Jump to content

Talk:Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

When did this aircraft become public knowledge ?

I have a memory of seeing a plastic model of this aircraft in Britain probably in late 1964 as a child. I remember the interest of the unusual shape and large engines with pointed cones in the inlets - very macho. Is my memory faulty, would its external specs have been a total secret at that stage or not ? I remember the name SR-71 associated at the time with the aircraft (Johnson had apparently announced it), but would the model I saw at this time more likely have been of the A12 or YF-12 ? Rcbutcher 09:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Two dates of announcement are given, 29 February 1964 and 25 July 1964. I assume the A-12 was announced on the former and SR-71 (which had not yet flown) on the latter. Drutt (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • President Johnson announced the YF-12 in Feb. 1964 (referred to as A-11 for deception). Easier to tell the public about an interceptor than a spy plane. Johnson announced the SR-71 that July. This from the Lockheed Blackbirds book if someone is interested. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Simulator Reference

To Akradecki: Thanks Alan for the Simulator paragraph revert. I, and John Storrie, were the two Instructor crew members that made the visit described, and I wrote and inserted the Simulator section of the article. Don't know what other reference you might need. Thanks. David Dempster 03:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Price?

Is there any data on an average cost on one of these planes? Even the B-2 Spirit has some rough figures attached. It seems almost like an "If you have to ask..." situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.67.203 (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Cost Comments

We were told in 1965 "about $30 M each" and I see $33 M each in some of the SR-71 available books. Most probably about right, in 1960's dollars. Remember, that although there are no technical parts of the SR-71 that are still classified today ( except perhaps some of the defensive system electronics ), the Congressional funding profiles have never been been fully revealed and/or published ( that I know of ). I suspect that this is the reason there is still some lingering speculation and intrigue about the Blackbird that is not justified by it's outdated technical merits. David Dempster (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Coal slurry powerplant

The mention of a coal slurry powerplant is not vanaldism. The subject was brough up before in a brief discussion at Talk:SR-71 Blackbird/Archive2#Original fuel. The long-time editor who added the original item states that "The information is taken from Johnson's autobiography." - BillCJ (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I think the Johnson autobiography seems to covers it. The issue should be discussed here not by back and forth edits. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, if this part were removed I don't think the wording can be simply changed to "Johnson initially researched a liquid hydrogen powerplant..." as has been done. The "initially" part should be checked the Johnson reference or another one. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • (Expanded slightly from what i put on Ivandias' talk page) Powering by coal is not powering by coal slurry; this shouldn't evoke the 1800s image of a person shoveling lumps of coal into an incinerator. Coal slurry is a suspension of coal particulate in a liquid (kerosene, jet fuel, water, ...). A brief use of Google turns up various patents and research on using slurries in jet engines, including this USNA graduate mentioning his work at Lockheed on such a thing (search on the page for 'Lockheed'). Quaeler (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Records

"Any discussion of the SR-71's records and performance is limited to declassified information. Actual performance figures will remain the subject of speculation until additional information is released.[citation needed]" In what way is citation needed? Do we need to cite the Definitions of Declassify, or maybe cite where it says classified or unreleased info can't be used? I'd hate to see "Citation Needed" slapped on everything that isn't cited(whether it needs it or not). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.90.8 (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph is a bit of a nonsense statement and somebody is assuming good faith and asking if a citable source is available rather than just deleting it. The only way the statement could stay is if somebody could prove a reliable source that states that classified information does indeed exist and relates to performace data. MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not gonna happen. There is such a rarity in sources that actually state such obvious things, it won't be sited. The best we could do I cite wiktionary for the word "Classified". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.90.8 (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I was forced to delete it for unclassified reasons: it wasn't reliably sourced that there was classified records.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Retirement

The homepage for Source 1 at http://www.sr-71.org/ states "...it was retired in 1990. However, the USAF still kept ... operation up until 1998, after a few were brought back to service in 1995. NASA... flew the SR-71 from 1991 until the program was cancelled in late 2001." My point is that the wikipedia article states that they were retired in 1999 in the info box, but in the first paragraph it says "...in service from 1964 to 1998." Thus according to the source, military retired the aircraft in 1990, with about a five year hiatus, and then again in 1998. Civilian (or rather, NASA), used the jets until 2001. I'm going to change the year on the info box so it matches the article. Whoever wants to can change it later, but figure out the date and provide a different source if you do. --Trakon (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. The USAF date should be specified like "1998 (USAF)". NASA's date was the latest retire date and that should be listed one way or another. I'll look a book or two of mine and see how NASA's usage is described. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that flights continued past 1999. The site mentions above states that the program ended in 2001 (not flights) and uses as its source (linked on the site), flight data which shows no flights after 1999. Rmhermen (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Advanced - ?

The article repeatedly claims that this aircraft is advanced. For its time it was. That was almost fifty years ago. Would you describe the Wright Flyer as advanced, when writing about it today? Greg Locock (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

IRC, I have seen it described as that, yes, due to it's wing-warping technique.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, would you describe the Wright Flyer as 'advanced' in an encyclopedia, as opposed to a fanboy website? Greg Locock (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It can still be considered advanced by non-fanboys. There's been no Mach 3+ manned aircraft designed & flown since. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, let's see. At the time it was designed was it advanced compared with an A12? No, obviously not. Just because we don't do these things the same way now doesn't mean we couldn't, otherwise you are effectively saying that the last example of any currently unused technology is advanced. The A12 article sees no need to flag that a/c as advanced, so why does this one? Oh, and as to your other claim - Foxbat . Greg Locock (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm assuming your main objection is to the first line, as the context of the other mentions are (or can easily be changed to) with the timeframe of its design and use. As to the first line, The Lockheed SR-71 is an advanced, long-range, Mach 3 strategic reconnaissance aircraf, the main problem there is the verb "is". IT should be grammatically written as "The Lockheed SR-71 was an advanced. . . ", but grammar fanboys would think the "was" means it doesn't exist anymore. Because these grammar fanboys are incapable of understanding that this use of "was" in past tense doesn't necessariyl imply non-existance, we have to say "is". I guess that's worse than those who don't realize that "advanced" is more than likely period-specific, even if the text doesn't say so, or at least have to make a big issue of it. I guess. - BillCJ (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup, just checked a random assortment of aircraft that were advanced IMO for their time (Concorde Comet F22), and their articles don't find it necessary to include it. It just sounds unencyclopaedic and subjective to me, or is it really a wp:peacock term? Then we get to the point that the SR 71 is a derivative of the A12 which means any claim for 'advanced design' surely belongs to that Article, not this. I'd argue that even there it is misplaced, due to its subjectivity. Greg Locock (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Compared to all currently flying aircraft it seems to me that it may justifiably be described as 'advanced'. Advanced means raised up, higher, faster etc. and it clearly was. I would also think that that term could be applied to Concorde, TU-144 or the Valkyrie as well. The fact that no or few other aircraft can do what these aircraft do makes them advanced. Advanced isn't at all the same as 'new'. It's more to do with how it compares with other aircraft, how close it is to the state of the art. I think other paper aircraft can outfly it, but state of the art also has a sense of reality about it, so I don't think they count.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Possibly true but irrelevant. In fact the A12 was earlier and faster, so I think you are on a sticky wicket there. Read WP:Peacock. That is definitive. 'advanced' is being used as a peacock term in the lead.Greg Locock (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Style guidelines aren't definitive. It's also pretty clear you don't understand what advanced really means.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah the ad hominem attack. OK, you are now on notice. Explain exactly why advanced is not being used as a peacock term. You have 24 hours. Greg Locock (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh I'm scared. While you're waiting I'd like you to explain the term 'ad hominem' because they don't have them long words on the 'fanboy websites' I normally frequent.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Greg, although correct, you're also wasting your time with this person. Check out his history and good luck with trying to get him to admit he's wrong about anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.194.167 (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Record transatlantic flight

Contrary to one editor's opinion, the fact that the flight occurred just six days after the death of Charles Lindbergh is not an insignificant coincidence. I simply refuse to believe that the two events just happened to be that close together. -- HurricaneERIC - Class of '08: XVII Maius MMVIII 06:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It needs a reference that supports the record flight was in connection with Mr. Lindbergh's death. Otherwise it appears to be just a coincidence and is trivia. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The flight was to allow the aircraft to be displayed at the Farnborough Air Show in England, it would have been organised well before the demise of Lindbergh. MilborneOne (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the coincidence and trivia assessment. Mentioning Lindbergh's death in relation to the speed flight is the kind of factoid which helps newspaper and book writing be more colorful. This is encyclopedia writing. Binksternet (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of peacock tag

Please explain. It is there because of wp:peacock, I thought that it would be useful to bring outside eyes in to review the silliness of the lede. Could those who think that this aircraft needs to be lauded as advanced describe what features make it advanced compared with say the A12, which is so similar that they welded half of one to the other, in one case. The A12 article does not waste time with meaningless adjectives, it describes the aircraft on its own merits. That's all that needs to happen.

Greg Locock (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Start Cart Errors

I just noticed some errors in the last paragraph of the Engines section dealing with the start carts. I will make some explanations here and ask the article editors to change it as required ( reference notes, etc. ). First, a minor nitpick: the start cart was rolled out and placed under the engine to be started where ever the bird was parked for start ( in hangers that had no rear doors, on the ramp, etc. ), but not usually on the "runway". Secondly, there never was a TEB shot only start and that needs to be changed. The TEB explanations earlier in the article are correct and TEB was used to ignite the JP-7.

The start cart function ( with about 800 ft. lbs. of torque ) was to spin-up the engine rpm as quickly as possible to idle rpm speeds so that when the pilot gave that engine a shot of TEB it would ignite with enough air volume flowing in from the compressor rotation to avoid a hot spot condition in the engine and allow it to continue spooling up under power without overheating. At about 3200 rpm of the J-58, the pilot would give it the TEB shot and at about 4000 rpm of the J-58, the start cart Buicks would be at about 5000 rpm and then disengage. The article is correct in that the Buick Wildcat engines made a tremendous racket and noise. But, spinning the engine up on the ground was always required before giving it a shot of TEB.

Start cart trivia ( that is not necessarily needed for the article ): Lockheed needed powerful automotive engines that would produce low end torque levels high enough to rapidly spool up a J-58. Allegedly, the Lockheed person who was responsible for the start cart design had worked with Mickey Thompson, a prominent drag car builder of the time, who used "hopped-up" Buick Wildcat engines and his familiarity with them brought them into the start cart baseline. Blackbird maintainers would open an access port on the bottom of the J-58 nacelle exposing a female gear connection that the top male gear end of the start cart connecting shaft would rise up and connect with for a gear to gear J-58 spin-up. As years of operation went on, obtaining spare parts for the Buicks became more difficult and eventually, Chevy 454's were substituted in the start carts due to their ease of spare parts availabilities. Finally in the 1980's, a pneumatic system ( to spool up the J-58 prior to a TEB shot ) was developed that would plug into the J-58 when the Bird was at a main operating base so equipped. Start carts remained in the inventory however, and would be carried aboard a JP-7 carrying KC-135Q that was dispatched with a recovery maintenance crew whenever a Blackbird had to land "away from home", as standard Air Force Bases or civilian airfields had no equipments for starting a Blackbird.

David Dempster (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: I went ahead and made the start cart correction; editors can fine tune it as desired.

David Dempster (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

SR-71 has not been replaced by the GlobalHawk

Several books by aviation experts continue to hold that the Lockheed Aurora or some other secret aircraft has replaced the SR-71, I cited one such work in the successor segment. While some editors may hold that the Global Hawk is the SR-71's replacement I would point out that the Hawk has a top speed of around 400 mph while the SR-71 has been clocked at over 2,190 mph. The Hawk has no stealth capability whatsoever and it has a ceiling of 65,000 feet while the SR-71 has a measure of stealth and a ceiling of over 85,000 feet. Personally I think the Aurora is a total myth and that we here in the US have no successor to the SR-71 at all. I also hold that since the USSR is no more and we are only mildly concerned with the likes of Iran and Korea no successor will be produced in the foreseeable future. Still it is the published opinions of aviation experts that the Aurora (or some such) is real and that I am wrong, and their opinions are what counts for the article.

--Wowaconia 02:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The SR-71's role has been replaced by satellites and other surveillance aircraft. While none have the exact same capabilities of the SR-71, they do fill the void left by the SR-71. — BQZip01 — talk 03:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. The battlefield commanders were still complaining that the satellites took too long to process needed images and large segments of hours in between available passes over an area. UAVs also were limited in their distances and abilities (most notably that a few had been lost to Anti-Aircraft sites and Enemy aircraft). You are right they don't have the same capabilities and no they do not fill the void. --24.117.130.146 (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Habu Comments

The sonic boom from a Blackbird at normal cruise altitude was fairly quiet ( I can't give you DB's, etc. ) and if you knew one was passing overhead and were listening for it you would hear a rapid "....ba - boom...." sound which was the leading nose created sonic cone and a close coupled one from the rear of the aircraft ( the B-58 Bomber at mach 2.0 would also produce this double boom sound as the effect is created by the length of the supersonic cruising vehicle ). The strength of the boom to the "listener" on the ground is a function of slant range distance from the aircraft more than the mach 1, 2 or 3 speeds. Weather and other conditions can also affect the boom intensity.

Missions from Area 51 and Edwards were planned to satisfy mission goals and accererations to mach 3.0 were on the planned course. At Beale AFB, we usually took off to the NE and accelerated during the initial months of flying on the 006 degree radial of the Sacramento VOR. At about 33,000 feet we did the "Dipsy Doodle" ( as FAA came to know it ) where we would nose over and descend to about 29,000 feet as we punched through mach 1.0 and then resume climbing to mach 3.0. Unfortunately, the town of Susanville ( which as I recall has an elevation of about 3500 feet ) was right under that spot and was getting a tremendous blast from our mach 1.0 passage which was only about 26,000 feet above them. As more and more sonic boom claims hit the Beale USAF legal office from Susanville, we all got wise to what was happening. From then on, we would level off at about 33,000 feet and remain subsonic until we were at a newly selected acceleration point over the desert where we would relight the burners and start our "Dipsy Doodle" acceleration.

At cruise however, we went where ever the mission was planned with little reaction from the public as the muted boom from 80,000 feet was not a hugh problem. Yes, there were some complaints and law suits and occasionally, we crew members would be called to the Base legal office to sign affidafits that we had been on "Higher Headquarter Directed Missions", etc. for their court room paperwork.

Also there were times when malfuntions forced us to make unplanned decelerations that did create problems. One day, Jim Watkins and I lost an inlet Spike control at mach 3.2 and as we decelerated in a turn back to Beale we overflew Salt Lake City at mach 1.44 and about 44,000 feet ( descending ). By the time we got home the phone lines were lit up and it appeared later that our sonic boom had reflected off the mountains surrounding Salt Lake city and enhanced their strength; lots of windows were broken that day!

But, overall, sonic booms from 80,000 + feet were not show stoppers with the public and we flew everywhere over the continental US at mach 3-3.2. Hope this helps. David Dempster 05:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you sir for your stories! If I recall correctly, there is one High Altitude Supersonic Corridor (HASSC) in southern California. This corridor extends from northwest of Los Angeles to the Colorado River near Las Vegas, Nevada. I believe there is a corridor in northeastern New York state near Saranac Lake but the FAA controls that one (among a few others). Since "controlled airspace" only extends up to 60,000 ft (18,305 m), any pilot flying above that level could fly as fast as they wanted without risking noise pollution...or having to answer to anyone. That is if they owned and SR-71, F-15, or F-22 that is... --24.117.130.146 (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Timeline a little large perhaps?

Um... it's taking up 2/3 of the article, this seems disproportionate. WOuld it be a really good idea to separate that bit out into it's own article maybe?--WolfKeeper 05:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone has started that. I think much of the information does not need to be included. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not an information respository. The other thing is, much of the "timeline" info needs to be brought inline with the text. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I've divided it up into sub-sections, but it is still absurdly long. Much of the information is tangential and doesn't belong in this article. Patiwat 20:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be split into its own page, as with Eurofighter Typhoon timeline, for example? Certainly far, far too long to be here.Mumby 08:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I disagree. Most of it belongs in the articles on Johnson, the U-2, or the Skunk Works. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The timeline is has been lifted entirely from http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/sr-71/ . It should be deleted. -Tod —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.121.197 (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
It probably could be removed and the relevant bits added into operation history in prose. MilborneOne (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Bypass Door Wording

On 6-14 and 6-15-08, I attended a Blackbird Forum at the Evergreen Air Museum at McMinnville, Oregon where Blackbird 971 is on display. I talked to fellow Habu's about the wording question above regarding Bypass Doors. Kurt Knutson, a retired USAF Blackbird Crew Chief said he will be intering his first contributions to this article and try and explain better wording for the change and maintenance of the bypass doors. Please help him when he does so, as sometimes the first one or two inputs can be difficult as one learns how to use and contribute to Wikipedia. Thanks.

David Dempster (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you are trying to help but I would suggest that as it would be original research it either needs a good verifiable citation (like an aircraft maintenance manual) or needs to be discussed on this page to save it being deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
All the guy needs to do is add it here or on a website elsewhere, David can vouch for it being the real guy and then we can add the material to the article. It's not OR if the guy is an acknowledged expert on that particular subject; on the contrary he's a source.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I would have to disagree it would still need to be verifiable and a reliable published source. A website elsewhere is probably not a reliable source. Suggest he brings it to this page first. If the ex-Crew Chief is an acknowledged expert then he would have third-party sources for his information and being a former crew chief he would know where the information is written down and published. MilborneOne (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Personal websites are allowed as sources if the expert is talking about something he is expert in.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 11:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Really weighing in late on this one, but I have to say that personal websites are allowed in limited circumstances. The sentence should also clearly state the source, i.e. "MSgt Smith (ret), a respected crew chief on the Blackbird, stated on his personal website that XYZ...". This is a factual statement that does not ambiguously claim anything that isn't the truth: the guy indeed stated it on his website and the truth of such a statement is not an issue, but can contribute to the article peripherally. — BQZip01 — talk 05:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A-12 vs SR-71

The article does not explain what the technical differences are between the A-12 and the SR-71.--Arado (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The SR-71 added a 2nd seat to the cockpit and is slightly larger. Info has been added to the Development section. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Armaments

I was wondering if the SR-71 Blackbird carries any sort of weapons? Eg. air to air missiles for defence if another aircraft (somehow) spots it and attempts to attack. The Lockheed YF-12 carries various missiles according to the article but it is a interceptor rather than a recon aircraft. Or is Blackbird purely used for recon?220.136.85.206 (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

They just flew fast and high to avoid enemy aircraft and ground fire. All the Blackbird versions (A-12, D-21/M-21 & SR-71) were reconn aircraft. The M-21 actually carried a reconn drone (D-21). The YF-12 was the only non-reconn version. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wondering...

A section of the article claims that the Saab Viggen managed to lock its missiles onto the Blackbird but did it actually get shot down?220.136.77.192 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC).

That's more like a radar lock. I don't see any reason for them to fire at the SR-71. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Refimprove tag

I've just added this tag as the article is greatly lacking in inline citations. The article appears to be a good overview of the aircraft with lots of detail, but entire sections (eg, 'Life support', 'Astro-Inertial Navigation System (ANS)', 'Sensors and payloads', etc) are unreferenced and most of the other sections need more references to allow the details to be verified. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:SR-71 Blackbird/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am placing this article's GA status up for reassessment for a few reasons. First, this article attained GA status three years ago. Also, in accordance with the good article criteria, I believe that this article is deficient in the following areas:

  • Factually accurate and verifiable (2 a,b,c)
    • There are several sections that lack any referencing and other instances where original research may have worked into the article. Specifically the following sections are deficient in my eyes: Design and operational details (most of the sub-sections could use more citations) Astro-Inertial Navigation System (ANS) and Sensors and payloads completely lack citations, the first two sub-sections of Operational history need more citations on the facts, the Flight simulator section is extremely deficient with only one in-line citation, the aircraft on display section is unreferenced, and the Popular culture section is unreferenced as well. (I also believe that it may not meet WP:TRIVIA). These are only examples, some of which I will identify in the article with fact and maintenance tags.

I will leave this assessment open for at least a week before making the decision to delist this article or not. -MBK004 22:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

While I note that there has been some improvement made to this article, some of the sections that I signled out a week ago are still completely unreferenced, and I also just placed a number of fact tags in the article. Unfortunately due to these issues still remaining, I have delisted this article from WP:GA. -MBK004 22:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Name and Designation

Hi, i was reading through the above mentioned section of the article and something struck me as odd. The statement that the USAF planned to redesignate the A-12 as the B-71, an apparent successor to the XB-70. This statement seems to imply that the A-12 and the SR-71 are one in the same, that only the name changed. This is patently false, as most of the people here know. I checked the refrences and there is no mention of the A-12/B-71. Am I missing something here? Shatzky 23:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  • A version of B-70, called the RS-70 (Recon-Strike) was proposed around 1960, but that program was canceled. That's where the numbering comes from. That sentence should be 'designate the A-12's successor' or something to that effect. -Fnlayson 23:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, this may be an urban myth, but at least one source indicates that the actual designation had been the RS-71 but when President Lyndon Johnson mangled the name into SR-71, the US military resorted to changing the designation rather than facing the wrath of changing Johnson's statement. FWIW Bzuk 23:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the info. Just to clarify, was the SR-71 ever planned to have strike capability? Could this be a reference to a possible YF-12 variant which never made it off of the drawing board? I can't recall reading anything that has suggested that the SR-71 or A-12 was to be used for anything other than reconnasance. Thanks. Shatzky 01:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The A-12 was originally designed to be an interceptor (basically a high-speed missile platform). When the high-speed interceptor turned out not to be needed, its original design was converted to a reconnaissance program. — BQZip01 — talk 02:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A few points. The YF-12 certainly got off the drawing board. And flew. It can be identified by the lack of chines on the nosecone in comparison to other A-12 and SR-71 models. At the time it was predicted that the natural progression would be toward mach 3 bombers and therefore a need for mach 3 interceptors. This reality never materialised and so the YF-12 development never made it to deployment. The A-12 was NOT designed as an interceptor. It was designed from the ground up as a recon plane, funded by the CIA, who would have no use for an interceptor. Specifically it was designed for overflight missions. After the U-2 incident it was agreed that there would be no more overflights of Soviet territory, making the A-12 somewhat redundant. Using the development work from the A-12 the Skunk Works produced 3 new planes - the SR-71 (originally called the R-12) - which was essentially a lenghtned A-12 with sideways looking recon equipment to obviate the need for overflights, the YF-12 - where the recon equipment was replaced by internal missiles and fire control radar fitted - and the MD-21, which carried a drone craft. I'd guess strike capability was certainly considered in the program but had it would not have been under the SR-71 name. --LiamE 03:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Paul Crickmore's "Lockheed SR-71", the D-21 drone carrier was designated M-12. It should be noted though that the book also makes it clear that the A-12 program as a whole had "loose" or otherwise hard to follow designations as many of the side programs never reach sufficient status to get official designations and many aircraft, or parts of aircraft, would have mulitiple designations over their operational life. Now, back on task: according to the affore mentioned book, the trifecta of Mach 3 machines that McNamarra was opposed to for diplomatic reasons was a Mach 3 strategic -bomber, -interceptor, and -recon platform, all using the same rear fuselage. The M-12/D-21 was basically separate (operation Tagboard instead of Oxcart). The bomber version of the A-12 (I don't recall if it had a different designation) was tested, but only with dumby ordinance as the intended weapons (clipped fin SRAMs) were not available. I seem to recall reading that the concrete filled weapon casing demontrated a considerable slant range and impressive penetration when drop at high altitude and speed. At some point the interceptor and bomber were cancelled (according to the book because of the diplomatic problem that could be caused by following up the Gary Powers incedent with a triple-threat of impossible to counter super-planes). The "final" product was to retain the possiblity of the strike role, but not in the form of a dedicated bomber version. This was the reason for the SR desigantion: Strike and Recon. How this was to be done I have never heard a good explanation for (other then it probably caused many sleepless nights for the Russians). Anybody? I will gladly differ to those who had first-hand knowledge of these programs, but that's the story as I have read. BTW, Ernst Mach would prefer that you capitalize his name  :) Nwilde (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Habu was the name of a local snake from Okinawa. Habu was only used for those operating from Okinawa. Radical man 7 (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that SR-71 was the highest manned in the world

Looks like the F-53 lightning achieved >87,000 ft in sustained flight[2]. Seems to edge the blackbird, unless anyone knows better, although I don't know how official it was, but it seems to me pretty likely it could do this, the lightning was incredibly stripped, it was just all engine(!), and its known it could get to U2 altitudes and above with ease.

In any case, that the blackbird was the world altitude record doesn't seem to be referenced...WolfKeeper 00:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I may do. If anyone is interested I did some more searching and there's a description of the two attempts here. Conditions were just right, and it sounds like it was really touchy ;)WolfKeeper 01:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
FAI says SR-71 is the current record holder. As for the other reference, 87,300 ft is pretty impressive. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it wasn't official in any way. Furthermore, I am not sure pilots (as a whole) are the best sources for information... ;-) — BQZip01 — talk 03:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Added refs accordingly. — BQZip01 — talk 03:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

When siting records it is VERY important to list ALL the qualifying criteria. The F-15 "Streak Eagle" ( http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=621 ) reached 98,000ft in 3.5 minutes from brakes-off and continued to 103,000ft (basically on momentum). But that was a zoom climb meant to take some records away from the Mig-25, not level flight. The SR-71 holds the records for non-classified, air-breathing, single-stage, manned aircraft for sustained speed in level flight and operational flight ceiling. Holding a record does not mean that that is the highest performance it can obtain, nor does that mean there isn't anything faster/better/etc. Also note that flight ceiling is not max altitude, it is the max level flight altitude where rate of climb has dropped below 100ft/min. From that definition alone records like the F-15's, let alone the Lightning's, are irrelavent. Nwilde (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The RB-66, one of which is at Topeka's air strip is an example of modifying the airframe with the addition of extended wings, performance UNK. The F-104 would at one point have a tail-attached rocket in experiment platforms to reach heights in excess of 80,000. The Mig-25 would incorporate titanium in small amounts, only where needed most. The possiblity of hot-starting on the flight line isn't without precedent, B-52's would be positioned to start and run straight from their spot at the end of the runway.Radical man 7 (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Myth and Lore

Does anybody else think that the Myth and Lore section should be deleted? It brings absolutley nothing to this article; doesn't really contain any facts; is not verified or cited; and is full of the worst kind of weasely language that should be avoided at all costs e.g. "Some conspiracy theorists say..." etc etc. Mumby 12:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. With a bit of rewording (e.g. get rid of comparison of different door sizes) it could go in section 2.3 'Stealth'.Mumby 15:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I edited the bit about Swedish fighters locking on to the SR-71. It's a rather useless bit of trivia, but there are so many faulty versions of the story floating around that this with the proper references might at least be of some utility in correcting the record. 83.250.141.5 (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually I did a search for SR-71 and Mach-14 and did find a page that stated it could do this. Unsurprisingly, the site does not appear to me as being credible.AVKent882 (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

By-pass door wording

Under the 'Air Inlets' sub-heading, the sentence "The SR-71 machinists were responsible for the hundreds of precision adjustments of the forward air by-pass doors within the inlets." doesn't seem to make sense. Should 'machinists' be 'flight computer'? TtyR2 (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this isn't worth adding to the popular culture section but if Jeremy Clarkson gets a mention what about the 1980's movie D.A.R.Y.L, about an android boy who steals a SR71,but it can't be shot down? This was made towards the end of operations I gather but it must still have been a classified plane, similar to the Stealth bombers today which everyone knows about.Jonnyhillski (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Irritated

I just looked in here for the first time since August, 2008. My title for this comment is all I need to say. During the last year and a half I have made many contributions to this article. I wrote much of the inlet, life support and payload sections. I wrote all of the ANS and Simulator sections. Why? Because as one of the first RSO's in the program, I was there and participated in such things as the development of the ANS, the set-up of the simulator, etc., etc. As I entered my contributions, Bill C and Arandecki as editors helped me and "looked over my shoulder". Thus, now that I see "need reference" sprinkled all over so many things that I contributed, I guess I'll throw up my hands, finish this input and wait another 8 months before I look back in here. See, per the rules, I'm being polite. If you know the "Falcon Codes" I could list a few more appropriate numbers for you. OK, enough ..... on a positive note, let me know if I can help.

David Dempster David Dempster (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Your response isn't unusual; a lot of people who have first hand, expert experience get frustrated with Wikipedia's requirement for third party references. If you had ever published an article about the Blackbird's air inlets, life support and payload in, say, Aviation magazine, we could cite that as a reference. Any paragraph standing clear of cited references will prevent this article from being assessed as a "Good Article", no matter that its text came from expert personal experience. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a SR-71 outside the Marshall Space Center in Huntsville Alabama

Why is it not listed in the "status" of these aircraft? Is it just a shell made to look like one? Does anyone know? Abbysdaddy (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Good question, and although we frequently get similar questions, it's still legitimate and relevant. It's because it's a Lockheed A-12, basically a prototype of the SR-71. Perhaps need an FAQ on this page for all the A-12 sightings. The planes are so similar that it is a topic that comes up frequently. - BillCJ (talk) 05:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a single seat Blackbird for CIA; an A-12 and it is in front of the US Space & Rocket Center. I think the S & R Center has mistakenly listed it as a SR-71. I restored the note about seeing the other Blackbird articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

seeking consensus to kill pop culture section

It is better to rid articles of a section that is primarily tangent-driven. It has proven problematic in articles such as this. I am seeking consensus to remove the pop culture section.

Educational material does not constitute cruft, and for more information, please also see WP:CRUFTCRUFT. Popular culture are not (and should not be) limited to fictional materials,(in which these materials generally should not be included anyway) but also materials that show the popularity of the subject in real world levels that influency in culture as a whole. MythSearchertalk 02:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You are absolutely right about those subjects being important; in fact they are worthy of being promoted in relevance to a 'Further reading' section as they are more important than a 'pop culture' section. Would that be acceptable to you? Currently there isn't such a section but it could probably use one (like this). I'd be willing to add good sources to Further reading. If we are lucky, James May will write a rebuttal to tell us why Jeremy is wrong. ☻ What do you think?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, but on the other hand, it would be quite funny to ask someone to read a material forcusing on rocket science which only shows SR-71 as an iconic in atmosphere high speed aircraft that is a good reference of the heating effect from air friction. Could this be used somehow in the article content as a reference(I see no mention of the high heat generated on its high speed flight) instead of a seemingly trivial entry as a furture reading? MythSearchertalk 03:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Is the Manga a copyrighted work or can you render an English translation? Non-english refs are frowned upon because it makes them hard to verify except to a few.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if there is an English translation copy, I own the Japanese and Chinese version of it. It is indeed copyrighted work(not sure if it is specifically copyrighted in the US or not though) Should I scan a page with the SR-71 as a reference? (That would require some time since I am at my office but the book is at home and I do not have access to until tonight, HK time.) MythSearchertalk 04:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the scan is necessary. Although an external interpretation is preferable according to WP:VUE, it would seem that you could interpret & cite the pertinent portions yourself. Sounds workable to me..
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Support KILLING ALL pop culture, including the CLark book. If the CLark book says someting noteworthy about the SR-71, then cite it somewhere in the text, or include a quote, probably in the Myth and Lore section. What is needed in the case of the educational material is not a translation of the test, but a reliable third-party source that states the educational material is notable, or a WP article on the science manga itself, which suitable reliable sources proving notablility. Up to this point, its inclusion is mostly OR. As to heating issues, I'm not sure the manga itself can be considered a reliable sourceself, as such works (science books for kids/teens) are often use generalizations to make a point, but the specifics often don't hold up. - BillCJ (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It is comparing the heat of the aircraft with heat of spacecrafts, as to teach why spacecrafts cannot fly at altitudes like high speed aircrafts. Since the series is not published in English(not that I know of), sources would be heavily relying on Japanese ones, which would be very time consuming to translate with my level of Japanese skills. MythSearchertalk 06:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't make it notable TO the SR-71 - it's just a minor reference at best, regardless of its importance in the manga itself. There are Japanese-speaking editors that could probably help with translations. I do note that the manga has an article in the jp.wk, and probably the first step would be to request that the article be translated into English. - BillCJ (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It is notable to the SR-71 because of its iconic speed. No other alternatives at the time of publication is this well known for high speed flight. MythSearchertalk 07:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The SR-71 being notable because of its iconic speed doesn't make any publication notable for featuring or mentioning that iconic speed. What would make the publication notable TO the SR-71 is if they were thought of together in the mind of the public, and that needs a reliable sources to state that. - BillCJ (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I can understand the second part of your argument, but not the first part. If something is used as a source to demonstrate the capability of the SR-71, then you should not need a source to prove the source itself. MythSearchertalk 19:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
That the manga exists, and that is mentions the SR-71 is not in question. What is in question is it's notability to the SR-71 - that the mang is notable for mentioninag the SR-71. That is what needs to be sourced. That the manga exists, and that it mentions the SR-71, is not notable, or iworthy of noting, in and of itself. There are probably hundreds of non-fiction books that mention or feauture the SR-71, and some of them are probably educational. We cannot list or mention all of htem, so there has to be a standard by which to judge which ones are woth noting - that is notability. There has to be a reason why the magna is more notable than any publication not mentioned, and that has to be proved from a differnt source? Again, if the manga is reliable itself, then it can be used as a source in the article, but it cannot talk about its own notability or importance.Does all that help?

- BillCJ (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is used as a source, I have never heard of any policy stating a source is needed for another source. And yes, I am not suggesting having the entry like it is now if it is used in the article as a source. I am saying use it as a source, for what the article did not clearly mention now, which is the heat generated during flight. We are talking about removing the pop culture section, and I am suggesting using it as a source along with the killing of the section only. MythSearchertalk 20:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved from article pending reference discussion:

In Manga Science (まんがサイエンス 1 Manga Science), a science teaching comic short series, volume 2 (2006), an SR-71 was used to demonstrate the heat generated in high speed flight.

Until translated...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This might sound really funny without the pictures, I will skip the joke parts of the comic(performed by another clown character type student figure), which adds nothing to the ref:(footnotes out of the word bubbles)
[Authoritative figure] At this point, we understand how air provides resistance.
[Authoritative figure] When things reach certain speeds, air have another form of attack up its sleeves.(taking the SR-71 as an example)
[Authoritative figure] Do you know the heat generated from friction? [Student figure]
[Student figure] When rubbing wood together to create fire... it is the heat generated by rubbing things together.
[Authoritative figure] That is correct.
[Authoritative figure] When things reach speeds over Mach 2, it rub against air and starts to generate high heat.
[Authoritative figure] And when reaching Mach 3, the heat can reach a few hundred degrees, it is a temperature that can ignite paper.
[Student figure] So when things like Satellite reach something like Mach 23...
[Authoritative figure] It reaches a few thousand degrees and will be burnt within a short while. (Jet planes cannot reach Mach 23)
MythSearchertalk 17:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding reliable sources: To use the manga as a source wthin the article itself, it has to meet the qualifications of a Reliable source. That doens't necessarily mean an outside source stating it is reliable, but it has to fall wihin WPs's policies for reliable sources. In addition, as a non-English source, if there are other sources that say the same thing as would be cited from the manga, it's better to cite the English language source. If it says something that is not in another English source, then the manga is probably questionable as a source. Bottom line: It's probably best to use or mention the manga in teh Japanese wiki, but not here. It's doesn't appear notable enough in English to be mentioned, and it doens't add anything to this article not found in English sources. - BillCJ (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This is reasonable, if you can find an English source about SR-71's heat during its flight, it would be great. It is not anything really out of reach, and it is a source that could support the current unreferenced Life Support section. However, I think a claim made in a Japanese material published independently with something really just common sense should not be questioned about its reliability as much. Of course an English source would be great, but until then, it could be used. MythSearchertalk 17:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The Terry Pappas article in Popular Science (in the Further reading section) talks about it here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Good, then I rest my case. MythSearchertalk 01:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S. refed the heat part in life support, still need more specific claim for the internal windshield heating. MythSearchertalk 02:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture fork article used for blocking the cruft is being AfDed

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional appearances of SR-71 Blackbird Please see if anyone objects to the proposal User:TomStar81 proposed. MythSearchertalk 07:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

info removed

There used to be info on the heliochronometer used for navigation, but I don't see it anymore. Is there a reason it is no longer mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.244.6.212 (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No idea. I did not see anything in the recent history on that. Will have to dig more. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I spot checked in the article history back to mid-2004 and found not mention of that. Suggest you add something with a valid reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I took a quick look in one of Richard Graham's books and found mention of a chronometer, but not a heliochonometer. I also decided to take a look at the current information about the navigation system, and found an inconsistency with a data point when I compared it to the information from Col. Graham's book. The article states that "Originally equipped with data on 56 selected stars..." while the books states that there were 61 stars in the catalog. The flight manual also states that there was a 61-star catalog, so I am curious to know where the 56 came from. As a side note: I plan on cleaning up and adding to the section about the ANS when I have time, as I find it to be a very interesting system. Babilkeko (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Does anyone have reliable sources for the following?

One of the standard counters to an inlet unstart was for the pilot to reach out and unstart both inlets; this drove both spikes out, stopped the yawing conditions and allowed the pilot to restart each inlet. Once restarted, with normal engine combustion, the plane could accelerate and climb to the planned cruise altitude. The analog air inlet computer was later replaced by a digital one. Lockheed engineers developed control software for the engine inlets that would recapture the lost shock wave and re-light the engine before the pilot was even aware an unstart had occurred. The SR-71 machinists were responsible for the hundreds of precision adjustments of the forward air by-pass doors within the inlets. This helped control the shock wave, prevent unstarts, and increase performance.

It reads a bit like an advert for Lockheed rather than something well referenced or notable.Glider87 (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


That sound somewhat familiar, but upon reading about inlet restarts in one of Richard Graham's books, I found the following:
"The inlets had an automatic "restart" feature to aid the pilot in recovery from an unstart... To recapture the supersonic airflow, the automatic restart cycle went through the following cycle: the foreward bypass doors drive full open, the spikes rapidly move forward as much as 15 inches, spikes then retract to their scheduled position (about 4 seconds after shock expulsion is sensed), then the forward mypass doors close back down to their automatic oparation after the spikes restart."


It also states that above 2.3 Mach it was important to identify which engine had had the unstart, which was done by the pilot watching the spike and indicator doors. It was then determined by whichever spike and door needle was moving to its restart position first [to keep inlet drag symmetrical (about 2.3 Mach)the other engine went through the same restart cycle]. If the pilot was already flying with a manual spike and/or door, it did not respond to automatic restart sequence, making it extremely difficult to tell which inlet had had the unstart. The aircraft was later digitally upgraded, which included right and left unstart indicator lights on the instrument panel to show which inlet was the one that had originally had the unstart.
While the section you are referring to is not referenced and seems more like a praise towards former Lockheed employees, I think that with some additional (cited) information and some modification of current information, the 'Air Inlets' section would be much improved. Babilkeko (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting the Pop Culture debate

Since this topic is now heating up at the Wp:AVIATION group forum as well as here and given a recent massive cut was made on this article with this section being deleted, I am repeating the discussion here so editors can first find it quickly and second, contribute to the discourse before edit warring takes place.

Copyedit:" == 'Popular Culture' section ==

take at a look of this BillCJ's operation on this page, he reverted other's contributes without any reason, there is also complains about his actions in his personal page, i'm wondering why he hasn't been banned yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.18.25.35 (talk • contribs)

i add a paragraph about SR-71's appearance in Japanese anime Hellsing and Trinity Blood, and then been reverted twice, once by BillCJ without any reason, again by Fnlayson 'remove non-notable appearances, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Popular culture)'

in Hellsing, the SR-71 was specifically identified as an SR-71, not fictional variants, and it's a key item used by the protagonist to approach the enemy, since it's fast and high enough to not to be intercepted, i think this appearance is fully qualified, take the popular culture section of F-14 Tomcat#Popular culture as an example. consider that again plz.

for Trinity Blood, i agree with Fnlayson's reason, but BillCJ, your attitude is rude, write down your apology here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.18.25.35 (talk • contribs)

When people don't take the time to read, understand, and follow instructions, such as the lengthy "No More Cruft" notice, then I take it that they are vandals, or not serious contributors looking to improve Wikipedia, and thus an explanation is not needed. Nor is an apology from me. Any further comments such as above will not be responded to, and perhaps reported if necessary. - BillCJ (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
sorry for not noticing the notice, i'm a newbie here, and thanks Fnlayson for the mention, by your reply newbie is not welcomed? and, i bet you didn't watch that, why are you so sure it's not qualified and undo it in no time? - 139.18.25.35 (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, than, that's understandable. I'm sorry I didn't explain myself in your case. - BillCJ (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, then, back to the topic. still wondering if you two agree with the appearance in Hellsing is qualified or not? take a look at the fourth paragraph of this section plz. - 139.18.25.35 (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, because it's minor and non-notable TO the SR-71. If it's an important appearance, then you should have no problem finding reliable sources attesting to its notability. - BillCJ (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are on a single topic. The anime SR-71 is not the real aircraft. This is an article about the real aircraft, not fictional discriptions of a similar-looking aircraft even if they have the same name. If you wish there to be an article on fictional SR-71s and you think it is notable, and there is enough to write and reference, then by all means start an article like SR-71 (fiction).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
to BillCJ, so how about the recently added Area 7 quote? why is that notable to SR-71? to WolfKeeper, i DID claim that was not a fictional variant like the X-Jet in X-Man series, it didn't show any fictional functionality beyond the real aircraft. the Area 7 quote was just been tagged 'citation needed', but the Hellsing quote was been removed immediately, i thinks this is unfair. - 139.18.25.35 (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
seems no one is answering this simple and clear question, I'm adding the quote back. 58.242.201.42 (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
removed again by someone reasoning "fancruft", anyone tell me how do you separate "fancruft" and "popular culture"? you're never been on a playboy cover so you are not "popular culture"? why the "Area 7" quote was staying there? Also noticed that the Metal Gear Solid was banned because it's fictional, I think there is some mistake here, weapons mentioned in that series were NEVER fictional variants, you can ban Metal Gear Solid because the presence is unnoticeable, but not because it's fictional. and I CLAIM IT AGAIN, it is the KEY the protagonist used in that episode to approach the enemy because it's high altitude and speed. the only reason I can imagine is that you guys hate Japanese culture, I don't think this is wikipedia about to be. 58.242.201.42 (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Sorry, never heard of that. 139.18.25.35 (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, WP:FANCRUFT and WP:CRUFTCRUFT. The problem could be seen in two difference sides. This article once had a very long, too long, pop culture section, in order to make it short, all trivia appearance has to go. The selection method should be sources that are third party publication, say, if you want to have the Hellsing reference in the section, you should find a publication stating that instead of citing the original Hellsing manga. The idea to find a source stating "The SR-71 is so famous that it appeared in fictional stories like X, Y and Z" instead of stating "SR-71 appeared in X", "SR-71 appeared in Y", "SR-71 appeared in Z". Also, I see no one hating Japanese Culture, the Manga Science reference is there for so long due to its education based instead of plot based appearance. MythSearchertalk 07:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The "Area 7" line is marked "citation needed" and it's still there. 139.18.25.35 (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, removed now. 139.18.25.35 (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The subject of this article is the real aircraft. The manga cartoon is not about the real aircraft, it is fiction about the aircraft. But this is about the real aircraft. If you want to write about fiction about this aircraft, I suggest you create a separate article and define the topic there appropriately to include it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 07:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
By your opinion the entire popular culture section should be removed since all novel/movie is fictional, well, even sometimes they are based on real things, the story itself is still fictional. 139.18.25.35 (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The only one left is non fiction. :-)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 08:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Manga Science it NOT fictional. It is an education series that teaches real science. SR-71, Saturn V, Sputnik, etc. used in it are all devoted to education purposes. MythSearchertalk 08:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a hand-drawn comic, depicting non real events. Correct?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 09:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
And doesn't it have artificially intelligent robots in it?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 09:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Dunno. There's a few cartoons from the french translation: [3]- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 09:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I must admit, I'm not thrilled with it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 09:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Any book is drawn/written, and most educational books sets up situations instead of using real events. Just pick up a high school physics and see the example questions. Do you call that fictional? It got artificial intelligent robots, yes, like the Honda Asimo, the Sony AIBO. It even got fictional characters, yet its target reader is primary school students what do you expect? Super detailed technical background with extremely text based content? Get real, you must make it interesting to help the kids to learn, not force feed hard data into their brains. MythSearchertalk 10:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

First post, as I'm new here. What about the reference to it in the movie Iron Man? And I don't know it it's been coverede before, but is the X-Men's "Blackbird Jet" based on this (at least as far as the new movies are concerned,) because the visual similarity is uncanny. Davehoekst (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen to the section. The character Jetfire, who assumes the form of an SR-71 in the movie, was a fairly major character in the original series (both cartoon and comics) and I believe that the fact that they filmed the "creation" of the character at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, where a Blackbird is a real world exhibit, warrants its inclusion in this article. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 13:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I vote for removing this section from the article, the potential for meaningful content seems likely to never exceed the trouble of arguing a fine definition of what is allowed to be in it. Quaeler (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think no matter how you do it, you will still face the trouble of arguing a fine definition. The whole section is just going to be readded over and over again by random editors since people like to mention such items appeared in their favourite fiction. It is kinda like proudly presenting a good grade to your friend in your favourite subject. MythSearchertalk 16:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Either limit it to appearance of the actual plane, that is: the real thing - else you'd have to name every occasion where a picture/poster or model is shown (say, in a teenage boys room) OR limit it even more and only mention it when the real plane actually is somehow involved, f.ex. in D.A.R.Y.L. (1985 movie) where it is stolen by the main-character. Also, I suggest including the "spin-offs" as they are of interest in context with the A-12 and SR-71, such as http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/J-Type_327_Nubian_royal_starship Just my 2 cents -91.0.64.35 (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is fair to include the SR-71's appearance as Jetfire in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen now that the film has been released. Jetfire played an important supporting role in helping the main characters figure out symbols which were key to the film's concept and ending.Basilyeo (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest moving all of these to another page called List of fictional appearances of SR-71 Blackbird and have the section use the template {{tl:main}}. This page would be rid of the random passerbies and that page could simply be ignored by all who are not interested. MythSearchertalk 08:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the entry, again. Please wait for a concensus to include the appearance, per the hidden notes in the pop-culture section. If it's especially notable, it will be included at some point.
I added it again, the movie has been released, his character is an important figure in the film. That meets all criteria, there's no need for a vote, it's a factual notable appearance. If we want to get more specific, he is SR-71, 61-7972. The only thing that really needs to be watched is how long the entry is. I kept it short and sweet, with links to the movie and character pages should people want more information. There's no need for plot details and such to be in the mention.DrForester (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
And the entry is still completely unreferenced - to stay, at the bare minimum it would need a WP:RS with non-trivial coverage of the use discussing the appearance of the SR-71 in the film - and why it is important to the aircraft. This is an article about the AIRCRAFT, not about the film.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Forget it then, it's going to get added and if you want to remove it for the next 15 years, be my guest. If you want to make the entry perfect, then do so but edit it. It's a factual appearance, and an actual SR-71 was used (specifically 61-7972 in Virginia). A simple 1 sentence mention of where the airplane has appeared in popular culture does not detract from the Aircrafts history, and if anything the fact that the plane is still being used in popular culture speaks volumes for its legacy. Am going to delete entire popular culture section though. As you said, This is an article for THE AIRCRAFT, any appearance by The aircraft never really happened and should never be spoken of again. I move for remove of "popular culture' section all together, there's no sense in even having it if it's so arbitrary what does and does not get added. DrForester (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The funny thing about using the phrase "I move for <some action>" is that it implies bringing something up for vote or consensus, as opposed to being a mid-frothing utterance made while actually doing the action. Quaeler (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Well just getting the ball rolling, I know it will be put back. But the fact is, the appearance is going to be edited in again and again. Better to be added now, with something short, than a long 2 page thesis on what Jetfire's favorite color was. Or better yet how about just a simple sentence at the beginning of the Popular Culture section. Something like "The SR-71's popularity in popular culture has lead to it being featured prominently in several films, including..." and then list 2 or 3 of them. That would not only cover this appearance in Transformers (which will make it onto the page in the end), but other debated appearances as well. The fact that this articles current form totally ignores any of the many film appearances does injustice to the history and legacy of a plane, which has been so popular that it's still getting used so prominently 20 years after it's retirement. DrForester (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As to a separate article for pop-culture, it is a good idea, but it has failed in the past for other articles (I'm not sure if one was made for this one.) Such articles are magnets for every appearance and mention, which are almost always unsourced, and targets of over-zealous AFD-wonks looking for an AFD to happen. BillCJ (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, my idea is to create one, let people go for AfDs to delete it, and let the cycle go on. It is not any of the regular editor's responsibility to keep the fictional page, instead of having people come to mess with this one, let them work with another page is much better alternative. If the alternative is deleted or not, it is least of our concern. It could be the worst article out there, and deleted every other 3 months, but this article can stay in its prime form for the whole period. Also, if this plane is so famous that it appeared in so many fictional stories, it must be quite notable in the fictional sense as well, and should survive a certain degree of notability. (As I recall, the list here was extremely long at one point) MythSearchertalk 16:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I've done that before, with Sonic weapon. I split off the hypothetical and fiction gack on Halloween 2007 into the article Sonic weaponry (fiction) so that the 'kids' could play with it, but what happened was that it got Afd'ed and nobody owned the article enough to care about saving it. It was an accretion of drive-by edits with no sources. Creating that page solved my problem of one persistent editor who wanted to add cruft, but nobody maintained interest. It was a silly solution to the original problem, the one of drive-by crufters adding stupid stuff and moving on. Afterward, I gradually realized that I should just delete the non-notable stuff on sight, and not bother creating articles that will sap attention from the good people patrolling Afd. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, forget about it until some random passerby came to add the cruft again. The AfD process comes and go, and it is not our concern. We do not care about how bad the pop article is, or if it is deleted or not, as long as it is suggested that all goes to that article, this one stays untouched. It is very likely that creating the page now solves the Transformer Jetfire pandemic (if you get what I mean), and if something else shows up in the future, and the pop article is deleted in between, the random passerby can create it again and we can still solve the problem. MythSearchertalk 02:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Usually that is not the case, since this article is already so long. And we always have the trim/del all pop contents option if AfD decides a merge(which is unlikely if no one supports it) MythSearchertalk 03:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC).
The funny thing about using the phrase "I move for <some action>" is that it implies bringing something up for vote or consensus, as opposed to being a mid-frothing utterance made while actually doing the action. Quaeler (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Well just getting the ball rolling, I know it will be put back. But the fact is, the appearance is going to be edited in again and again. Better to be added now, with something short, than a long 2 page thesis on what Jetfire's favorite color was. Or better yet how about just a simple sentence at the beginning of the Popular Culture section. Something like "The SR-71's popularity in popular culture has lead to it being featured prominently in several films, including..." and then list 2 or 3 of them. That would not only cover this appearance in Transformers (which will make it onto the page in the end), but other debated appearances as well. DrForester (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added the sub page, let the random passerby do what they are happy with it, move all fictional appearances there if we see one. Reducing most of the hassle edit warring with them if possible. MythSearchertalk 07:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed lead of the section so ignorant passerbys are not tempted to add more to the section. MythSearchertalk 02:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Did it occur to anyone to request page protection to the keep the fictional appearances out the of article? I would have been more than happy to have lock down the page for the duration of the popularity wave for transformers. More importantly though is this simple fact: No Cruft = No Cruft. It doesn't mean port the material to another page, nor does it mean that we create an "in pop culture" section. It means no cruft. Unless the cruft has a reliable source and serves a useful role then it should be removed. Its that simple. FYI: I have raised this matter on the MilHist coordinator page, I would expect some level of comment on this from my fellow contributors soon. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem about this is that the current two entries in the pop culture section is not fancruft(Or at least the one I insist of having is not, it is the mention of such aircraft in an educational setting.) If the page could be somehow semi-protected, it would be great, but I am not sure if there are regular anon editors that contribute to this article or not. MythSearchertalk 02:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Copying my comments from the Talk:Lockheed AC-130#Spectre Gunship in Popular Culture to show why pop culture sections should not originate on the target subject end...
A good rule of thumb is that an article should not have a pop culture section if it is not a pop culture subject. The world of pop culture does not ooze out to contaminate the real world although the bearers of cruft try. Pop culture sections might be appropriate in articles on movies, video games, actors, etc. who themselves are pop culture subjects. They are not appropriate elsewhere. Sometimes the use of the term is used erroneously in Wikipedia when Video documentary (or something of that ilk) would be more appropriate (example F-15#Popular culture). The entries are appropriate for the article but the section title is not and invites problems. Problems are best avoided here by not having a Pop culture section.
Just say no to a very bad trend to pollute articles with cruft.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to start an independent article for aircraft appearing in fiction. Perhaps you can re-add the section to this article, with a simple sentence or two, then link it here. Mathewignash (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparent date conflict

There seems to be a contridiction in timming of two entries. The first is in section 3.4 SR-71 timeline: "61-7978 SR-71A Lost, 19 July 1973 "

and the second section 9 SR-71 aircraft production and disposition "21 April 1989: #974 was lost due to an engine explosion after taking off from Kadena AB. This was the last Blackbird to be lost, it was the first SR-71 accident in 18 years, and it is also the longest accident-free streak of any USAF aircraft".

Either it should be 16 years or the date # 978 was lost is wrong. 71.114.224.129 (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Mark D

Thanks for bringing this up. Corrections have been made. 7978 was lost on 20 July 1972, so that's 17 years. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

SR-71 in China

According to Popular Mechanics, April 1972, page 82, "The Superfast Spy Plane We Don't Talk About" by Edward Hymoff, it says: "For example, the SR-71 on a number of occasions has flown high over the rugged terrain of remote Sinkiang Province and its two-man crew has observed the test blasts of Peking's nuclear weapons -- both A-bombs and the far more complex thermonuclear H-bombs." Would this be correct? I don't think any of my A-12/SR-71 books say anything about China specifically, but I think the D-21 was designed to go inland so the A-12 wouldn't have to, and in my SR-71 books Col. Graham stresses that the SR-71 missions were not spy operations and that they wore the full uniform -- thus if a SR-71 did go down in China around 1970 it would have been a huge diplomatic incident. -Rolypolyman (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked in here for some time, so two quick comments:

1. When USAF SR-71 operations arrived in Kadena, Okinawa in early 1968, the A-12 Oxcart was already there and flying missions ( I had a great opportunity one day to visit their control room and watch an A-12 mission in progress. Their "Bird Watcher" which sent HF SSB uplinks back to their control room was most fascinating ). While I can't divulge info about the CIA's missions, your reader's should think A-12's when reading about observations of China's nuclear facilities instead of the SR-71. Rich Graham's statements quoted above are accurate.

2. On 9 August, 2009, Babilkeko, asked about the ANS reference to 56 stars vs. 61 in Rich Graham's book and the Flight Handbook. Easy answer: I was in the beginning of the program from 1965 to 1969 when I moved on and joined the AMSA ( renamed the B-1A ) Bomber's Avionics Engineering Office at Wright Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio. When I wrote the ANS section of this article, I put in values that existed while I was flying in the program. Nortronics, slowly made improvements to the ANS as time went on and the star list growing to 61 doesn't surprise me.

David Dempster, SR-71 RSO 24.16.79.51 (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinons and Suggestions Wanted

I built this template with the intentions of working it into the records section, after doing so I realize it would'nt look right User talk:Mlpearc/Template Sandbox. The stats. are correct. This was the last SR-71 flight, so I would still like to work the information "in text form" into the section adding to the mentions already there. I also have picture of the pilot and RSO on the tarmac in front of SR-71 S/N 61-7972 after landing the last flight, it would be a nice thumb in that section. Any and All Welcome Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dont have a real problem with the records being added to the records section but I am not sure that the table would give undue balance to these particular flights when other record flights are also mentioned. Although the only other official point-to-point records which are in the article are the New York to London and London to Los Angeles flights in 1974. It just may be to complex to do in text! MilborneOne (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I agree the chart would look "Out of Place" but re-wording the paragraph is in the works. Mlpearc MESSAGE 23:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. do you think picturethumbnail would add to the section ? Mlpearc MESSAGE 23:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

A specific image like will be a fine add. This would go in the Records section, right? -Fnlayson (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Since the jest of the photo is to commemorate the last flight of a SR-71 and it this flight that broke the records then "it's the only appropriate place to put it. Mlpearc MESSAGE 00:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The chart is nice, but large. Perhaps if you used smaller text or made a .png file out of it instead? — BQZip01 — talk 00:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

::You don't think it would look an elephant in a thimble ? The .png sounds great I could "maybe" use that as the caption of the thumbnail but I have no idea how to convert it to .png ? Mlpearc MESSAGE 00:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)  Done Mlpearc MESSAGE 19:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Myth and lore

Please explain how and why do we need to cite Myth and lore, also the engine ifno you put in Myth and lore seems more factual and should go Here insted of Here Mlpearc MESSAGE 01:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Does not matter to me. Moving the content to the engine section or other seems alright. I removed a crazy claim of 200,000 ft altitude and put 2 engine paragraphs together today. I did not add anything new (see diff). Please take any further discussion to the article's talk page as requested in the Notes at the top. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I liked your suggestion and went with it. The stealth part in the Myth & lore section was mostly repeated in the Design section also. Thanks. The moved text could probably be worked in better though. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I still think the Myth and Lore section needs to be replaced. It is Notible these were and still are just as much a part of the plane as any records and facts. as you requested I will move this to the article's talk page, any futher comments we will place there Mlpearc MESSAGE 03:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh OK. I'm not against a Myth & lore section with appropriate content. Most of the content that was there largely repeated technical stuff. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes but I think most of the Myth/Lore stuff is going to be about what people hear and think, aginst what the "Officially Released" information. Also I think the statement about the SR's cieling be it far fetched should be returned to Myth & Lore and let the reader decide how far fetched it is. Mlpearc MESSAGE 17:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the move tag on your talk page "I Forgot" Mlpearc MESSAGE 18:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"The SR-71's radar cross section (RCS) was much greater than the later F-117's RCS, which is similar to that of a small ball bearing.[29]" the ball bearing bit sounds like utter BS to me. What is the engineering source for this? 122.58.132.166 (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Open Question

Does "anyone" have any information about the SR-71 parts wharehouse at MCLB Barstow. ? Mlpearc MESSAGE 04:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Plearse leave message at my talk, thanks Mlpearc MESSAGE 20:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

SR-72 Blackswift

Tried to add in, must have missed much of the reference syntax, but SR-72 is relevant here and new article for it as a split out would be useful as well... Please review and let me know the fix for this here...

More recently, trying to put in —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agencius (talk • contribs)

Your attempt to add something resulted in massive deletion of article text. :(
According to this 2008 article by Jane's, the proposed Blackswift is only notionally numbered "SR-72". What more recent evidence do you have? What reliable source? I think if the aircraft is ever shown to exist, by reliable sources, then it could be mentioned in the succession section. It would also merit its own article. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ac7c40d1a-4bb2-4653-8dd9-40b6d05de309 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agencius (talk • contribs) 04:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You blanked large sections of this article without even adding anything. Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Also, Blackswift was a planned hypersonic experimental aircraft, not a reconnaissance aircraft. Funding for it was cut over a year ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Innuendo

In the Succession section it reads: "These factors have led many to doubt that the US has abandoned the concept of spy planes to complement reconnaissance satellites." Does this imply that these "many" believe that a replacement for the Blackhawk is operational clandestinely? __meco (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Records

I just noticed this in the article:

Several aircraft exceeded this altitude in zoom climbs but not in sustained flight.

What the heck is a zoom climb? Is it the same as a ballistic climb? I've never heard the term used and, since I don't have 10,000 hours flight time, I thought I'd ask y'all: Is that a legitimate (i.e. common) term? Is it the best for this article? I'll defer to the community; if you've not heard of it either, we can change it. Otherwise, I'll load some new Human Vocabulary firmware over the weekend...

Thanks! — UncleBubba (Talk) 21:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Some kind of climb is all I can say. In any event, altitude records are for level flight. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You would think it's a vertical climb to or almost to a stall, to achieve the highest altitude possible  ?

Mlpearc MESSAGE 22:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


  1. Never heard of a ballistic climb
  2. I added a wikilink for clarity
  3. A "zoom climb" is a relatively common term (one that flyers in my squadron regularly use in discussions about ejection). Basically, you trade airspeed for altitude converting kinetic energy into potential energy. The most extreme examples are those for record altitudes where a plane will usually light the burners in level flight and then climb at a very steep rate to maximize altitude (though usually not quite veritcal). In a less extreme example, if a B-52 is at low altitude and experiences a problem necessitating a bail out, they will trade airspeed for altitude to create separation from the ground and place the crewmembers in a more advantageous position to make a successful bailout. — BQZip01 — talk 23:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I've heard some Habu drivers talk about a ballistic climb but never saw one. Oh sure, you could watch them take-off and begin a steep climb-out but not as drastic as in shown in Figure 3.1 of this URL:Air Combat-Related Aerodynamics www.flightsimbooks.com. You could the drivers standard request upon take-off for FL 800 and Oakland Center usually would laugh and say, "Clear as requested." And to think some guys call it the "lead sled". --Morenooso (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
And any good Buff driver would slightly roll the a/c. This gives the RN/N a decent chance at low altitudes. Supposedly the last Holbrook accident, one of the survivors thought that's what the pilots did. --Morenooso (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
And which accident is that? I can't seem to find it — BQZip01 — talk 04:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Records & SR-71 serial numbers

Moved here from User talk:Fnlayson:

Hi,

http://www.voodoo-world.cz/sr71/timeline.html has:

28 Jul 1976

SR-71A #962 set an Altitude World Record of 85,068.997 ft, USAF Pilot/RSO: BobHelt/Larry Elliott (LSB; BB)

28 Jul 1976

SR-71A #958 set a World Straight 15 & 25 KM Course Record with a speed of 2193 mph, USAF Pilot/ RSO: Eldon Joersz/ George Morgan (LSB; BB)


Have they got it wrong - was it in fact #958 that set both records? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeroberts1 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure on the 2nd one, but the one that set the altitude record was '958. That is listed in a book I have and on the FAI records page. I will have to find another book to get the serial for the other record... -Fnlayson (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I think it may have been 962 rather than 958 that broke the altitude record on 28 July 1976.

The FIA records page [4] does not give the serial number of the altitude record breaker, neither does [5]. I cannot check what Landis and Jenkins 2005, pp. 77-78 says. [6] gives the altitude record breaker as 962.

I have contacted the Imperial War Museum Duxford, UK, where 962 is now housed. They say:

"I have looked into this here and found that the sustained altitude record was attained on 28th July 1976. The aircraft was an SR-71A flown by Captain Robert C. Helt with RSO, Major Larry A Elliot.

Some books quote that the serial number of the aircraft is unknown but I have found at least 3 references to it being serial number 61-7692 (our aircraft) (this serial is sometimes misquoted as 64-17692) in two of Paul Crickmore's Osprey published books and also in Steve Pace's Crowood published tome. I also found a couple of references to it being the aircraft we have on display here at Duxford on various internet web sites by doing a search.

As both of the above mentioned authors have carried out much research and know a lot more about the aircraft than we do, I think that we will have to trust them as this is probably where we got the information from when the caption for our aircraft was written but as we have been in touch with many ex-SR-71 crew members, the information was also probably confirmed by them." Mikeroberts1 (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC) 26 April 2010

Yea, the FAI records page lists '17958' with the speed records. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, there's a typo in the above email from the Imperial War Museum (IWM) Duxford. The IWM author subsequently emails: "Yes it is 61-7962, a bit of a typing error on my part..." Mikeroberts1 (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC) 27 April 2010

Using the 3-4 Blackird books I own and the FIA page, I have not been able to determine with certainty which SR-71 set the absolute altitude record in 1976. All in all I don't think this is all that critical. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"a defensive feature was" vs. "outrace threats"

Mlpearc reverted my edit, preferring

"A defensive feature of the aircraft was its high speed and operating altitude, whereby, if a surface-to-air missile launch was detected, standard evasive action was simply to accelerate."

to my wording:

"Its high speed and operating altitude allowed it to outrace threats; if a surface-to-air missile launch were detected, standard evasive action was simply to accelerate."

My version has the advantages of active voice, more vivid and precise description, and (marginally) brevity; are there advantages to the current version? PRRfan (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Fuel

Is it just me or does the fuel section just seem like nonsense? It talks about coal slurry fuel, and then goes on to say "johnson" found the coal particles damage the engine. I think this section needs to be removed. Remingtonhill1 (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It does seem unlikely. The information was added in these two edits, along with the reference: Johnson, Clarence L. "Kelly" (1985), Kelly: More Than My Share of it All. Smithsonian Books. ISBN 0874744911. If possible we should proabably check the reference before removing the content; perhaps they actually were experimenting with some sort of coal-derived fuel? Riick (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Coal slurry isn't that strange a fuel to be considered - this article in Flight discusses various exotic high energy fuels including carbon, while there was also the WW2 German proposal for a (solid) coal-fuelled ramjet powered fighter, the Lippisch P.13a.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
These are really interesting articles. They even mention carbon would likely be a slurry. Also interesting they mention boranes, which SR-71 used for ignition. The supersonic coal-fired Lippish P.13a is an astounding concept. Thanks for mentioning these Nigel Ish! Riick (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think they mean previous aircraft designs concepts were to use the coal slurry and hydrogen fuels. See "the original document" "The History of the OXCART Program" by Kelly Johnson. http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs.asp?doc_no=0001458639&no_pages=0025&showPage=0001 Dan Freeman, USAF (RET) SR-71 Machinist (4 Nov 2010). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkkjj$$&& (talk • contribs) 17:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Max Speed

I see in the Article History there was a 27 February, 2011 addition that Mach 3.3 was the max speed allowed by Lockheed. I do not know where that limiting speed number is documented, but, although the design was optimized for Mach 3.2, the limiting factor was Compressor Inlet Temperature ( CIT ) of 427 degrees C. Some crews flying in unusually cold air ( such as in the Barents Sea north of Murmansk on the Kola Peninsula ) did reach Mach 3.3 to 3.3 + a few hundreds for brief periods of time when encountering such cold air that delayed CIT reaching 427 C as the aircraft slowly gained speed. It was not a normal cruising speed and the article max speed wording could be reworded to reflect the true CIT limit of 427 degrees C. David Dempster, RSO

David Dempster, SR-71 RSO 20:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


How come there has been over 4000 attempts to down the sr-71? As long as I know it was the a-12 which was designed to fly directly over the area of interest, (violating the enemy airspace). The sr-71 was designed to fly close to the borders but not inside the country of interest, it had side looking sensors. So the plane didn't violate any hostile airspace. How come there has been over 4000 attempts to down it?. Perhaps you meant 4000 attempts to down the a-12. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.58.33.248 (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The A-12 only flew missions in 1967-68. Rmhermen (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft

Currently consists of " * Bristol 188 * Tsybin RSR". How can these slowbucket failures be considered comparable?Ordinary Person (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

CIA and the SR-71

I thought the SR-71 like the A-12 were built and flown by the CIA not the Air force untill later in its operaratonal life. idont have any sources for that but i rembember reading that some where.
-Sic dicit Defectu tui omnis iam = So Says your failure is always present 15:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the SR-71A, B and C models were Air Force aircraft, although in the early years, Lockheed and Test Force personnel at Edwards AFB did fly sorties in some of the "birds".

From the main article, note:

The first flight of an SR-71 took place on 22 December 1964, at Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, California.[51] The first SR-71 to enter service was delivered to the 4200th (later, 9th) Strategic Reconnaissance Wing at Beale Air Force Base, California, in January 1966.[52] The United States Air Force Strategic Air Command had SR-71 Blackbirds in service from 1966 through 1991.

The January, 1966 delivery was a B model flown by Col. Douglas T. Nelson ( our Commander ) and Lt. Col Ray Haupt ( Instructor Pilot and our DO ). A large turn-out of we early crew members and Maintenance personnel greeted them and it signaled the start of our getting aircraft at Beale AFB and our getting to fly Blackbirds.

David Dempster, SR-71 RSO 15:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Dempster (talk • contribs)

armament?

The long article doesn't mention the most important point: armament. --boarders paradise (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It was a reconnaissance aircraft - in service it was unarmed.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The article does mention the armament of the blackbird, in this section, "Reconnaissance equipment included signals intelligence sensors, a side-looking radar and a photo camera." Mlpearc powwow 14:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Just as rockets are armament to a jet fighter, a camera is armament to a reconnaissance aircraft. It's just a comparison between the crafts role and it's needed equipment. Mlpearc powwow 16:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, pictures of a "Secret" could be a deadly weapon . Mlpearc powwow 17:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

SAM evasion

There is no aircraft where acceleration is an appropriate tactical response to a low aspect (head-on) SAM.

Furthermore, SR-71 flight constraints rarely permit arbitrary velocity adjustments, especially accelerations.

"(SR-71 pilots) did not have the latitude to change the throttle settings at random" -- Col. Rich Graham USAF (retired). [1]

Consider: the SR-71 cruises at mach 3.2, maximum airspeed is mach 3.35, meanwhile the speed of the SA-5 Gammon SAM was mach 8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NOrbeck (talk • contribs) 21:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The Wiki page you cited gives 3 different figures for the speed of this missile. Two of the three work out to Mach 4. Is it possible that the Mach 8 figure is an error?
Also its maximum range is 150 miles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.172 (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Aye, I agree; one of the reasons for the high operating ceiling was making many SA weapons ineffective by exceeding their operational ceiling - this would not have been necessary if the plane were able to fly at speeds well beyond missiles that be fired against it. The plane is very impressive but it's constrained by the realities of physics and no manned plane can really out-accelerate an unmanned missile that's little more than a rocket-motor strapped to a warhead and proximity fuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.145.138 (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Increasing speed is specifically mentioned in a documentary (Wings or other) by crew members to avoid SAMs. The increase was from about Mach 3 to like Mach 3.2+, which is not a big percent increase. Remember they were flying at high altitude, so a speed increase can really affect a missile ability to get up there. -fnlayson (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
When we started flying Operational Missions over North Vietnam in 1968, our monitoring Defensive Systems displays would light up when the SA-2 Fan Song tracking radars locked on to us. If a SA-2 was actually launched, the tracking radars continued feeding position and velocity into their targeting computers, but a separate C Band radar would then also turn on to track the missile itself via a C band beacon carried on board the SA-2 missile. Immediately, we would get a C light on our displays and the RSO would turn on the C band jammer to disrupt missile to ground communications. Typically, in those early months, our tactics were to enter NVN airspace at mach 3.0 and if we got a C light ( meaning an actual missile launch had occurred ) accelerate to mach 3.2 and begin a slow climb. As explained to us crew members, this caused the Fan Song targeting computers ( which had been aiming at a predicted and leading kill point ) to begin recomputing and calculating kill point corrections. If the missile received these guidance corrections successfully ( in spite of our jamming ) then the missile would start turning and expending energy and fuel to keep changing to it's new kill point assignments. This, would not change the speed of the missile, per se, but cause it's loss of energy and fuel to often prevent it from reaching us ( tracking camera pictures of the missile contrail curving and falling off were great to see back on the ground at Kadena Air Base, Okinawa ). After I moved on and left the Blackbird program in 1969, I can't say what tactics changes were developed. But, our receiving and active ECM Def Systems coupled with our acceleration and climbing tactics were very successful when I was there. Finally, to my knowledge, A SA-5 Gammon was never launched at a Blackbird, but I'll leave that for others to comment on. David Dempster, RSO

David Dempster, SR-71 RSO 17:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Dempster (talk • contribs)

"Over the course of its service life, no SR-71 was shot down, despite more than 4,000 attempts to do so." What is the source of that claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.138.195.128 (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Removed. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
So which SR-71 was shot down? Or was it that there were no attpemts to shoot down the SR-71 with SAMs at all? - BilCat (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of anecdotal reports of missiles fired at SR-71s, even captured on recon film in some cases; I presume the issue is with the 4,000 number. Ben Rich in 'Skunk Works' says the SR-71 'had more than one hundred SAM SA-2 missiles fired at them over the years', which presumably sets a lower boundary on the possible number of attempts. He also says that it retired 'as the only military airplane never to be shot down or lose a single crewman to enemy fire'. I'm sure I've seen significantly larger numbers claimed elsewhere. Mark Grant (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I presumed the issue was with the 4,000 number also, yet Phil removed the whole sentenece as if all of it was incorrect. I just felt like pointing that out in a different manner. - BilCat (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Since the 4,000 claim is removed, I don't see the point of keeping the the early part of the sentence. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 08:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The 4,000 figure presumably comes from a documentary on the plane. Reference is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roViqNuWJ74&feature=player_detailpage#t=2607s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.91.5.32 (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Uncited Flight simulator section

This section has been uncited except for the retirement part at the end. I am moving the text here, see below.

The Link Simulator Company's SR-71 Flight Simulator was developed during 1963–1965 under a deep "black" security blanket because it and the team Link assigned to it were given access to CIA OXCART and USAF R-12 / SR-71 clearances, the complete list of names of classified vendors supplying parts and software that had to be simulated, the total aircraft performance envelope data and a government-produced satellite photo montage of almost the entire continental United States to provide optical imagery for the RSO's portion of the Flight Simulator. This later capability was mounted on a separate, large, rectangular glass plate (approximately 6 feet (1.8 m) by 12 feet (3.7 m) in size) over which moved an optical sighting head that traveled at the scaled speed and direction of the Blackbird during its simulated flight. Realistic and accurate images were then displayed in the Optical View Sight and SLR RCD (Radar Correlator Display) in the RSO cockpit. Imagery was not provided to the pilot's simulator, which like the RSO simulator, had translucent window panels with varying degrees of lighting to change a simulated flight from daylight to night flying conditions.[citation needed]
Instructor positions were behind both the pilot's and the RSO's cockpits, with monitoring, malfunction and emergency problem controls provided. The simulator halves could be flown as separate cockpits with different training agendas or in a team mode, where intercom, instrument readings and air vehicle/sub-systems performance were integrated. Although most simulator flights were in a flight suit "shirt sleeve" environment, selected flights during a crew's checkout training were made with the crew wearing the complete David Clark Company's Full Pressure Suit.[citation needed]
In 1965, when the first Beale AFB Instructor Pilot/RSO crew (in civilian attire) visited the Flight Simulator during USAF checkout and acceptance trials at Link's upstate New York facilities, they were surprised to park in front of a busy, active grocery store and then be escorted to a side door that led to a hidden, rear portion of the building that was Link's classified "Skunkworks" type facility for the Blackbird program. Secrecy was so complete that no one in the township was aware of what was happening behind the busy checkout stands selling groceries.[citation needed] Later in 1965, the Flight Simulator was transferred to Beale AFB, California and the 9th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing's SAGE building, which provided vault level security for it plus the Wing Headquarters, Flight Mission Planning, and Intelligence Analysis / Exploitation of Blackbird mission products.[citation needed]
Besides SR-71 flight crew training and currency usage, the Flight Simulator was used several times by Lockheed and CIA operatives to analyze Groom Lake A-12 problems and accidents, with similar assistance provided for SR-71 flights at Edwards AFB. Another unique feature was that an actual flight mission tape for the SR-71 ANS could be loaded into the Flight Simulator's digital computers, which had been designed and programmed by Link engineers to emulate the Nortronics ANS. During Category II testing at Edwards AFB, some types of ANS navigation errors could be duplicated in the Flight Simulator at Beale AFB, with Link engineers then often assisting in software fixes to the main ANS flight software programs.[citation needed]
At the conclusion of SR-71 flying at Beale AFB, the Flight Simulator (minus the RSO optical imagery system) was transferred to the NASA Dryden facility at Edwards AFB in support of NASA SR-71 flight operations. Upon completion of all USAF and NASA SR-71 operations at Edwards, the Flight Simulator was moved in July 2006 to the Frontiers of Flight Museum at Love Field Airport in Dallas, Texas.

Hopefully some of this can be referenced and re-added to the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Author Comments

I wrote this entire Simulator Section because I was there when it was delivered to the USAF ( I was the RSO that visited Link's Grocery Store "Skunk Works" ) and worked with Frank Dembrowski ( Link's SR-71 primary software engineer assigned to Beale AFB for many years ). I'm not a Wikipedia editor or conversant in all of your rules and have seen this done before. As a living source of what happened as I lived it in the Blackbird program I don't know how to make my contributions to this article any more "verifiable". I recommend the simulator section be put back in the article where it belongs, otherwise each time this happens, correct history will be lost and the total article diminished in quality and substance.

David Dempster, SR-71 RSO 18:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Dempster (talk • contribs)

NY - London numbers appear to be incorrect

"The SR-71 also holds the "Speed Over a Recognized Course" record for flying from New York to London distance 3,508 miles (5,646 km), 1,435.587 miles per hour (2,310.353 km/h), and an elapsed time of 1 hour 54 minutes and 56.4 seconds, set on 1 September 1974 while flown by U.S. Air Force Pilot Maj. James V. Sullivan and Maj. Noel F. Widdifield, reconnaissance systems officer (RSO).[72]"

The NY-London math works out to about 1,850+ mph or about 2,900+ km/hr. The sources don't even agree.

http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/records.php Speed Over a Recognized Course: New York to London 

   * Date: 1 September 1974
   * Crew: Maj. James V. Sullivan and Maj Noel F. Widdifield
   * Distance: 3,461.53 miles
   * Time: 1 hour, 54 minutes, 56.4 seconds
   * Average Speed: 1,806.964 mph

http://www.voodoo-world.cz/sr71/timeline.html
1 Sep 1974
First SR-71A visit to UK; setting World Record NY to London, 1817 mph, dist: 3490 nmi, in 1 hour 54 minutes 56.4 seconds in SR-71A #972, USAF Pilot/RSO: Jim Sullivan/Noel Widdifield (BB)
______________________

The distances don't agree; one specifies nautical miles while the other doesn't specify nautical or statute, and the difference in nautical miles should be less than the distance in statute miles, if that were to apply.

Because I have no way of knowing the actual numbers, can someone please find a final authority? But in any event, the quoted speed, in metric or miles, is off by more than 20%, understating the actual average speed. Unimaginative Username (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=6svmtOFa1JIC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=sr-71+cruise&source=bl&ots=ptJgpjQ9ZG&sig=E--FlhnPEUqdJSLaZS1-TgLKNJg&hl=en&ei=Y_e5TKC6G4SBlAfPxZ2GDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird/Archive_3&oldid=1136961961"