference Report. “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 and Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995” Page S12710, 12 Sept
1994.
48. Smith, Howard, Woodford, Spencer. “The Minimization of Combat Aircraft Life Cycle Cost Through Conceptual Design Optimization” SAE, 1998.
49. Thornborough, A. and Davies, P. “Lockheed Blackbirds” Motorbooks International.
50. Vance, C. “SR-71 Plans” Memo to Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; Director, National Reconnaissance Office, 9 May 1967.
51. Warnke, Paul. Deputy Sec. Of Defense. Reply to letter of Donald Hornig. 11 Nov 1967.
52. Wickel, Klaus. “Design to Cost and Systems’ LCC” IABG, Undated.
53. Wilson, Jim. “O&S Cost Analysis” Institute for Defense Analysis, Jun. 2004.
54. Woodford, Spencer. “The Minimization of Combat Aircraft Life Cycle Cost Through Conceptual Design Optimization” Ph.D. Thesis, 1999.
55. Zabka, Werner. “Design to Cost. Design to Life Cycle Cost” MBB, 1985.
X.2 Chief Engineer
1. http://www.darcorp.com. Accessed on May 4th 2006.

2. Lambert, M. (Ed.), (1992), Jane’s All The World’s Aircraft, 1974-75 Edition, London: Butler and Tanner, Ltd.
3. Raymer, Daniel P. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 3rd Ed, AIAA, Reston, VA. 1999.
4. Roskam, Jan. Airplane Design. Part 1: Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes. Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation. Kansas. 1989.
5. Roskam, Jan. Airplane Design. Part V: Component Weight Estimation. Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation. Kansas. 1989.
X.3 Aerodynamics
1. Raymer, Daniel P. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach. 3rd ed. AIAA Education Series. 1999.
2. Roskam, Jan. Airplane Design—Part VI: Preliminary Calculation of Aerodynamic, Thrust, and Power Characteristics. DARcorporation. 2004.
3. Huang, Xiao, Bernd Chudoba, Gary Coleman. A Generic Hands-On Conceptual Design Methodology Applied to a Tourist Space Access Vehicle. The University of Texas at
Arlington. 2006.
4. Rich, Ben R. F-12 Series Aircraft Aerodynamic and Thermodynamic Design in Retrospect. AIAA Journal of Aircraft, vol. 11, no. 7. July 1974.
5. Aart, Dick van der, Aerial Espionage, Arco/Prentice Hall Press, New York, 1985.
6. Anonymous, “Case Studies in Engineering- The SR-71A” Lockheed Martin, 1990-91.
7. Scallion, William I. Low-Speed Investigation of the Effects of Nacelles on the Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristic of a 60° Swetptback Delta-wing – Fuselage Combination
with NACA 65A003 Airfoil Sections. NACA RM-L52F04. 1952.
8. Anderson, John D. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill. 2001.
9. Hoerner, Sighard F., Fluid Dynamics Lift, Mrs. Liselotte A. Hoerner, Brick Town, 1985.
10. Polhamus, Edward C.: A Concept of the Cortex Lift of Sharp-Edge Delta Wings Based on a Leading-Edge-Suction Analogy. NASA TN D-3767, 1966.
11. Polhamus, Edward C. “Predictions of Vortex-Lift Characteristics by a Leading-Edge Suction Analogy,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 8, No. 4, April 1971, pp 193.
12. Wentz, W.H. and Kohlman D.L.“Vortex Breakdown on Slender Sharp Edge Wings,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 8, No.3.
13. SR-71A Fight Manual.
14. Hoerner, S.F., 1992, Fluid-Dynamic Drag, Hoerner Fluid Dynamics, Bakersfield, CA, .
15. Horie, T., Fujii, K., and Hattori, N., 2002, "Towards the Improvements in Reliability of Delta Wing and Double-Delta Wing Flow Simulations," Special Publication of National
Aerospace Laboratory, SP-53pp. January 31, 2006-109-114.
16. Lockheed Advanced Development Company, 1991, "Course Ae107 Case Studies in Engineering The SR-71 Blackbird," D. Urie and H. Homung, eds. The Graduate Aeronautical
Laboratories California Institute of Technology.
17. The USAF Stability and Control DATCOM, Volume I, Users Manual. McDonnel Douglas Astronautics Company, St. Louis, MO. 1999.
18. Ulmann, Edward F. and Mitchel H. Bertram. Aerodynamic Characteristics of Low-Aspect Ratio Wings at High Supersonic Mach Numbers. NACA RM-A53A30. 1953.
19. Anonymous, 2000, "Development of the SR-71 Aircraft - A Pioneering Accomplishment," pp. 51.
X.4 Propulsion
1. Anonymous, “SR-71A Flight Manual”, Lockheed Martin

2. Anonymous, “Case Studies in Engineering- The SR-71A” Lockheed Martin, 1990-91
3. Bilstein, Roger E., Testing Aircraft, Exploring Space: an illustrated history of NACA and NASA, pp110-111, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003
4. Corda, Stephen, Timothy R. Moes, Masashi Mizukami, Neal E. Hass, Daniel Jones, Richard C. Monaghan, Ronald J. Ray, Michele L. Jarvis, and Nathan Palumbo, The SR-71 Test
Bed Aircraft: A Facility for High-Speed Flight Research, NASA TP-2000-209023, June 2000.
5. Whitford, Ray., “Design for Air Combat,” Jane’s, London, 1987
6. Huenecke, Klaus., “Modern Conbat Aircraft Design”, Airlife Publishing Ltd., England, 1987
7. Raymer, Daniel P., “Aircraft Design: Conceptual Approach,” 3rd Ed, AIAA Education Series, Renton, VA, 1999
8. Ricco, Philippe., “The Heart of the SR-71 ‘Blackbird’: The mighty J-58 engine,” www.aerostories.org
9. Mattingly, D. Jack., “Elements of Gas Turbine Propulsion,” McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1996
10. Chudoba, B., “Flight Dnynamics for Aircraft Sizing: A-12 / YF-12 / SR-71 Blackbird”
11. Jane's Information Group. “Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1965-66.” 1966.
33
17. Jane's Information Group. “Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1992-93.” 1993
18. Milton, B., “World Jet Fuel Specifications with Avgas Supplement.” Exxon Mobile, 2005.
19. Urie, D., Homung, H., and Germain, P., “Course Ae 107: Case Studies in Engineering The SR-71 Blackbird”, Lockheed Advanced Development Company and The Graduate
Aeronautical Laboratories of California Institute of Technology, 1990-1991
20. Anderson, John, “Fundamentals of Aerodynamics”, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2001NASA SR-71 Testbeds
X.5 CAD
1. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia., Computer-Aided Design, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAD
2. Goodall, James, SR-71 Blackbird, Squadron/Signal Publications, Carrollton, 1995
3. SR-71A Flight Manual, Unclassified 1992
4. Crickmore, Paul F., Lockheed SR-71, The Secret Missions Exposed, Osprey, London, 1993
5. Goodall, James and Miller, Jay, Lockheed’s SR-71 ‘Blackbird’ Family, Midland Publishing, England, 2002
6. Miller, Jay, Lockheed’s Skunk Works, The First Fifty Years, Aerofax, Arlington, 1993
7. Smith, W.H., The World’s Greatest Stealth and Reconnaissance Aircraft, Aerospace Publishing, Hong Kong, 1991
8. SR-71 Blackbird In Action, Squadron/Signal Publications, Carrollton, 1982
9. Jenkins, Dennis R., Warbird Tech Series Vol. 10, Lockheed SR-71/YF-12 Blackbirds, Specialty Press Publishers and Wholesalers, North Branch, 1997
10. Urie, David and Hornung, Hans, Course Ae107 Case Studies in Engineering The AR-71 Blackbird, Lockheed Advanced Development Company, California, 1991.
11. Staubach, Brent J., Multidisciplinary Design Optimization, MDO, the Next Frontier of CAD/CAE in the Design of Aircraft Propulsion Systems, AIAA 2003-2803, Pratt &
Whitney, East Hartford, 2003.
12. Bowcutt, Kevin G., A Perspective on The Future of Aerospace Vehicle Design, AIAA 2003-6957, The Boeing Company, Huntington Beach, 2003.
13. Nemec, Marian and Aftosmis, Michael J., and Puliam, Thomas H., CAD-Based Aerodynamic Design of Complex Configurations Using a Cartesian Method, AIAA 2004-0113,
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, 2004.
14. Taylor, John W. R., ed.: Jane's All the World's Aircraft, 1966-67 (McGraw-Hill Book Co., c. 1966).
15. American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition, Ray Wagner, Doubleday, 1982.
16. Post World War II Bombers, Marcelle Size Knaack, Office of Air Force History, 1988.
17. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989.
18. Convair B-58 Hustler: The World's First Supersonic Bomber, Jay Miller, Aerofax, 1997.
19. http://www.aviation-history.com/convair/b58.html Aviation History Online Museum
20. Robinson, Douglas H. The B-58 Hustler New York: Arco Publishing Company, Inc., 1967.
21. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia., B-58 Hustler, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-58
22. Loftin, Lawrence K., Quest for Performance: The Evolution of Modern Aircraft, NASA SP-468, 1985. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/cover.htm
23. Convair B-58 Hustler, http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b58_2.html
24. Wagner, Ray: American Combat Planes, third enlarged ed. (Doubleday & Co., 1982).
25. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/b58/ (3view schematic)
26. Donald, David, ed. The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft. NY: Barnes & Noble, 1997, p. 272, Convair (Model 4) B-58 Hustler.
27. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-58-fc.htm
X.6 Structures
1. Raymer, Daniel P., “Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach”, 3rd ed., American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. Reston, Virginia, 1999.
2. Roskam, Jan, “Airplane Design Part V: Component Weight Estimation”, DARcorporation, Lawrence, Kansas, 2003.
3. Miller, Jay, “Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works”, Midland Publishing Ltd., Leicester, England, 1995.
4. Sun, C.T., “Mechanics of Aircraft Structures”, A Wiley-Interscience Publication John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1998.
5. Niu, Michael C.Y., “Airframe Structural Design”, 2nd ed., Hong Kong Conmilit Press Ltd., Hong Kong, 2002.
6. Bruhn, E. F.,” Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures”, Jacobs Publishing, Inc., Carmel, Indiana, 1973.
7. “Group Weight Statement”, 1966. (SR71WtStmt.pdf)
8. Taube, L.J., “B-70 Aircraft Study Final Report Volume 1”, North American Rockwell, 1972. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19950002358_1995102358.pdf
9. Jenkins, Dennis R., and Landis, Tony R., “Valkyrie: North American’s Mach 3 superbomber”, Specialty press, North Branch, Minnesota, 2004.
10. Hibbeler, R. C., “Mechanics of Materials”, 5th ed., Prentice Hall Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersey, 2003.
11. “SR-71A Flight Manual”, Lockheed Martin.
12. http://www.enginehistory.org/p&w_j58.htm
13. Merlin, P.W., “Sr-71 Blackbird,” Advanced Materials and Processes, May, 2003. p.27-29. 1989
14. Goodall, J., Miller, J. “Cygnus, Fish, Gusto, Kingfish, Oxcart, Oxcart A-12,” Lockheed’s Sr-71 ‘Blackbird’ Family. Midland Publishing, Hinckley, England, 2002, p. 20.
15. Goodall, J., Miller, J. “Pratt & Whitney JT11D/J58 Bleed Bypass Turbojet Engine,” Lockheed’s Sr-71 ‘Blackbird’ Family. Midland Publishing, Hinckley, England, 2002, pp. 91-98.
16. Paul, D. D. Pratt, “History of Flight Vehicle Structures 1903-1990,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 41, No. 5, Sept-Nov 2004, p. 969.
17. http://www.efunda.com/materials/alloys/titanium/show_titanium.cfm?ID=T25_BA&prop=all&Page_Title=Ti-13V-11Cr-3Al
18. http://www.efunda.com/materials/alloys/alloy_home/show_alloy_found.cfm?ID=T18_AB&prop=all&Page_Title=%20Metal%20Alloys%20Keyword%20Search%20Results
19. http://www.espimetals.com/tech/rene41.pdf
20. http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/lockheed_sr71.htm
21. http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/
22. http://www.af.mil/history/aircraft_print.asp?storyID=123006569
23. Spick, Mike (ed.), The Great Book of Modern Warplanes, MBI Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, 2000, pp. 318, 327.
24. Grant, R.G., and The Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum, Flight 100 Year of Aviation, DK Publishing, Inc., New York, 2002, pp. 290, 291.
34
25. “Case Studies in Engineering – The SR-71A”, Lockheed Martin, 1990-91.
X.7 Systems
1. Lombardo, David, Advance Aircraft Systems, TAB Books, 1993

2. Frank P. Incopera and Davi P. DeWitt, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer 4th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1996
3. Lockheed Advanced Development Company and The graduate Aeronautical Laboratories, California Institute of Technology, Case Study in Engineering The SR -71 Blackbird,
California, USA, Spring term academic year 1990 -1991
4. Torenbeek, Egbert, Synthesis of Subsonic airplane design, Delft University Press, 1976
5. Roskam, Jan, Airplane Design, Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation, 1986
6. W.L. Green, Aircraft Hydraulic System, An Intoduction to the Analysis of Systems and Components, John Wiley & Sons, 1985
7. Chudoba, Bernd, 600 PASSENGER LONG RANGE AIRLINER A94, RELIABILITY AND MAINTANABILITY DESIGN, Cranfield University, 1995
8. Unknown, SR -71 Pilot’s Flight Manual
9. Seabridge Allan and Moir Ian, DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS, AN INTRODUCTION, AIAA Education Series, 2004
10. Bennett, Christopher. SR -71 Maintenance (July 1984 – December 1989), http://www.blackbirds.net/u2/c_bennett/bbird-03.html
11. The Definitive Concorde Aircraft Site on the Internet, http://www.concordesst.com/
12. Unknown, XB -70 Valkyrie Strategic Bomber 3 views profiles
13. Chudoba, Bernd. Reliability Engineering in Aircraft Design, The University of Oklahoma, USA, October 25th 2004.
14. Lloyd E & Tye W, Aircraft Systematic Safety
15. Chudoba, Bernd. Maintanence in Aircraft Design, The University of Oklahoma, USA, October 25th 2004.
16. Unknown, http://www.flight-manuals-on-cd.com, 2001
17. North American Rockwell, B -70 Aircraft Final report, April 1972
X.8 Stability and Control
1. Chudoba, Bernd. “Flight Dynamics for Aircraft Sizing”.

1. 2. Haynes, Leland. SR-71 Blackbirds. http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/sr- 71~1.htm.
2. Jenkins, Dennis R. SR-71/YF-12 Blackbirds. Specialty Press Publishers and Wholesalers. North Branch, MN. 1997.
3. Kucher, Paul R. SR-71 Online: An Online Aircraft Museum. <http://www.sr-71.org/>.
4. Lockheed Martin. 8 Feb. 2006 <http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fnec&ti=100>.
5. Moes, Timothy R., and Kenneth Iliff. Stability and Control Estimation Flight Test Results for the SR-71 Aircraft with Externally Mounted Experiments. NASA Dryden Flight
Research Center. Edwards: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2002
6. NASA (Dryden Flight Research Center), <http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Movie/YF-12/HTML/EM-0041-02.html>.
7. Nelson, Robert C, Flight Stability and Automatic Control 3nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998
8. Raymer, Daniel P. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach Third Edition, AIAA, Reston, 1999.
9. Roskam, Jan. Aircraft Design Part VII, DARcorporation, Lawrence, 2002.
10. Roskam, Jan. Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls PartI, DARcorporation, Lawrence, 2003.
11. Anderson, J. D. Introduction to Flight, McGraw-Hill, 1999. Hoak, D.E., et al, USAF Stability and Control Datcom, Flight Control Division, Air Force Flight Dynamics laboratory,
WPAPB, Ohio, 45433-0000, 1978, revised.
12. SR-71 Pilot’s Manual, http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/
13. David Urie, Hans Hornung, and Patrick Germain, Course Ae107 CaseStudies in Engineering The SR-71 Blackbird, 1991.
14. Roskam, Jan., Airplane Design Part VI Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation, Kansas, 1987.
X.9 Performance
1. “SR-71 Online - Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird” Paul R. Kucher http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/sr-71. 1 February 2006
2. Merlin, Peter “SR-71 Blackbird”. Advanced Materials and Processes. May 2003 pp. 27-29.
3. Naval Flight Test Manual
4. Miller, Jay Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works. Voyageur Press, 1996.
5. Pamadi, Bandu N. Performance, Stability, Dynamics, and Control of Airplanes. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. Reston, VA, 1998.
6. Phillips, Warren. Mechanics of Flight. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New Jersey, 2004.
7. Waitz, Ian “Unified Lecture #2: The Breguet Range Equation”. Fall 2003
8. Anderson Jr, D. John, Introduction to Flight, 5th edition, Mc Graw Hill Higher education New York, 2005
9. Raymer, P.Daniel ., Aircraft Design: Conceptual Approach, 3rd Ed, AIAA Education Series, Sylmar, California, 1999
10. “SR-71 Flight Manual”
11. Nangia, R.K., Palmer, M.E., et al. “Towards Design of Long-Range Supersonic Military Aircraft” AIAA 2004-5071.
12. Roskam, Jan. AIRPLANE DESIGN Part VII: Determination of Stability, Control and Performance Characteristics: FAR and Military Requirements. Vol. VII. Ottawa, Kansas:
Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation, 1988.
13. Mattingly, Jack D. Elements of Gas Turbine Propulsion. Reston, Virginia: McGraw-Hill, 1996.
---------- o0o ----------
35

The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird - A Senior Capstone Re-Engineering Experience

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird - A Senior Capstone Re-Engineering Experience

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit AIAA 2007-698

8 - 11 January 2007, Reno, Nevada

The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird –

The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, 76019-0018

AVD = Aerospace Vehicle Design

A. Capstone Design Approach

In industry we do witness fewer new-

II. SR-71 Senior Capstone Design Project Description

B. Why Choose the SR-71?

C. Overall Project Approach

SR-71 Capstone • Aerodynamics

1. Objectives and Deliverables

• Facilitate interdisciplinary group interaction

Fig. 3-1 Example of Project Management time planning

Mission profile assumptions:

1. Objectives and Deliverables

Luckily a document was obtained detailing the operational cost of

Table 3-1 details the same information as the figure as well as

Table 3-1 Operations Cost Data in “Then Year Dollars”

Sr-71 UE Aircraft and Costs ($ Millions 2005 dollars )

CRDTE C ACQ COPS CDISP

1. Objectives and Deliverables

• Creation of a SR-71 Geometry Reference Manual

SR-71 CAD Model

SR-71 Reference Manual

• Aircraft Overview- Contains Main Data Sheet

Fig. 3-6 Rhino CAD Model, Martin Hepperle of

1. Objectives and Deliverables

1. Lift: CL vs. α, CLα

1.2 Flight Manual M = 2.5

Fig. 3-13 DATCOM lift curve compared to actual SR-71A lift

Normal Force [lb]

Normal Forces - Case 2

Normal Force [lb]

Drag Polar and L/D Ratio

Fig. 3-16 Drag Polar at specified Mach numbers obtained

Aerodynamic Center and Center of Pressure

E. SR-71 – Stability and Control

1. Objectives and Deliverables

The Stability and Control team consisted

1. Quantification and Comparison of

Static Stability Analysis

As a validation of these results, other members of the team

Dynamic Stability Analysis

Table 3-7 Stability derivatives and desired criteria8-10

Table 3-8 SR-71 Static stability derivatives throughout mission profile

Roskam Criteria Deceleration Landing

Table 3-11 Dynamic stability results

1. Objectives and Deliverables

information, the team then located the center of

gravity of the SR-71. To determine its location, all

Fig. 3-21 Actual and calculated C.G. locations

Table 3-12 shows the resulting component weights for the

2 analysis matched up decently for most of the range.

diagram for the SR-71. No direct validation was available

Fig. 3-22 V-n diagram for supersonic cruise

1. SR-71 engine familiarization

Gas Generator Analysis

Inlet mass flow

Inlet mass flow

Table 3-13 Uninstalled Thrust vs. Free

1. Objectives and Deliverables

Fuel System Analysis