Talk:Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive page through 2005.

RADAR

Is the all-caps spelling a bit antiquated? it hurts my eyes.

Well you can see Radar that 'RADAR is an acronym for RAdio Detection And Ranging or Radio Angle Detection And Ranging'. While it could go either way, its best to be proper - and if your eyes hurt from caps, you may want to look into glasses or a better screen. - ShakataGaNai - 18:17 UTC-08, 2005-10-03

Perhaps, but radar was long ago adopted as a bona fide word in the english lexicon. By the same reasoning would you write LASER instead of laser? Radar is even given the standard (non-caps) spelling in the Radar wiki, except to emphasize its acronym etymology. Do a google lookup if you don't believe me, or check a dictionary (m-w.com). I won't argue on the existence of general rules on the capitalization of acronyms (which you seem to presume), but I think common usage weighs pretty heavily in this case.

I concur, the all caps format should only be used when emphasizing the acronym etymology. Otherwise, radar is the way to go. -Lommer | ^talk 21:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

If you read the discussion from the above mentioned wiki, they agree to capitalize the acronym - "..As such, it should be 'RADAR' not 'radar'". Regardless, you have made the presumption that by merely becoming a familiar word in American English, an acronym automatically becomes "a bona fide word" in other languages, let alone other English speaking countries. Wikipedia, in my opinion, is a global, electronic medium for exchanging knowledge and attempting to standardize the capitalization of an acronym on a scale this large would be as useful as a installing a turning signal on a space shuttle. Since the author is the one who must define the audience, let the author decide the proper course. Besides, we are talking about the SR-71 Blackbird here...Lockheed...Skunkworks...with most of its technology and capabilities still being classified and you want to discuss the subjective commonality of the acronym RADAR?

You comment about the acronym not being a "bona fide word" in other languages that aren't English. You seem to be forgetting that you are reading a Wikipedia entry in the *English* section, and that there are other sections of Wikipedia for other languages. Also, contrary to popular belief, the SR-71 is no longer classified as you claim. Its performance specifications and operations manual have all been declassified. You can even download the Dash-1 manual (the users manual) publicly on the internet. 66.68.158.168 13:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Radar, just like the word laser, which also used to be an acronym has entered the English language as a word. This is emphasised by the fact that my fairly old version (1994) of the Paperback OED doesn't even list what the acronym radar stands for. Its a word now, once upon a time it was an acronym. No need for caps as previously pointed out. --LiamE 03:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Um... what? -User:Lommer | ^talk 19:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Missing info?

I'm just wondering why no one has mentioned how the Blackbird was tested at Groom along with other jets such as Have Blue, and the U-2. It is kind of important and if you look under the Groom Lake article in Wikipedia there is a mention about it, given the amount of construction that the base underwent to prepare for it. Another this that is never mentioned is how it could not really turn at all. While you mention the standard prcedure to dodge missles was to speed up, it is not mentioned that it was ahrd for the plane to dive.

Comments re. the last two sentences above

The Blackbird turned very smoothly and well. Standard turns were made at 30 degrees of bank ( with a nominal radius of turn of 74 nm at mach 3.0 cruise ) and at times higher when mission constraints required tighter turns to stay out of politically sensitive areas not planned for coverage on a particular sortie. Turns however used more fuel and the rule of thumb was for every degree of turn you lost one nautical mile of range. Thus, turning was not a desired evasive action tactic. By entering a "target area" at mach 3.0 and then accelerating to mach 3.2 and climbing if a missile was launched compounded the SAM Guidance problems. Now the missile had to follow a changing "pursuit curve" which created more drag and use of missile propellent. The result was the missile would be behind the Blackbird and often "out of fuel" before it reached a correct interception altitude. Tracking cameras on board the Blackbird would show the missile contrails coming up and falling back and behind well below the Blackbird. We crewmembers "loved" seeing those pictures after a sorties film was developed and viewed.

David Dempster 01:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Designation confusion

I disagree with this recent addition to the page: "Note that while never intended for the bomber role, the -71 designation comes from the sequence used for bombers pre-1962, perhaps as a disinformation strategy". It is known that for a long time the US was working on a bomber variant of the SR-71, and that's probably why the -71 designation was used. This page has some info : [1]. It also clears up another question - namely that the A-12 was a predeccessor to the SR-71. However, as it is classed as a different aircraft, I would reccomend leaving the first flight date unchanged (possibly create another page for the A-12?) -lommer 21:17, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Copyright of text

The text is taken directly from the USAF museum Web page at http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf35.htm

Presumably it's public domain, but shouldn't we credit it as the source at least, while the text is still referring to the plane on exhibit at the Museum?

It might also be somewhat economic with the truth. David Darlington's "Dreamland Chronicles" and several sites on the net claim an A-12 Oxcart flew at Groom in 1962. I think Ben Rich's "Skunkworks" makes a similar assertion (can't lay hands on a copy right now). Given that (at the level of detail we're talking about here) A-12 and SR-71 are essentially the same, if someone can verify my dates in "Skunkworks" then we should bump the "first-flight" date on the page back to 1962 from 1964. Finlay McWalter 11:53, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that most of the airframe is constructed from titanium to allow it to better withstand the heat caused by air friction.

I don't think the info is public domain at all, read this (the bolding is mine), pasted from the Museum site:

"Information presented on the USAF Museum web site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied after coordination with the Museum's Public Affairs and/or Research Division. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested -- we suggest:

"Photos/Information courtesy of the US Air Force Museum".

Department of Defense organizations may use web site material on official organizational pages without prior approval of the Museum staff. However, we'd appreciate a brief email describing the use for our records."

So it seems the user has to apply for permission to use material. Until that is done the material should probably be removed.

Adrian Pingstone 12:39, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

They seem to be claiming in an admitted attempt to save business for their museum that the content is not public domain because it was written by volunteer, not government employees which would make it copyright free. The text is hardly more than a list of facts which we have already altered and added to. The picture is copyright free from a different source. Rmhermen 13:57, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

I just read the texts side-by-side and while there are additions, large blocks of the text are unaltered from the museum. Rmhermen 14:13, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Are SR-71 and A-12 Variants or Different Airplanes?

Similar to the SR-71 were the A-11 and A-12 which were prototypes for the Blackbird, and the YF-12 which was an attempt to convert the SR-71 into a long range fighter.

This statement is untrue. The A-12 was not a prototype of SR-71. In fact, the military had to pick between the A-12 and the SR-71 due to budget reasons. A-12 lost the race. Three of the retired A-12s were converted to YF-12 interceptors and only one SR-71 was converted to a YF-12C. Kowloonese

I don't know about the latter part, but it looks like you're thinking of the McDonnell-Douglas A-12 Avenger II, while this article refers to the Lockheed A-12. Niteowlneils 02:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was referring to the Lockheed A-12 which looks like the SR-71 with different mission and flight characteristics. One was a CIA spyplane and the other was a Air Force attacker. By the way, wikipedia is lacking a separate article of the A-12 blackbird currently redirected to YF-12 which is also of different designs. Kowloonese 23:16, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Origin of the SR- prefix

The Area 51 article alleges that the SR-71 was initially named the RS-71 and that the name was changed after the then-president blundered and mixed up the letters when announcing the plane. Is this true? Anyone care to verify and add to the article? -Lommer | ^talk 09:29, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is true. RS stands for reconnaissance. The is no other plane with an SR designation. --Ctrl build^talk 15px| 20:44, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is the story told by Ben Rich in the book "Skunk Works". Now, however, our article says that Curtis LeMay renamed it. That sounds plausible, but I've never heard of it before; can we get a source on *that* story?  :-)

The debunking of the Lyndon Johnson/SR-71 renaming myth was first reported in Aviation Week & Space Technology (Feb. 12, 2001, p. 25) by USAF Col. (ret.) Richard Graham, with further clarification by James T. Fulton in the March 19, 2001 issue. Only current subscribers can see AW&ST's archives, but Fulton's clarification is available via archive.org:

[2]

The Designation-Systems.Net website offers a good summary of the findings:

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/nonstandard-mds.html#_MDS_SR71

Egan Loo 17:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The following was added to the article on 2005.09.14 by 24.16.105.31 [later identified as David P. Dempster, Colonel, USAF Retired (Wikipedia User: David Dempster )]:

The A-12 Oxcart was the original aircraft and designed for the CIA by Kelly Johnson and the Lockheed Skunkworks. In some references, you may find the term "Archangel" used as an internal Lockheed name for the design, but Kelly was fond of simple, straight talk; he referred to the Oxcart as the "Article". Thus, as the design evolved, the internal Program name went from A-1 to A-11 as configuration changes occured. The A-11 was the first to fly as a test vehicle and was equipped with lessor powered J-75 engines, as the P & W J-58's being developed for the Oxcart were delayed. When the J-58's finally arrived at the "Ranch" (Groom Lake's Area 51) and were installed as the 12th configuration change, the Article was renumbered the A-12, the number it retained into production and operational usage. 18 were built, of which 3 were converted into YF-12A's, prototypes of the planned F-12 interceptor version.

The Air Force Reconnaissance version was to be simply called the R-12 ( see the opening fly page in Paul Crickmoore's book "SR-71, Secret Missions Revealed" which contains a copy of the original R-12 labeled plan view drawing of the vehicle ). Recall however, that during the 1964 Goldwater-Johnson Presidential campaign, Senator Goldwater continuously criticized President Johnson, and the incumbent Government of falling behing the Soviet Union in our own Research and Development of new weapon systems. President Johnson decided on his own to counter this criticism with the release to the public ( and world ) of the highly classified A-12 Program. After doing so, he further decided to announce the existence of the Reconnaissance version. At that juncture, the XB-70 Bomber Program had been renamed as the RS-70 ( Reconnaissance-Strike ) Program with two test vehicles flying at Edwards AFB, California. President Johnson, and a speech writer, added a "one" to the 70 creating "71" and announced the existence of the SR-71 Program ( Strategic Reconnaissance ). Shock spread throughout the Skunkworks and those Air Force cleared personnel because at this time all of the then printed Maintenance Manuals, Flight Crew Handbooks ( the source of Paul Crickmoore's page ), training vufoils, slides and materials were all labeled "R-12" ( The 18 June, 1965 dated Cerificate of Completion issued by the Skunkworks to the first Air Force Flight Crews and their Wing Commander are labeled: "R-12 Flight Crew Systems Indoctrination, Course VIII" and signed by Jim Kaiser, Training Supervisor and Clinton P. Street, Manager, Flight Crew Training Department ). However, when the Commander-In-Chief speaks, all salute and immediately republishing began of new documents, training aids, etc. now all titled "SR-71".

May one of us get independent verification of these various statements before including them into the article? Thanks! Egan Loo 17:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

A quick google for david dempster reveals that he indeed was a Reconnaissance Systems Officer ( RSO ) in the SR-71 program, and actually the above account agrees in almost every respect with all of our sources. Also see the XB-70 page for corroborative information. With a bit of reworking and trimming, it can be very encyclopaedic, and I've therefore readded it to the article. -Lommer | ^talk 19:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with the re-inclusion of Col. David Dempster's entry into the article. I was cautious at first because the entry was initially written from an anonymous account (24.16.105.31) and it also inadvertently removed some previous material (notably, Curtis Le May's involvement in the SR-71's designation). David Dempster now has an account, which is why this Talk page had an edit under his name instead of 24.16.105.31. I'll go ahead and help incorporate the previously removed text with the new material. (As I wrote in your user discussion page, welcome to Wikipedia, Col. Dempster. It is an honor, and I hope you contribute much and often.) Egan Loo 21:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

this is a comment about the statments under (details)

The article states that the aircraft panels were installed (essentially loose) that is wrong. As an SR-71 Machinist I removed and installed thousands of fasteners on the SR-71, '''''Those screws are tight.''''' The screws are made of titanium as well as the structure and both have the same thermal expansion characteristics. Also the article states that (creases would form in the skin due to the heat of flight) In 10 years at Beale AFB as a Chief Metals Technologist (Machinist / Welder) I never seen anyone take a blow torch to an SR-71. If I did I would have recomended punitive action under the UCMJ. I have seen slight warpage due to the heat, but that was normal and I've seen this happen to other aircraft as well, it is quite common. A titanium panel would probably crack before it accually creased.

The above edit was anonymous, but I found it convincing, so I decided to be bold and remove the statements about creasing and the blowtorch, and added a "supposedly" to the statement about looseness. Tempshill 06:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yet: "I remember when a new pilot floying the SR-71 for the first time out of Beale began shouting "Mayday, Mayday" over Salt Lake City. "My nose is coming off!" My God, we all panicked and cranked out all the emergency vehicles. The guy aborted, staggered back to Beale. All that really happened was that the airplane's nose wrinkled from the heat. The skin always did that. The crew smoothed it out using a blowtorch. It was just like ironing a shirt." (Skunk Works, p. 243, Colonel Jim Wadkins, Blackbird pilot)

3-seater version?

A friend of mine who worked as a maintenance crewman at England AFB, LA told me the following:

In 71' a Blackbird made an emergency landing at England AFB. The plane was quickly taxied into a sealed maintenance hangar. THREE spacesuited officers emerged out of THREE seperate compartments with doors that hinged up. Two were Majors and one was a Colonel. My friend said he went up the stairs to the cockpits to get a look inside, he again confirmed THREE seats, the third being just in front of the mid-air refueling intake.

I was the pilot of the mission that landed at England Air Force Base. The only other crewmember with me was "Red" Mc Neer, my RSO. There was no 3rd seat...and never was. At that time, I was the SR-71/YF-12A Test Director at Edwards AFB. "Red" and I were over the Gulf of Mexico, enroute to the Eglin Range for a test mission when the accessory drive on one engine failed and caused the failure of one electrical system, one flight control hydraulic system and one utility hydraulic system. The emergency procedure required that we land ASAP and England AFB was the nearest suitable place to land. Only TWO spacesuited officers emerged out of TWO separate compartments...TRUST ME! Lt. General Bill Campbell

Noone mentions a 3-seater Blackbird anywhere, all models were 2-seaters. But the YF-12C was mentioned as the prototype for the SR-71A, and as having a second cockpit added, which plus the RSO cockpit would make three cockpits no? NASA obtained the YF-12C from the Air Force in 72' at which time again only 2 cockpits were present, i believe that by this time, the 3rd cockpit had been replaced with electronics and the star tracker navigation system. --Gunter 22:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment Note: No. The space for the "back seater" in the YF-12 was the same basic space used for the RSO in the SR-71. The Astro-Inertial Navigation System (ANS) was installed in all of the test and production SR-71's ( 1964 and on ). No Blackbird had three cockpits.

David Dempster 16:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I once saw some footage on the Discovery Channel of an SR-71 that had what I can only describe as a "piggy-back cockpit," and it was quite possibly one of the ugliest birds I've ever seen, ruined the legendary Blackbird Aesthetic. I could have sworn it was still a two-seater, but I may be wrong. It may have been an earlier prototype or a decoy of some kind. I'm not even entirely sure that that model was ever operational. And I looked up the coordinates of Beale Air Force Base, and from the satellite photos it just looked like a bunch of houses. It may be a combination decoy base/administrative & disinformation center for 9th Recon. My dad was an X-Ray tech at Beale, and we lived on base, and I never saw any planes there, not even the usual decorative pieces like the ones I saw at other AFBs like Lackland AFB in San Antonio. I remember my dad telling me they flew spy planes at Beale, but I never saw one in person, and neither did my dad. TheTizzleator 05:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Was it the trainer version of A-12 Oxcart? Triddle 00:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment Note: Two SR-71B's and the SR-71C had a raised Instructor Pilot cockpit in the rear seat space and were used for new SR-71 pilot checkouts, VIP flights, etc. Although these Blackbirds could reach mach 3.2 they only flew local training sorties and never flew "Operational" missions. Beale AFB covers a very large area and during WW II had the space for a live artillery firing range. The main housing area is miles away from the flight line area and cropped satellite photos of it easily could center on the housing complex and not show the distant runways to the west. SR-71 operations began at Beale in the mid-sixties and lasted until 1990. U-2's ( TR-1's ) have also been there for years and now share Beale runways with the Global Hawk UAV based there.

David Dempster 16:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

VIP flights? Were they simply demo flights to give VIPs a ride in a cool plane or was the SR-71 actually used as a super-fast single-person transport plane? Has an SR-71 ever been called Air Force One? -Lommer | ^talk 21:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, VIP flights were demo flights but for the purposes of program Support and understanding. Barry Goldwater had such a flight, as did some General Officers who had to interface with Congress and explain Program Issues or those that were top commanders ( such as CINCSAC: Commander In Chief Strategic Air Command under whose responsibility was the SR-71 program ). No, the vehicles were never used as "single-person transport planes"; sorties would take-off and land at the same site.

David Dempster 23:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Could he be confusing the SR-71 with the B-58? That was another unusual-looking high-speed aircraft, and did have three inline crew compartments. See http://www.b-58hustler.com/morephotos.html for example. I think they were scrapped in the mid-70s, so one could still have been flying in 71. MarkGrant 22:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding Picture of MD-21

I noticed that the picture underneath the Variants subheading appears to be an SR-71. Since the paragraph refers to a MD-21, and I have a picture of the MD-21 from the Museum of Flight in Seattle, that I should replace the current picture with mine. Any comments before I do it? --JimCollaborator 23:38, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Don't bother deleting removing the old pic, just move it elsewhere in the article as it's still a decent perspective. But yea, please upload your MD-21 pic. -Lommer | ^talk 01:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not the best picture, but I'll get a better one the next time that I go. --JimCollaborator 05:06, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Replaced photograph

I replaced this photograph with a new photograph of the flight instrumentation from the SR-71 in the Evergreen Aviation Museum. I thought it would be wise to leave a link to the photograph here because it was not referenced from anywhere else. Triddle 04:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SR-71 in fiction: G.I. Joe

Does anyone else think the COBRA Night Raven, with detachable, autonomous drone, was a knock-off of the MD-21? The Night Raven toy photos make it look much more angular, and the Night Raven was chiefly a fighter, but the overall shape has some similarities. -- Ventura 18:46, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

yes, just like the rattlers are knockoffs of a-10s -Lordraydens 04:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Myth and Lore

The "Myth and Lore" section talks about a small group of people who think the SR-71 could acheive speeds of up to Mach 5. I have heard similar rumours, but not speed specific to any speed. What was specific was the the D-21 "drone" was in fact a third engine to enable such speeds to be achieved. Whether there was a specially modified D-21 for this purpose, or whether the D-21 really existed at all as a drone I do not know.

Nevermind the fact the the drone would have to be absolute hell on aerodynamics, hey? - Anon. August 7th, 2005

I have heard that only one person have managed to get a lock on a Blackbird with a SAM. It was a Swedish conscript who did it when a Blackbird requested a flight path over Sweden so they knew it was comming. // Liftarn

I don't think that is consistant with our sources. Most indicate that SAM locks were regularly achieved on the blackbird, and that it simply outran the missiles. This includes comments from former SR-71 flight crew member David Dempster that posts here. -Lommer | ^talk 22:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Fuel claim

THe article makes this claim about the JP-7 fuel:

"it has an extremely high flashpoint to cope with the heat, to the extent that a match dropped in a bucket of JP-7 does not ignite it."

However our article on JP-7 (which by the way could use some work) claims the flashpoint as being 60 degrees Celsius, which would seem to be easily low enough to be ignited by a match. Which article is wrong here? Lisiate 22:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The flash point is the temprature above which a sample of a liquid can be ignited by a spark. Dropping a match into a bucket of JP-7 won't raise it above 60C, so it won't ignite. Both articles are correct.

Note: The above was left by User:Tom k&e. -Lommer | ^talk 17:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the flashpoint is the temperature at which a liquid fuel will give offf vapours that are ignitable. A match will ignite these vapours if they are present, but that won't happen until 60C. The match by itself is not capable of generating enough heat to generate the vapours by itselft though, so the fuel won't ignite. If, however, a puddle of JP7 is ignited (e.g. by a sustained source of heat like hot brakes + a spark) then the flames on the surface will generate enough heat to vaporize the liquid, and the fire will continue. Luckily, even if this happens the spread of the fire will be much slower at temperatures below the flash point. -Lommer | ^talk 17:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More pertinently, the article doesn't state why JP-7's flashpoint is notable, or "extremely high"; a search on the internet suggests that JP-5, the predecessor of JP-7, and a widely-used jet fuel, also has a flashpoint of 60c (140f). I assume JP-7 is special in some way, perhaps its ability to absord heat over a long time without degrading. Not really relevant, but diesel also has a flashpoint of around 60c.-Ashley Pomeroy 12:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Jet fuel is basically kerosene, which is very similar to diesel. Both are fairly 'safe' fuels, compared to typical gasoline. JP5 and JP7 are both derivatives of normal jet fuel, with a lot of additives. eric ✈ 15:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

But how is JP-7 more notable than JP-5? I prefer to edit articles rather than discuss things on talk pages, but if I write "JP-7 is interesting in its own right; as with its predecessor, the widely-used JP-5, it has a flashpoint of 60c, twice that of commercial aviation fuel" the reader will be left wondering why the SR-71's designers didn't use JP-5 instead. I need to be able to say "... but unlike JP-5, JP-7 is UNIQUE PROPERTY ONE and UNIQUE PROPERTY TWO". The chap below doesn't actually answer the question, he's just filling, which is why I dislike talk pages, because people talk for the sake of talk. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

JP-7, which had similar flashpoints as pure diesel and JP-5, contained additives which generated a much more rapid burn at high temps/pressures experienced in the SR-71's engines. Less time to combust required faster combustion rates at those speeds/altitudes. Mugaliens 19:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JET A-1 which is almost universally used in commercial aviation (see aviation fuel) has a flashpoint of 38 deg C. Jet B, the only other widespread alternative, has a flashpoint that's even lower. So yeah, actually a flashpoint of 60 deg. C is notable. JP-5 is another military grade aviation fuel, and military applications have used specialized high-flashpoint fuels for a while. IIRC, JP-5 was developed for the F-104 starfighter, but I could be wrong about that. -Lommer | ^talk 20:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for explaining that to me. Lisiate 21:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey no worries, if anything identifying points of confusion is the best possible thing we can do to figure out how certain articles in the 'pedia need to be improved. Without them that's sometimes difficult to do, and I'm always glad to explain something that I know a little about. In short: questions are great. -Lommer | ^talk 05:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Habu Experience says:

The saw tooth design along the Blackbird Chine edges and the canted rudders are examples where radar signature reduction was designed into the A-12 and SR-71. I do not know the measured "square meters" size of the Blackbird, but I can tell you from experience, it was not a stealthy aircraft. When we first started flying Operational Sorties from Kadena Air Base, Okinawa in early 1968, a Soviet Trawler would be off shore in International Waters to track us. As we proceeded South West across the South China Sea, the string of positioned Soviet Trawlers would hand us off from one to another, just as FAA Centers do in the ConUS; the "watchers" always knew exactly where we were. When Jim Watkins, my Blackbird Pilot and I flew our first Operational Sortie on 19 April, 1968 in SR-71 tail number 974, we turned north up into the Gulf of Tonkin, then North West to clear PRC's Hainan Island and head into the Haiphong - Hanoi slot to photograph our assigned targets. I watched and after roll out, at Mach 3.0 and about 81,000 feet MSL, the first SA-2 SAM radar track light came on steady at 82 miles slant range. Fed our position by the Trawlers, those older model Russian SAM's knew where to look and saw us easily. We were not stealthy! [(User:David Dempster)]00:39, 16 September, 2005

FAA longrange radar is a L-band-radar and not a X-band fighter radar. The driver determining radar return from a jet wake is the ionization present. The very strong ion density dependency on maximum gas temperature quickly leads to the conclusion that the radar return from the jet wake of an engine running in dry power is insignificant, while that from an afterburning wake could be dominant. For that is the expensiv A-50 in your operational fuel! Its suppress the ionisation. The SA-2 missiles are guided using radio control signals from the guidance computers at the site. The Spoon Rest is A-band radar in very low VHF! http://www.itnu.de/radargrundlagen/19.kartei/karte906.en.html FAN SONG A/B ist a E/F band radar, E/F is 2-4Ghz. Bellow 2Ghz is noting stealht! The SR-71 RCS for X-Band is 100 times better as a F-15! SW

The radar signature of the SR71 is large, and is not harder to observ on the radar then other planes. The military used billions on a paint that was supposed to reduce the radar signature of the plane but didnt work, now how do you explain the taxpayers that fact??You dont.... I am a former military radar operator if you wonder how i know what i know. Radarboy.

Stealth techniques are only applicable for the frequency bands they are designed to counter. The most critical band to counter with RCS reductions is X band because it is most used for A-A intercept and missile guidance. Second priority is to counter S and L bands used by some SAMs. Longer wavelengths like the Tall King operating at 90 MHz are much more difficult to counter, but are also less of a threat because, while long ranged, they are not precise enough to guide a weapon and are used primarily for GCI. OTH radars operating at 2-20 MHz are a huge problem for Stealthy airplanes, but they also have very poor precision, often being unable to pinpoint a target closer than 30 km of its actual position. --SW

Top Speed

The section on top speed under "myth and lore" would certainly lead one to believe that the SR-71 went faster than has been admitted by the military. Dave, are you at liberty to provide any guidance on these claims, and if so, do they have any grounding in reality? Regardless, I think we should remove the comment about competing with the X-15, because there's still a big difference between Mach ~4 and Mach 6.7. -Lommer | ^talk 21:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

No myths. The Inlets were sized for mach 3.2, but the real limitation was Compressor Inlet Temperature ( I want to recall it was 427 degrees C, but that's from memory and can be checked by those that want precise numbers ). Crews did encounter unexpected areas of much colder than usual air and I know some excursions went to mach 3.3 for short times without exceeding the CIT limit. There may even have been unplanned higher mach numbers touched briefly, but never mach 4.0. The Blackbird was planned and flown as a mach 3.0 to 3.2 "single point design aircraft" which gave us a lot of confidence on Operational Missions into Denied Areas ( since training and operational sorties were always flown the same way ).

The X-15 was a rocket powered aircraft designed to make high altitude/high speed dashes before running out of fuel and gliding back to earth, where as the Blackbird, powered by turbojets took-off, cruised and landed under power. I agree: the SR-71 was not a competitor with an experimental rocket ship.

David Dempster 00:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Great, I've removed the following from the article accordingly:

There is a smaller group of individuals that believe the SR-71 is already capable of Mach 4 or greater. This is supported primarily by the reconnaissance flights where the mission times and distances travelled could only be accounted for by speeds between Mach 3.6 and 4.1. It is projected by a few that later improved craft might approach speeds of Mach 4.5, and be competitive with the X-15 under specific flight conditions.

-Lommer | ^talk 22:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Working as a radar operator in the military we logd speed on the SR71 to mach 5,5 before loosing it as it flew over the russian border. Radarboy

DELETION OF ASTRONAUT WINGS

Astronaut wings are awarded only to aviators who reach or exceed 50 miles high ( 264,000 feet for statute miles ). X-15 pilots who did this received these wings as did the Space Ship One pilot who reached 50 miles. The Blackbird "typically" cruised between 78,000 feet to 83,500 feet ( slowly climbing as it burned fuel ). While there may have been higher SR-71 and A-12 altitude excursions, no Blackbird ever went to 50 miles. I have deleted the statement that "Astronaut Wings were awarded to SR-71 pilots".

David Dempster 23:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Featured article ?

This is an excellent article. Has it ever been a featured article ? If not, I would like to recommend it. StuRat 05:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

No, this article is not, and has never been featured. To become a featured article, it needs to satisfy the criteria listed here, some of which this article doesn't satisfy (mostly the sourcing/referencing criteria). Then it needs to undergo peer review before being subjected to a vote. The steps are all laid out on the page I linked to above — it takes quite a bit of work to produce a featured article as you can see. -Lommer | ^talk 23:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Image at the top

The image at the top of the page is photoshopped. Badly. I direct you rattention to the fact that parts of the wing are completely transparent; the starboard turbine is entirely detached from the plane. -- A. Nony Mouse

Are you sure? I see something similar to what you describe adjacent to the port turbine, but I had assumed it was oil, or condensation, or something that had otherwise rendered the surface reflective, which would explain why it does not respect the edge of the shadow. It is obvious that the surface is not completely transparent as it shares texture with other parts of the wing. 128.84.98.150 15:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

The lead paragraph states, "The SR-71 is the only aircraft in the United States Air Force inventory that was never lost in its entire service run, although a M-21 (version of a fore-runner, see below) was lost in a fatal crash in 1966." I know this to be untrue. In fact numerous aircraft were lost during it's time in service. See here for example- http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/losses.php

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this page but a google search reveals there are many other pages like this detailing aircraft losses.

Thanks, I've added that to the article. --Guinnog 22:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Never Shot Down?

Head on view of a SR-71 Blackbird.
Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas (March 2007).

Are we entirely sure that the Blackbird was never shot down? Our local military information buff happens to claim that one was SAM'ed over Russia. Someone care to look into that?

Yes, and no, in that order. If your local military information buff can come up with anything verifiable, we'd be delighted to hear it though. --Guinnog 00:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by shot down. "No Aircraft Damaged by Hostile Action. Was Shot Down Only Once by Gen Larry Welch then C5 USAF..." Senior Crown Program - and of course depends whether that can be corroborated. Hakluyt bean 15:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That just refers to him cancelling the program, not to an actual aircraft loss. Rmhermen 22:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your "local military information buff" is thinking of the U-2 spy plane. One of those were shot down over the USSR, but not the SR-71. JesseZinVT 23:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

-I don't think anybody can claim with any certainty that no SR-71s were shot down. It's a plane shrouded in military secrecy. A couple of the incidents on the linked page about the losses could just as easily be due to hostile action. I wouldn't make such bold statements in an ecyclopedia entry when the only source is the US military. 212.64.98.189 17:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. However, if the Russians (who else!?) had shot one down, you would think that they would have made a big propaganda campaign out of it. At least we would see some bits of SR-71 paraded on russian TV? Just a thought...Mumby 18:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

What was the time period the Blackbird was used?

The article pretty clearly indicates that it was used from 1964 until 1990. -User:Lommer | ^talk 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The caption on the first photo (of the trainer plane) mentions the trails of fuel but none are seen. The trails are seen on the photo of one plane in flight further down in the article. Is there some editorial error?

radar signature

A recent addition claims that the SR-71 radar signature was actually quite large. I've never heard this before, and I'm not inclined to believe without sources. Can anyone provide any? -Lommer | ^talk 01:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a paragraph under www.globalsecurity.com and www.fas.org. (The 2 paragraphs are basically the same) It reads:

Although most news reports characterize the SR-71 aircraft as `radar evading', in point of fact, however, the SR-71 was one of the largest radar targets ever detected on the FAA's long-range radars. The FAA was able to track it at ranges of several hundred miles. The explanation offered was that the radars were detecting the exhaust plume.

MythSearcher 04:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe the distinction is never made in documentaries that even though the shape of the plane points to the eventual development of contiuously curved surfaces (B-2, F-22) or the hopeless diamond (F-117), and may have a low signature shapewise, I have actually never heard of discussion of the thrust radar signature, which would, given that is is among one of the largest and hottest (50 feet long, sometimes over 10 shock diamonds) thurst outputs, probably be immense, logically, but I have no technial evidence. This is just my 2 cents. --Ctrl build^talk 23:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Skunk Works (Ben R. Rich, Leo Janos (Little, Brown and Company, 1994)) makes a good claim about the low RCS of the SR-71. "(It was the size of) a B-58 Hustler, but with the incredibly small radar cross section of a single-engine Piper Cub." and "No one knew that its wings, tail, and fuselage were loaded with special composite materials, mostly iron ferrites, that absorbed radar engergy rather than returning it to the sender." (P. 23, 24) Unfortunately, he doesn't mention the exhaust's radar return, though I have read that on other sites. --I don't wanna register, I only edit once every couple months.

Sorry, pure nonsense. Radar does not reflect off fuel, hot gases, shock diamonds, or anything of the sort. The fact of the matter remains that countless accounts of various SR-71 missions include their being shot at. The principle high-altitude missile in use at that time was the S-2, of which many variants have been made, but none of which has brought down and SR-71.

Thus, the question remains: "Why were they being shot at if they were invisible on radar?" The S-2 is not an optically guided missile, particularly at the SR-71's operating altitude. They don't even lay chem (aCHEM), er, contrails at that altitude (no, I don't believe in chemtrails - just like to poke fun at them once in a while). It's a strictly radar environment. Yet the SR-71's detected lock-on and launch firing and evaded simply by accelerating straight away. Thus, they were both high and fast, but not particularly stealthy.

Sorry, but the SR-71 was NOT a "stealthy" bird by any means. It wasn't designed to be, either. None of the now declassified stealth technology such as saw tooth edges was even invented, much less used. Live with it. Move on with your lives. The experience recounted below completely emphasizes this point: Mugaliens 19:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It was lower than expected for a plane of its size and generation, and it DID pioneer several technologies that were used in future stealth aircraft, a blended body, canted tails, composite materials, radar absorbing materials... It was LOWER than would be expected (piper cub vs. B-58, as mentioned by Ben Rich.), and it was designed to have these as RCS reducing features, but by no means was it designed to have the mind-boggling low RCS of the B-2 or F-117.68.68.224.129

Missiles locked

Even if it was never shot down, I know that several fighters suceeded in locking air-to-air-missiles on it. I think i have somewhere read that a Swedish Saab JA37 Viggen was the first to do it. Does soneone know anything more about it?

Ok, I´ve found some more about it: Swedish semi-official magazine Värnpliktsnytt ("National Service News") says that in 1983 Per-Olof Eldh in division "Martin Blue" of airbase F13 as the first in the world radarlocks a missile on a SR-71, with a JA 37 Viggen. The US planes were regulary flying over Sweden the, as US didn´t think Viggen could reach that high. After this the planes went a longer route around Sweden instead. The magazine also mentions a postcard later sent from Edwards AFB to F13 saying "OK boys, u got us".

In the magazine "Insats & Försvar" ("Intervention(??) & Defence") issued by the Swedish Armed Forces, also mentions the said encounters where JA 37 Viggen pilots locked air-to-air missiles on SR-71:s. I guess they they like to tell this story :). It also goes on saying that in mission debrief and evalutaion they belived that they could have shot down the SR-71:s if requierd to do so on those occations. It says that it was risky due to the high altidue and high speed to go after them though. // Kakis

Regarding the above comment, it would have been risky because of the extreme angle of attack that would be encountered at such high altitudes required to get a decent position for missle launch against a blackbird.

F-101, F-102, and F-106 pilots routinely practiced intercepts against SR-71 seeing if they could get a firing solution while coasting over the top of the zoom climb. Don't know how many were successful. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

On a visit to the Nike Hercules museum, in Marin County, California, a volunteer who was an ex-Army enlisted man at this particular facility in the 1960s or 1970s claimed they had tracked a SR-71 out of Beale AFB; though not knowing what it was, they were most impressed by its speed and climb rate. No surprise here, though; if the FAA could track them, the Army could, too, using similar equipment.

Red Stripes

Is there anyone who knows why some SR-71's are painted with red stripes on them? Have been puzzled by them for a long time now

I have no idea, but I believe it is just some type of painting for regconizing the particular squard or maybe even just decoration. MythSearcher 02:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

By what do you mean, red stripes? When three of them were briefly reactivated in the mid ninties, they bore red markings.

If the red stripes you're referring to are the long ones that appear near the wing root on the top of the fuselage, they're there as "No Step" warning tracks for ground crews.

Performance figures

The page currently list the following performance figures: Maximum speed: Mach 3.35 at 80,000 ft (24,285 m) Maximum speed: 2,193 knots (4,062 km/h) Maximum speed: 2,522 m.p.h.

By my basic reckoning 2193 knots at 80,000 would equate to about mach 3.75 - only at sea level would mach 3.35 be close to 2193 knots. There is no way it could reach such speeds at low level. I'm guessing knots have been assigned to a figure in mph and the the other figures calculated from it. Can anyone confirm one way or the other? --LiamE 01:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The speed is incorect. The maximum speed is 2,193.16 MPH set on July, 28th, 1976. Interestingly, I just found out, early SR-71s were equiped to carry a 1-Megaton nuclear payload. I am going to fix the article now. --Ctrl build 06:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you're not quite right on that point. The 2,193.16 mph was not the absolute top speed set between two radar gates. It was the top speed sustained on a closed course speed run. In the 1990 coast-to-cost run, the SR-71 was reported in the newspapers as reaching 2,242 mph (Mach 3.39) between two of the radar gates. There is no reason to believe the plane could not sustain that speed. Indeed, the Air Force was quoted as saying that with somewhat different parameters, the SR-71 could have done the coast-coast flight even faster.

I'm adding a "citation needed" to the plane buff speculation, for a couple of reasons: The inlet temperature issue is important, though there's insufficient validation of the limit. Second, the fuselage itself and engines (on other grounds) could easily sustain higher speeds (and some air buffs I've met have told me the plane could travel Mach 4). So which set of air buffs is right? I don't know. I will try to hunt down the articles for that 1990 speed run and double-check the numbers. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that the time elapsed was 68 minutes, not 64 minutes.

By the way, this Wikipedia article is very nice, very well written and edited. Kudos to those who did a lot of hard work on it. 20:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)raryel

Fair use rationale for Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF

Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)