Talk:Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive page 2006 to --.

Maybe someone should update this and add an info box. Astroview120mm 03:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the infobox is being phased out as per wikiproject aircraft. -User:Lommer | ^talk 22:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

MIG 25 holds an absolute altitude record for an airplane of 123,523ft, which is clearly more then 80,000ft.

Don't forget the distinction between classified and declassified records... Plus, the SR-71's record was for sustained flight at altitude, not a zoom climb. The F-15 has beaten the SR-71, but only for zoom climbs. Mugaliens 19:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, from the "Records" section:

The SR-71 remained the world's fastest and highest-flying operational aircraft throughout its career. From an altitude of 80,000 ft (24 km) it could survey 100,000 miles²/h (72 km²/s) of the Earth's surface. On July 28, 1976, an SR-71 set two world records for its class: an absolute speed record of 2,193.167 mph (3,529.56 km/h) and an US absolute altitude record of 85,068.997 feet (25,929 m). Only the Soviet MIG-25 high-altitude interceptor broke the record, reaching an altitude 37,650 m on August 31, 1977 (MIG-25).

-User:Lommer | ^talk 17:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The F-104 Starfighter also went higher, back in 1959. It went 103,395 feet. Both the F-104 and Mig-25 did zoom climbs to attain this altitude, though, while the SR-71 can sustain 85,000 feet.

I think therein lies the difference. I've read individual reports from BAC Lightning pilots trying to sustain 80,000. They had an extremely hard time keeping the engines lit and the control authority was nonexistent. I'm sure the 100,000+ figures for MiG-25 were zoom climbs. Considering that F-4 Phantom would zoom climb from Mach 2.5 at 47,000 to 98,500 ft, I can imagine what SR-71 could do from Mach 3+ at 80,000. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Without intending to be facetious, isn't the Space Shuttle higher and faster? Shouldn't there be some equivocations. I mean during reentry, the Orbiter definitely is an aircraft goes from Mach 25 to mach 0; although it's only a glider. During ascent it reaches several hundred miles... aren't there some slight problems with the text here?WolfKeeper 02:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, other than the fact that we're comparing apples and shale rock... Rockets and air-breathing engines share a common kinship, but are two entirely different animals. So, yes, we cannot compare the SR-71 and the Space Shuttle! Mugaliens 19:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: the thing about the fuel putting out a lit match; I took this out before, as it applies equally to normal jet fuel. Even petrol (gasoline) can be surprisingly hard to ignite. Guinnog 07:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone point me to more information about the Chines? Thanks Synapse001 17:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please add more information to the article describing what a chine is? As someone fairly ignorant of fighter planes, it's impossible for me to tell what the heck they are given only the information in this article. --Doradus 06:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

From chines:

Chine is also an aerodynamic term referring to the intersection of the upper and lower fuselage surfaces of the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird which form a 'lip' around the forward fuselage of the aircraft. These chines generate lift-bearing vortices at high angles of attack and reduce the aircraft's lateral radar signature.

I admot the d/a page wasn't as clear as it could have been. Basically, the chines are the sharp looking 'rim' of the fuselage. As you can see, it derives from the ship building term, but the SR-71s chines are much more pronounced than on the average boat, or flying boat for that matter.Mumby 07:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw the SR-71 that is on display at the Evergreen Aviation Museum in McMinnville, Oregon. I managed to get pictures of one of its tires on separate display. The Blackbird's tires were impregnated with aluminum to aid in heat dissipation and were filled with nitrogen only, presumably to prevent combustion. I would be happy to e-mail the pictures to one of the folks who edit this article.sprocketeer 08:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nitrogen-only tyres are fairly normal on aircraft. The aluminium thing is probably worth a mention - not sure if it needs a pic though. Graham 10:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

sr71.org mentions that Lockheed was ordered to destroy all tooling for the Blackbirds, thus effectively making it impossible to create new ones or even to create spare parts which is one of the reasons why damaged units were being used for spares. Axel Eble 22:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

SR-71A 971, SR-71A 980 and SR-71B 956 were the three aircraft assigned to the NASA test program at Edwards AFB, Ca. Thus, I deleted the statement that a special SR-71B was made for NASA. NASA did renumber their three aircraft however as 832, 844 and 831 respectively during the time they flew them. [ User David Dempster ], March 7, 2006

David Dempster 06:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I live outside of Huntsville, Alabama, home of the U.S. Space & Rocket Center. We have an SR-71 on display outside the center. This article says that the plane in question is actually an A-12, but comparing the picture on the A-12 page and what I see every day, I wonder if this is accurate. The plane clearly has NASA markings on it and looks more like an SR-71 than a A-12. I ask you, oh great Wikipedians..what plane do I look at on my drive to work every day? I can provide a picture if necessary. Reverend Raven 20:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

sr-71.org claims it's an A-12 with fake markings, and the photos show it as a single-seater, whereas SR-71s had two seats: http://www.sr-71.org/photogallery/blackbird/06930/ Mark Grant 16:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

see Talk:A-12_Oxcart#How to tell them apart

The section titled "Radar Signature" only contains a general line about radar, and then references that the chines were added at the insistance of the radar engineers. But from there it goes off and talks about the arodynamics of the chines, and how they affected the flight characteristics of the aircraft. There is no specific mention of anything special that went into the design to deliberately reduce it's radar signature, nor any discussion of it's radar signature or comparison to that of other aircraft. I think that this section needs to be renames, split, rewritten, or, optimally, all three. I don't know enough about the subject to even try, but could someone look at this, thanks -- Nekura 16:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There are several photos of the Blackbird production lines at the Skunk Works that show the "sawtooth" construction formats used by Lockheed in manufacturing the chines. The triagular pieces that were inserted into the sawtooth spaces were made of a radar absorbing material ( I don't recall the exact material names ) and planned to reduce the Blackbird's inflight radar signature. I never saw actual radar cross section measurements data and so cannot be more specific, although in my previous additions to this page I've explained the Blackbird was not stealthy. Many photos of the various Blackbirds themselves, show these sawtooth patterns clearly but in the early days of the program their existence was very classified ( the sawtooth being airbrushed out of early released publicity photos ).

The chines also distributed the lift along their length and helped control the inherent Center of Gravity ( CG ) challenges you have with a supersonic cruise vehicle ( the Center of Lift moves about 25% aft of the Mean Aerodynamic Chord when you go supersonic, typically requiring fuel transfers to keep the aircraft CG within safe bounds ). The chines helped and Lockheed's fuel management system for the Blackbird as well as pilot CG shift procedures benefited from the chines lift contributions.

Significant payload space was also provided along the left and right chine cavities and many of the SR-71's sensors were carried there.

David Dempster 00:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So do you think the chines should be included in the Fuselage section, or have their own section. They do need to be taken out of the Radar Signature section. -- Nekura 19:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section on Radar signature, if you want to look it over. Thanks --Nekura 20:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer: Nekura, I did "look over" what you wrote and am not making significant changes to it's format. It's the kind of decision that's in the eyes of the beholder. But, I did tweak your grammar and words just a bit. Glad to see your interest in the Habu.

David Dempster 05:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The intro says it was a ... . Does this mean its out of commission? Could somebody mention whether this is the case or not in the intro. Seems like a rather importnt piece of info.

Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 22:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Guinnog 23:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Purrrfect, thanks. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 14:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I just made some changes to one of your edits, vis-a-vis "A-11 vs. A-12" nomenclatures. I did so, because Kelly Johnson told us the A-11/A-12 name story during our May, 1965 Crew Training Class in the Skunkworks. There is some history however that I don't know and may interest you in digging into. Specifically, after the first twin powered J-75 flight, records describe a flight with one J58 added and the other engine remaining a J57 before the first twin J58 powered flight. I'm not aware of any unusual number assigned to this test flight version. Secondly, a pilot trainer was made out of an A-12 and it stayed at Groom lake for pilot checkouts. It was not a SR-71 B or C model ( the USAF pilot trainers ) and as I understand it from available website data, it always had just the twin J-75s and could only fly to about mach 1.6 ( as I recall ). I am not aware of any unique numbering system used on this vehicle other than it's "tail number". In any case, I mention it for your interest, as I don't think these details would add much to the main story. Any questions? Give me a shout and I'll try and answer them.

David Dempster 05:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

An anon user added the following: During the entire operational life of the SR-71 over 3,000 missles were fired at the aircraft though not one ever hit it's target. I am tempted just to delete it, but does anyone have an inkling if that could be true? A reference would be nice too. Guinnog 22:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I pulled it. I'm extremely skeptical that someone went through the PVO records and added up the numbers, especially considering that pretty much all aspects of Blackbird missions, including the number of USSR overflights, are still very much classified. This sounds like self-perpetuating lore. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Guinnog 00:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Mach at 80,000 ft is 666.5 mph, so Mach 3.35 is 2,233 mph (the article says 2,193 mph which makes the speed of sound equal to 654 mph... this only happens at 240,000 ft). Which is correct in the article -- the speed or the Mach number? It's either Mach 3.35, 2,233 mph, or Mach 3.29, 2,193 mph. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

When an official speed record is set, and officiated by the French FAI ( if I recall their initials correctly ), they will radar track the record setting aircraft if they can, sometimes have observers aboard Tanker Aircraft to insure correct tail numbers at start and stop record gate points, and when possible, even use telescopes and stop watch timing. Their product: the measured speed is expressed in Miles Per Hour or Km per Hour. So the Blackbird speeds are the right answer. Although designed to fly at mach 3.2, some Blackbird crews hit pockets of colder than usual air and for periods of their cruise hit mach 3.3 or a bit higher, since the primary speed limitation was 427 C inlet Air Temperature. Thus, some record speeds might compute out higher or lower than mach 3.2, but the records were set as measured speeds.

David Dempster 06:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll update the article. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 07:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Try 4.7... Just a guess given the various climatological conditions that have existed given their publicicised flights, but only for short moments. The SR-71, given simple modifications in turbine inlet and composition could have reached Mach 6.3 with no problem, but only in a dash. Mugaliens 19:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Listed as responsible for the B-2, but this isn't mentioned in either the Skunk Works article or the B-2 article. In addition, the B-2 was made by Northrup, not Lockhead.

OK, can anyone tell me why the References section is broken? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea but I tried to go way back into the history and still cannot see any references listed except for 2 site links back in Jan. I do not know which edit got enough references (and are legimate for wiki articles) so I am not reverting it back yet. MythSearcher 17:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I can tell you why the Aurora link was removed, someone said it is not directly related to SR-71 as I recalled. MythSearcher 17:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Johnson told us during our May/June '65 Skunk Works Crew Training Class that the black paint increased the emission of internal heat about 55 degrees. Thus I re-edited the 10 June change that had deleted this primary reason. I think I want to recall the 55 degrees was F, not C, but I confess I don't remember that detail. With the fuel as a heatsink this cooling "extra" became important as the Blackbird approached it's Mach 3.0 - 3.2 cruise start descent point. Early Edwards testing showed that low fuel levels, heated during the supersonic cruise legs and coupled with rapid throttle retardations that decreased the engine driven Cooling System outputs generated a dangerously high spike in internal temperatures. Thus, the pilot would decelerate with higher RPM levels to avoid this and prolonging the decent trajectory over about 230 nm. Lockheed counted on the higher emissivity as help to this challenge.

David Dempster 05:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't something about the X-Men's Blackbird be mentioned? It was originally a variation of a SR-71 (some writers have apparently called it a SR-73). Highlandlord 14:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Popular culture:

Fictional versions and speculation about fictional likenesses should not be included, as they constitute Original Research. This includes most arcade simulations.

The X-men's X-Jet Black bird is just a similar plane and is not the same one. Therefore, it should not be placed here. Unless official sources specificly states that is an SR-71. Like an official source from X-man's creator or copyright owner stating it is one. MythSearcher 15:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the one in the 70s comics was called a modified version, I'll have to check thru to actually see if they call it a SR-71. Highlandlord 09:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

X-men evolution, I believe, cited the plane as the SR-71 Blackbird, although I may be mistaken in this. TomStar81 09:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

They called it something like the SR-73, and said it had "three times the firepower, and three times the speed of the SR-71" --LWF 18:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If anyone can find citation or quotation from an official source that says it is actually based on the SR-71, include it. Otherwise, it's only secondhand hearsay (I wrote the bulk of the X-Blackbird article working from memory, so I'm just as guilty of not using proper sources. Mea Culpa). Besides which, the X-Men plane(s) has been changed so much in the last decade or so of revolving-door writers and messy continuity that there may no longer be a viable connection to its original version or to the Blackbird that spawned it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noclevername (talk • contribs) 07:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Why was it discontinued?

I also came here for that same reason, to find out why they discontinued it. I couldn't find it anywhere in the article. If it truly is as awesome as this article and many others state, why in the world was it discontinued? Epachamo 16:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I remember: high cost, difficulty of maintenance after the production lines were closed down (so few spare parts were available), and rivalry from the people operating spy satellites. Mark Grant 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally think that should be in the article! Epachamo 18:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but we'd need to drag up real verifiable cites first :). Mark Grant 18:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

One other thing you forgot to mention: Remotely Controlled Drones (or Unmanned Arieal Vehicals), which can do the same job as a spy plane but with less risk to involved parties. TomStar81 10:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There's good indications that a successor aircraft became operational in 1989. This has been confirmed as much as possible within the civilian intellignece community, while still remaining speculative. The most likely successor was an aircraft reported to be in development at Lockheed's Skunk Works from 1982 to 1988 that has become popularly known as the Aurora Project. It's believed to be a hybrid scram jet powered aircraft with a top speed of near MACH 5. The aircraft was likely incorporated in the 1988 Department of Defense budget. There are sources who claim an operational base now exists in Scotland as well as a main base at Edwards AFB. The fact that the SR-71 was still fulfilling its duties with an excellent track record at the time of its retirement, that those duties still exist, and that none of the systems suggested as a replacement for the SR-71 are true replacements strongly suggests that a successor is operational. As a result I've added a general "Successor" catagory to the article.

On a side note, the spy saltellites did not replace the SR-71 at all. They have operated jointly with the SR-71 for decades and fulfill a slightly different mission more closely associated with mapping, and terrain details, and are easy to overcome by governments that track their positions and know when they are overhead, as well as lesser powers who purchase this information. The Global Hawk is also not capable of replacing the SR-71 because it lacks the speed to make time critical flights, and cannot operate in the same highly protected areas as the SR-71 because of its vunerability to high altitude SAM's. Finally, the maintenance cost and costs to reverse engineer parts for the SR-71 did not prevent the government from doing just that in 1997 when, for reasons still unknown, the SR-71 had to suddenly be pressed back into service for a short period of time. The government doesn't put a price on the importance of strategic reconnaissance.

I was part of a couple of exercises back in the late seventies, early eightes that involved using f-14's armed with phoenix missle simulates as a possible counter to the SR-71 in a head on attack. After fueling up over England and building up a running start over the Atlantic it sure as hell didn't take the SR-71 no hour to cross from the East coast to Miramar, California. Won't say much more incase this is still classified. BigDon 12:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, allowing for timezones, like Concorde, it certainly ought to be able to arrive before it left!WolfKeeper 15:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Put up Senior Crown Program redirected to here, but doesn't seem to be in the article. So if anyone wants to filter it in?

• BBC - half way down, 'Black' projects, re MOD report
• The specific MOD file referencing Senior Crown is: MOD:UAP Volume 2 Part F PDF [8.2 MB] - pg 9-1

Hakluyt bean 16:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Original fuel was to be a coal slurry?!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DFinley (talk • contribs) August 3, 2006 03:12:22 GMT

The information is taken from Johnson's autobiography. If you can find a more authoritative source that says differently, by all means, change the article. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I just corrected errors that someone during the last two months inserted into the descriptions of the Inlets and Spikes. They were full forward on the ground and subsonic up until mach 1.6, when they would start to retract, not the reverse. All photos of the birds in flight or on the ground show the forward position, as no formation flight photography was ever recorded at mach 3.2 to show what the Spikes looked like when retracted back.

David Dempster 08:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I tracked down the manual reference and added it. I'm a bit concerned about this bit that follows it:

By moving, the spike tip would withdraw the shockwave riding on it into the inlet body where reflections of the shockwave from the inlet cowl to the spike and back to the cowl would cause a loss of energy and slow it down until a Mach 1.0 shockwave was formed

whereas the manual says:

"This increases the captured stream tube area 112% from 8.7 square feet to 18.5 square feet."

In other words it doesn't sound like that shockwave is the primary consideration, it's the amount of air getting rammed in the front of the engine that is being increased by the travel. Should we change the text?WolfKeeper 10:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, No. There's all sorts of engineering facts and data in a variety of sources about the Black Birds. But, the PRIMARY reason for the Spike travel and shockwave control was to provide subsonic airflow to the compressor while the vehicle was flying at mach 3.2. It had to, as a turbojet, even with the sophisticated bypass system this one had, can not injest supersonic air and still function normally. As an aside, your efforts have been valuable in this article, but I see too many "nit picks" added by "contributors" that really diminish the overall accuracy of the whole article. I'm still grumbling to myself about whoever changed the Spike position verbage and why. Thanks.

David Dempster 22:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I'm still not entirely sure. I guess it depends a bit on what you think the primary reason for doing some technical feature on the aircraft is, when it has multiple effects. I'm still of the opinion that the primary reason for moving the spike backwards is to direct more of the airflow into the engines at high speeds, and that the surrounding parts of the aircraft have to deal with the effects this has on the shockwave. But hey what do I know, I'm not an aerodynamicist, and I haven't seen any detailed plans of the inlet ducting anywhere (may even still be classified, Concorde's ducts still are apparently to some degree). I still think that if it was just a shockwave thing, moving it forwards would make more sense due to the coning angle, but then you would get less flow; that tells me that the flow takes primacy.WolfKeeper 21:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Different aircraft have different shockwave treatments. In the B-58A Hustler, Mach 2.0 Bomber, external compression inlets were used and the small "spikes" did move forward to correctly control the mach 2.0 shock waves and air flow into the engine; again to provide subsonic air to the compressor. Supersonic air flow will tear up the compressor blades, etc. In the Blackbird's case, an "internal" compression inlet was used for the control of the primary ( mach 1.0 ) shockwave in front of the compressor face. Remember, on the backside of a mach 1.0 shockwave is subsonic air. Look at the External Links listed on the article's front page and find Leland Hayes' list of "72 sites" and then review the one on the J-58 engine for some drawings and pictures of the Inlet's internal configuration. No, it's not classified today and I think you'll find it helpful to read Chapter 13, "Inlets, Unstarts and High Speed Air" in the book "Blackbird Rising" by Donn A. Byrnes and Kenneth D. Hurley. They convince you and put you at ease.

David Dempster 05:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Matter of interest, did the SR-71 have supercruise? It's not listed on the supercruise page. I know that it flew wet at mach 3, but I would imagine that it would have enough power to sustain, say, mach 1.6 dry. Anyone?WolfKeeper 21:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, not in the sense of the F-22's supercruise design. Could the Blackbird stay above mach 1.0, but at a much lower mach number than mach 3.0 - 3.2? Yes, but we never flew it that way. As a single point design aircraft, if we had engine problems we were going to slow down to subsonic speeds to reduce fuel flow and give us range to an emergency alternate. If you tried to hold mach 1.6 ( as an example ), you'd find yourself burning a lot of fuel quickly with very little range gain payoff. Also, the farther we got from the design mach 3.2 of the inlets the more inefficient the bird became. Transonic performance was very poor at .98 - 1.1 mach and to punch through mach 1.0 during an acceleration, we would actually descend about 3000 - 4000 feet to let gravity help. As we slowly accelerated, some of our pilots would describe it like driving a truck in the sand with flat tires until above mach 2.0. Then, with the inlets retracting and the bird approaching it's design point it started to "come alive". And, no, we could not sustain supersonic flight on just one engine; there just was not enough thrust in one engine to do so.

Hope these answers help you and are in the spirit of the "Discussion Page" guidelines. Feel free to contact me on my Talk Page if you wish more info.

David Dempster 05:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So you mean you could hold mach 1.6 with the afterburners on, but the ramjet-like aspects of the engine are still going to be pretty inefficient at that speed due to poor compression effect, so you wouldn't want to stay there. And of course the reason is that the turbojet part of the engine needs to be as small as possible to increase the range (because it's deadweight/inefficient at mach 3 where you want to cruise). So the turbojet is going to be just enough to get you up to the speed where the ramjet can really kick in. So the performance is anemic until you get to mach 2.0 odd. Hmm. Pretty interesting. And that's why it has no supercruise, because the turbojet is so small.

I think it would be nice if some of this was on the main page.WolfKeeper 06:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

For a more layman's view of this, the engines/aircraft was specifically designed to fly in afterburner (this gets out of the chines in/out, compression figures, etc. so there aren't so many technical issues discussed) and the performance of the aircraft improved as speed increased to Mach 3.2+. My two cents... — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed there's some footage of the SR-71 in flight at the beginning of Nicolas Roeg's movie, Performance. I'm not sure whether that's notable enough to add to the article, but thought I'd mention it here in case anyone thought it was. I'm actually quite surprised as the movie was shot in the late 60s, when the SR-71 was presumably still quite highly classified. Mark Grant 23:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As popular culture/trivia items are frowned upon by the Wiki Aircraft Project and Wiki policy, I have cut back some of the entries here. If it keeps growing, some other editor may remove it altogether. As there in now a Blackbird (comics) article, I moved the detailed information its talk page. Thanks. --BillCJ 14:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I must state that the Manga Science apperance shoule be noted because it is a demonstration on the flight ability of SR-71 and its popularity in Japan that it is used in a learning material. Manga Science is first a serial on magazines published by Gakken Co., Ltd. on Science of Grade 5 and Science of Grade 6, later it is published into separate books(currently totalled to 9 volumes). This apperance is different from the others trivial apparance and carry more cultural significance. MythSearcher^talk 04:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I thought all were encouraged to add to Wikipedia? In popular culture they mention various appearances of the SR-71, so I added one about Queen Amidala's starship being a modified, silver SR-71 and some guy deleted it. If you don't want other people to add to Wikipidia anymore just say so. Please put the reference back in as her starship is clearly a slightly modified Habu. -- gamma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.205.246 (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all are encouraged, but there are policies (mandatory) and guidelines (recommendations) about appropriate content. You might want to read those. Paul Koning 01:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The 'Myth and lore' part of the article is a classic case of weasel words. I was tempted to just delete the entire paragraph

The plane developed a small cult following, given its design, specifications, and the aura of secrecy that surrounded it. Some conspiracy theorists speculated that the true operational capabilities of the SR-71 and the associated A-12 were never revealed. Most aviation buffs speculate that given a confluence of structural and aerodynamic tolerances, the plane could fly at a maximum of Mach 3.3 for extended periods, and could not exceed Mach 3.44 in any currently known configuration. Specifically, these groups cite the specific maximum temperature for the compressor inlet of 427 °C (800 °F). This temperature is quickly surpassed at speeds greater than Mach 3.3. Mach 3.44 is given as the speed at which the engine enters a state of "unstart". Some speculate that the former condition can be alleviated by superior compressor design and composition, while the latter might be solved with improved shock cones. It is known that the J58 engines were most efficient at around Mach 3, and this was the Blackbird's typical cruising speed.

Can anyone cite any sources for these well informed groups of aviaton buffs? If not then I think this should go, along with most of the rest of the myth and lore section. Any information is gratefully received.Mumby 19:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The Blackbird WAS redlined at a compressor inlet temperature of 427 C. We flew it that way and there was no "hidden", extra performance capabilities that we crews "secretly used". What did change the normal mach 3.2 top cruising mach number was outside air temperature. There were cases of unusually cold air at cruising altitude and crews did reach mach 3.3 before the CIT reached 427 C, but would then back down to nominal mach numbers between 3.2 and 3.0, per their mission profiles. Speculation about redesigned inlets and improved engines is just that: Lockheed studied improvements for a Bomber version as an offering in the B-1 Bomber source selection, but the USAF did not accept Kelly Johnson's proposal for two aircraft: a high altitude, mach 3 plus bomber penetrator and a low altitude mach 1.2 bomber penetrator. Instead, the USAF stuck with a combined mach 2.5 high/mach 1.2 low penetrator design for the B-1A. As a result, no funded efforts were expended on improving the Blackbird's inlets and engines other than technology upgrades such as the digital inlet computer replacing the original analog one.

I agree with user Mumby's comments above, and would recommend deleting the myth and lore sections plus cultural references to movie and book appearances of the SR-71. Although that can be interesting in another article and context, they don't really add value to the main article about the Blackbird as the historic aircraft it was. David Dempster 21:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The First flight and usage section included two contradictory claims. I removed one: "without the loss of aircraft or crew." since further into the section it claims that 12 aircraft were lost. Rmhermen 16:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It was poorly worded by me. In the time frame I originally mentioned--seventeen years of operational flying--it went without a loss. The 12 planes lost were before or after that 72-89 frame (it was operational from 1968 to 1990, and again from 95-98). 17 years of operational flying without a plane lost is a tremendous achievement.--Buckboard 10:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The unclarity about losses still exists throughout the article. Can a knowledgeable person please have look at this, and make the article internally consistent throughout? 80.212.63.115 18:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Rogue Pat

It appears that comments (in the article and in talk)to clarify the issue have been deleted, Possibly removed by vandalism. What was stated was something to the effect that there were some navigational errors (drift?), but that no aircraft were known to be completely lost. Can anyone clarify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.244.75 (talk)

I don't know when this last commemnt was made, but since this is becoming an issue again, I'll address it: The vandalism was the statement itself, which, for whatever reasone, tried to equate "lost" with "missing", rather than "destroyed" as the context clearly indicates. The same user is apparently changing "destroyed" back to "lost". He's a dynamic IP user, so thanks Jimbo's "sacred" policy of allowing unregistered edits, we can't even talk to the guy. THe next time this foolishness about "navigational errors" is back in the article, I'm just going to quit watching the page. I'm tired of being the only person with his finger in the hole of the dam, and people taking a hammer and hitting my hand, treating me like I'm the problem. Someone else can watch the article, it's not worth my (figuratively) broken fingers! - BillCJ 00:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• I did find the IP that made the last comment, and it's the same IP that has been changing "destroyed" to "lost". Are you really so stupid as to think that "lost" means the planes went missing? If so, you should go back to talking with rocks - you have a lot you could learn from them! - BillCJ 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't think the latest IP was the same one and thought using "lost" was better anyway. However that leaves the door open for more "missing" junk. After the repeated changes back to lost, I think it probably is the same person or a close relative. ;) I was trying to change the wording a while ago in a futile effort to prevent that. If you got a problem with that just change it back.. -Fnlayson 00:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected the "Lost" statement to "temporarily lost" as no reports have been validated of SR-71's having complete navigational failure. Thank you in advance for your consideration on this matter.

The above comment has been restored after several deletions by vandals (BillCJ and Fnlanson). The comment area is for discussion and comments should not be deleted unless personal attacks or profanity is used. The two disruptive individuals should refrain from further inconsiderate actions. It appears that their knowledge would better be suited in constructive improvements in the articles than in bickering in the talk section. Wiki guidelines and policies have been developed to place rules, boundries and limitations on editing of information.

The opening that states 13 "are known to have become lost and crashed for non-combat related reasons, rendering the aircraft unusable" is not really clear. Sounds like those planes went "missing" and then turned up once they crashed. Doesn't make much sense. And by "non-combat related reasons", are we talking about training? I'll suggest a rewrite, unless someone beats me to it.--Jonashart 12:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Reworded to "No aircraft have been downed in action, but thirteen aircraft are known to have been rendered unusable for non-combat related reasons either due to crash or damage.". That should do it. -Fnlayson 13:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Nicely done.--Jonashart 14:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely the SR-71/A-12 was not co-designed by a Captain in the Nicaraguam airforce? Why was this added back in?Mumby 08:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I see it has been fixed now.Mumby 15:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I see a problem with this article. The issue is that much of the chief material covering the SR-71, A-12, YF-12, and MD-21 are covered here. Much of the material is applicable to all three. It would not be enought to simply duplicate the same content in all four; that would grow uncontrollable. Ostensibly, the A-12 article should receive all of the relevant info regarding common items, such as the engine, fuselage, and fuel info. However, most people would go to the SR-71 article first. Any suggestions? Perhaps we need a Blackbird family article with the common info, and have the other articles link into it prodigeously? There may be better names, too. Or do we just shove all of the info into the A-12 article, and link into it in the same manner? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 08:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's a problem, and the solutions you outlined are good ones. One big problem, as you stated, is that people are most familar with the Blackbird. In addition, most of the history and development are with the SR-71, while the others are merely backdrops and footnotes, albeit important ones. Most pages on military don't spend alot of time on the technology, but with so much unique technology going into the SR-71, it needs to be covered somewhere. Perhaps an article dealing with the technology of the Blackbird family would be sufficient. It could then be linked from the various articles. - BillCJ 01:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be sure, the YF-12/A-12 were first by two years Anyone else have commments? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 01:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This technology must have been developed under a project title e.g. 'Project Secret Squirrel' or some such thing. Does anybody know what that might be? If we can find out what it was, perhaps we could then have a page called 'Project Secret Squirrel' that details the technological development the different aircraft had in common.Mumby 08:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The A-12 OXCART, Lockheed YF-12, Lockheed M-21, and SR-71 obviously share (generally) their origin, history, purpose, and design. The differences represent the evolution of the line. As the SR-71 was the eventual end-of-the-line for this aircraft type, had the largest number of craft, flew the most sorties, and became known publicly while still in operation, it is predictably the most well known, and best remembered. Despite the similarities in the core models (SR-71/A-12) the SR-71 is not the A-12, and the A-12 was canceled in lieu of the SR-71. These articles shouldn't be combined. A stronger case can be made for merging the YF-12 and M-21/D-21 articles into/with the A-12 article, as they are variants of the A-12. The name of that project, and associated coverterm, is OXCART (The OXCART Story ). Barring that merger, I've tried to provide an overall context for the A-12/YF-12/M-21 by including the serial numbers, and incorporating excerpts from the YF-12 and M/D-21 articles with links to the main article. Additionally, I've put some work into formatting the articles similarly, to enhance the association. - Thaimoss 00:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mumby, Bill C and the others above who have expressed concerns about the integrity of our SR-71 article. I was gone for two weeks and am shocked to see all the "junk" and errors that have been inserted. Let me give you an example: Under the Kelly Johnson heading is a statement about the first reconnaissance flight in 1916 in France, which has nothing to do with Kelly in the first place. But, the real story is that the parent squadron of the USAF ( then the US Army ) was the 1st Aero Squadron, formed on March 5th, 1913. They accompanied Gen Jack Pershing in 1916 in open cockpit Jennies when he entered Mexico and chased Pancho Villa. Later, they did participate in WW I in a variety of different aircraft and their initial insignia was a fluttering American flag. After WWI they adopted a caveman insignia with background light rays representing the major campaigns they flew in and German Iron Crosses around the perimeter for the squadron kills. I won't try and recapture the rest of their history here, other than to point out they were part of SAC in the 1950's and 60's, flying B-47's and when those were retired, the unit designation was transferred to the SR-71 organization at Beale, AFB as the 1st Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron. It still flies now with U-2's and is designated as the 1st Reconnaissance Squadron.

My point however, is that much of what's in the article now is just flat wrong. And, there's too much Junk, that one writer has tried to justify to "set the scene" for the SR-71 story. Wrong! Much of the stuff in the new chonology is unneeded and out of place. A-12 history can be in the A-12 article. Tagboard history can be in a Tagboard article, etc., etc. We need to drastically cut out the BS and bafflegab that's not needed.

OK, I'm going to hold my breath, cool down and watch. Have at it please you Wikipedians who know how to "edit" better than I. But eventually, I'm going to take out my electronic sissors ( if I have to ) and start cutting!

David Dempster 06:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, cut away! Assuming you have the time, take out what you feel needs to go, with a short explanation of why in the edit summary, or a longer one on the talk page. Some of us are pretty good at clean-up, as long as we know the reasons for it. We'll gladly fix anything you break in the process if it means getting the junk out.

I have seen alot go in the past few weeks that I questioned, but didn't know enough about the particulars to feel confident in removing it. As you remarked, we had already questioned the "timeline", and have been considering what to take out and what to keep. Having an expert's eye to guide us will be very helpful. Good cutting! - BillCJ 06:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have butchered the timeline. I have cut out the stuff about Kelly Johnson and the U2, the rest of it needs a lot of work! I will chip away whenever I get the time but it seems to me that most of it should be integrated with the main text, and if it can't be, it probably doesn't need to be there at all.Mumby 08:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it all into a separate article. Articles are supposed to be 32K, this spin-off article starts out at 40+k, all on its own.WolfKeeper 12:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the split. The consensus here has been that much of the info is not accurate, and that it covers more than just the Blackbird itself. We are trying to integrate the info worth keeping, and then will toss the rest. This will be easier if it remains here. - BillCJ 15:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that it currently dominates the article and needs to be made to be not inline. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the revert at all, if you want, add a few sentences back in to the main article, that's fine; but this is ridiculous.WolfKeeper 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• You split it off while we were still discussing what to do with it, without trying to form a consensus first. - BillCJ 19:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and it's being done, though given the length it will take a while. To be honest, I'd like to just junk the whole thing right now, but I guess we should be courteous to the editor who added, and assume there's some useful info there. - BillCJ 17:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Could we delete it from the current version of the article and use the code preserved in the history to make the edit?Mumby 17:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but I think it would be easier to work with if it's in the current version. But I'll support it if the others want to do that. - BillCJ 17:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah Haa! I knew you more knowledgeable than I editors would come up with solutions. Thanks again to all of you and I agree with getting the junk out of the main article. David Dempster 17:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I did some extensive research in the History regarding the TImeline. This is what I found:

1. The timeline was originally sourced.
2. The users adding to the timeline were Spinotus and 63.40.150.71 in a two-hour period on January 21, 2007. These are apparently the same person.
3. Absolutely no sources were cited by these uses, who even removed the existing source for the previous timeline. Several sources were added by other useres after the fact.

Given the fact that all the additional material is unsourced, and there is agreement among omst of the editors that this should not stay as-is, I have restored the pre-21 January timeline, including the original source listing. Because this is all uncited information, I recommend against creating a separate article for the long Timeline. - BillCJ 20:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks BillC; great job! David Dempster 08:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Shock waves from the inlet cowl lip were not significant and not the driving factor. When the spike shock wave was correctly positioned, any further lip wakes did not contribute to the inlet operation. As an example, when at mach 3.2 the inlet unstarted, and the shock waves were blown out the front of the inlet, any lip formed shocks had no effect at all and did not enter the inlet and reflect continuously to restart the capture of the normal mach 1 shock wave. Only the spike moving back forward, and then retracting with it's main shock wave to the inlet lip could restart the inlet and the capture of the mach 1 shock in front of the engine compressor face. I confirmed this with Bob Gilliland, the first SR-71 test pilot, Bg Ray Haupt ( USAF Retired ), who checked out at the Ranch, wrote much of the initial handbook and was our Ops Officer at Beale in the 60's, Don Byrnes, co-author of "Blackbird Rising" and my own inflight experiences. What minor impacts the inlet outer cowl shocks, or any other externally generated shocks had to the Blackbird I cannot address and may be of interest to some other knowledgeable Wikipedian. All I can tell you is that once the inlets were started, mach 3.2 cruise was smooth, quiet ( we heard only background oxygen flow sounds ) and very pleasant.

The thing that concerns me is that the only source for actual shockwave diagrams I have found so far show the shockwave from the cone missing the rim forward lip (page 27 [1]), and shows multiple shockwaves within the engine associated with the rim. Now, it may very well be that as the vehicle accelerates the centerbody moves backwards according to some scheme and the alpha angle changes until the shockwave just intersects the rim at about Mach 3.0, giving higher efficiency there. But I've been unable to confirm that, and as I say the only diagram I've seen implies that at at least one supersonic speed it misses the rim entirely. There's also the problem of verifiability, in that it's not enough for what you say to be right, I trust you more than I trust some ppt slides, but we need something we can reference, the citation disagrees with the text currently.WolfKeeper 23:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: See slide 31 of the Penn State reference 8 ( in the Inlet section of the article ) Power Point slides on the SR-71 engines David Dempster 23:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

They're talking about the normal shock I think, not the oblique; the normal is the one that really matters. (See the diagram on page 27 - the throat is quite a way inside.) WolfKeeper 23:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right in that there are drawings that show the outer shock wave ahead of the inlet and others forming from the cowl lip. But, those are just "snap shots" of a point in time and I have no idea who did them. As the spike retracts it actually brought (what I will call here ) the primary shock wave, riding on the spike point back until it was just inside the cowl lip ( slide 31 in the reference 8 talks about that ). The angle of the outer shock wave was called the gamma angle ( at least by Kelly and Ben Rich in their Skunk Works class to us in May/June, 1965 ) and the faster you go, the more it sweeps back ( like the visible wake of a speed boat ). If the primary shock was allowed to stay outside the spillage of it's pressure over the outer nacelle would create strong vertices and turbulence over the wing, causing drag and affecting performance. Thus, the spike brought the primary shock right up to and just inside the inlet cowl lip. Don't put too much into the drawing that's on the web sites; it's not a representation of the shock position once the inlet was started and the vehicle was at mach 3.0-3.2 cruise. At that speed, the pictured cowl lip shocks were not entering the inlet body. And, yes, the capture of the normal, mach 1.0 shock wave was the real important event. Otherwise, you'd have no subsonic flow into the engine compressor. The article is a good one; my change was to get rid of the erroneous reference to the cowl lip shock waves "continuously reflecting", etc. instead of the primary, oblique shock wave that was doing that job. David Dempster 01:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, we're probably going to need to change Jet engine as well, somebody else seems to have made the same mistake I did. I'd still like to see a shock diagram at Mach 3.2 some time though. :-) Anyway, it sounds like the inlet worked in different ways at different speeds, but Mach 3.2 is the important operating mode.WolfKeeper 01:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I had another look at the manual. You need to look at here: [2]. Even now there's a bit of wiggle room, but it seems to me that according to the diagram the shockwave never quite gets swallowed even at Mach 3.2, and certainly not below. They push the shock as close as they possibly can though. I can only speculate what would happen if it did go inside, my guess is it would unstart or something, the extra flow and pressure as it entered is pretty much bound to upset something somewhere.WolfKeeper 05:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and get you a better diagram from my Lockheed sources. Per your last sentence above, the bleed and bypass systems were what handled the total pressures and flow and allowed the inlet to get, and stay, started. Without them, yes the pressure would "upset something somewhere". DPD

I thought the Armageddon visibility was interesting, but even if it has no place on the page as suggested, no need to be nasty about it. Sorry. --btrotter 04:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be nasty. "Cruft" is a term used regularly on Wikipedia to refer to trivia and pop-culture items that are "trivial". "Armeggeddon" is a notatble film. However, the appearance of the SR-71 is non-notable, as it is brief, and plays no role in the plot, and any other aircraft could have been used. If the SR-71s had been used to go to the asteroids, then that would have been significant. - BillCJ 05:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No big deal, I'm somewhat new here. I guess I thought it was more interesting because they then have the X-71 as the one going to the asteroid. For what little it's worth, I'm sort of used to IMDB where any old reference is interesting- and it is interesting to see just how many places a particular something is referenced, even if briefly. The SR-71 has such an interesting history, I got a little excited ;) --btrotter 05:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

When we flew operational missions into "denied areas" such as North Vietnam, they were called Combat Sorties. Some missions diverted into Thailand bases when items such as a critical hydraulic system or electrical generator failed in flight. And, yes, two aircraft were lost as described in the paragraphs I just deleted. But, none of the examples were combat losses, which infers to the reader that enemy fire, etc. was responsible for bringing an aircraft down. Diversions and losses experienced resulted from the kinds of aeronautical happenings that can occur on any sortie with no connection to where the vehicle had been during it's reconnaissance run.

Errors were in the refueling sequence description of flights out of Okinawa, plus they had no relevency to the part of the article they were in, so I deleted them.

I rearranged the various Okinawa pieces so they were more in a chronological order and hopefully a help to the reader. David Dempster 22:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that wikipedia prefers reputable references, over personal opinions. The two SR-71's lost by OPERATIONAL causes, did occur while conducting combat operations over enemy territory, in this case North Vietnam. One each on 10 May 1970 and 20 July 1972. These losses are listed in Chris Hobson's 2001 book, entitled "Vietnam Air Losses.......1961 thru 1973." ANYONE CAN LOOK IT UP. As an additional reminder, there were many other reconnissance aircraft lost to operational causes while on combat missions, they are listed also. Reconnissance is a combat mission. If one feels that readers may become confused by military terminology, such as combat operational losses, and combat loss due to surface to air missile, or air to air combat then they should be educated by those that were there.

Answer:

If you want to write that two SR-71 operational flights from Okinawa ended with accidental losses of the aircraft during the Vietnam War, you would be writing an accurate statement. But, neither loss occured "while conducting combat operations over enemy territory". Willy Lawson and Gil Martinez's accident was in Thailand after an air refueling. The second was a landing accident at Kadena Air Base in Okinawa. Both sorties had made successful recon passes over North Vietnam but were victims of accidents that had nothing to do with "combat" directly. "Vietnam Air Losses" in total is one subject, while "downing by enemy action" is another. I agree with your "education goals, and thus would not want readers of the SR-71 article to misunderstand that no SR-71 was ever brought down by enemy action. David Dempster 04:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Both SR-71 crew members had threat warning displays, but the Defensive System Control panels were in the RSO's station, whose job included crew coordination warnings to the pilot and countering missile launch indications by selecting active ECM modes. David Dempster 00:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

At the very start of the section is says that Habu means sled. I know that it actually is a snake. "A habu (pronounced "hah-BOO") is a poisonous snake found in southeast Asia (Japan, Phillipines, Taiwan, southeast China). Habus are pit vipers, more closely related to the adder than to any species of North American snake. The actual "habu" (Trimeresurus flavoviridis) is relatively small, not usually getting longer than 5 feet. They are not typically aggressive but will bite if provoked. They are not as deadly as cobras or mambas, but are more much more dangerous than most North American venomous snakes. There are almost a dozen species of habu; the variety native to Okinawa (Trimeresurus okinavensis) is supposedly greenish or greenish-yellow; however, all habus are extremely rare in North America (less than a dozen specimens in all zoos combined) and photographs are very hard to come by. When the A-12s (and later the SR-71s) were first flown to their new remote base at Kadena AFB in Okinawa, the local people thought that this strange and somewhat wicked-looking airplane was shaped like the habu snake. They started calling it the habu airplane, and later just habu. Crews who flew the airplane were also called Habu, and the name came to be recognized with the blackbird program and even incorporated into the insignia worn by the crews on their uniforms." http://www.habu.org/what-is-habu.html

i don't know how to edit but this should be there instead of the reference to it meaning sled. Or possibly there are 2 definitions but I know that the snake is the reason it is called Habu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.42.239 (talk)

I think it's just bad copywriting. "Habu" should be defined or at least linked to an article defining the term. THe term "sled" appears to be the second name referred to be crews, not the definition of "habu". Again, it's not written clearly, but until an editor more knowledgeable of the subject chimes in, I'm hesitant to correct it. If "sled" is not a legitimate crew nickname, it may be sneaky vandalsim that just got by. In either case, the use of the nicknames should be cited, especially in the Lead. THis would at least give us a source to double check in cases like this. - BillCJ 18:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Sled" is indeed a legitimate nickname...in the "Air Inlets" section and in the refs section there's even a book by a former pilot called "Sled Driver". I have the book, and in it, it specifically says that the aircraft was nicknamed "sled" by its pilots. As for HABU, the book says: "When the SR-71 first came to the island [Okinawa] early in the program, it did not go unnoticed by the locals. Intrigued by the ominous shape of the aircraft, Okinawans began calling it "Habu". The Habu was a poinsonous black viper indigenous to the island, and residents felt the jet resembled the deadly snake. Squadron members adopted the neckname, and it stuck. A shoulder patch worn by SR-71 crew members simply read HABU. Crew members received their HABU patches only after they flew their first operational sortie." Hope that helps! Akradecki 18:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

THanks, Alan, and congratulations on beating the bot! I assumed they were legitimate, but didn't know. I will rewrite the mention to be less ambiguous. - BillCJ 19:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

After the first four SR-71 crews of us had arrived at Kadena Air base, Okinawa, we shared hanger facilities with our A-12 "brethren" and with Oxcart clearances received great tours and hospitality from them during the last few weeks of their Operations. When we first heard of the Habu snake reference to the Blackbirds that were taxiing and flying at Kadena in public view, we thought it made a great program logo and name. Dave Jensen, who was Buddy Brown's RSO, designed the first Habu patch: a snake coiled through a big red number "8" with a Blackbird head on the snake body ( Kadena at that time was called Operating Location #8 ). When Dave showed it to us we all said: "Sierra Hotel" and it was immediately taken to the local Kadena sew shops for production. Within about two days we all had them sewed on our flight suits and the Habu was born as our logo. No words were on the original patch, and over time there it slowly evolved as later generations of Habu's ammended it. Thanks Akradecki and BillC for your continued "watch" over the SR article. David Dempster 02:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Least we can do, Sir, to salute such a great bird and the men who flew her. Thanks for the stories, as they make the sometimes-difficult job of editing out the junk enjoyable! - BillCJ 03:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is the SR-71 considered the world's fastest manned aircraft when the X-15 can hit mach 6.8?

Answer: The X-15 was a rocket powered, manned aircraft, capable of zooming to over 50 miles high, while the SR-71 was a turbojet powered, manned aircraft that operated and cruised below 90,000 feet. The latter is the context for which the SR "fastest manned aircraft" are usually made. David Dempster 16:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be because the X-15 can't take off from a runway. It was carried aloft under a B-52. Is that right? It's hard to tell from the North American X-15 article. --Doradus 13:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. It's the same reason that the Space Shuttle isn't included in that "record" as well. Akradecki 14:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any information on if SR-71's overflew the USSR? 63.152.13.173 01:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The United States government has never officially acknowledged a single instance of an SR-71 overlying the USSR. The two main reasons are that Eisenhower promised the USSR no more overflights after the Gary Powers U-2 incident; and that the SR-71's main cameras and sensing equipment was designed (probably mostly due to reason 1,) to be side-pointing, meaning it would skirt the EDGES of the target country, but not actually crossing into their airspace. It was used to overfly Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East, though, on a regular basis. (Korea after the war to monitor the caese fire, Vietname during the war, and the Middle East during the various flare-ups there between Israel and its neighbors.) 24.22.40.177 07:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Could this be because the SR-71 didn't have the range to make the flight without refuleling, and the need to slow down for refueling slowed down the average speed? 24.22.40.177 07:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This can be verified at any museum that talks about the plane. The plane only had 1.5 hours of fuel, so it had to slow down to refuel at least once during the trip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.106.35 (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Alan and BillC, I just noticed the LCO changes and I have a minor "nitpick". The USAF never planned to man and operate M-21's. The two built were for the CIA and tested with Lockheed test personnel. Thus, no "officer's", like USAF Navigator Officers and titled RSO's in the SR-71 were ever planned for the M-21. Launch Control Operator most probably should be the correct term, although I don't know that for sure. But, "Officer" is not correct. Thanks, and I'll leave it to you two to change that if you wish.

David Dempster 04:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hum. I did searches for both LCO titles and got plenty of hits for both. They are interchangable terms depending on if 'Officer' applies or not it seems. -Fnlayson 05:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, Sir. I've corrected the mention in the Lockheed D-21/M-21 article. Because there is a main page, I see no reason to duplicate that info here, so I have cut it back to a bare minimum. That article has a reference section, but cites no sources in the text. There may be other problems too, but I'm not going to read it thoughly due to the late hour for me. - BillCJ 05:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Matter of interest what did the aircraft do to avoid booming mainland America and elsewhere? Did it simply fly subsonic until well off the coast like Concorde? WolfKeeper 23:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about general ops, but I clearly remember the coast-to-coast 1990 record setting flight, because I was living in Southern California, and heard the boom as it started its run to D.C. from offshore. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I can remember i read somwhere that part of the fuselage was made of a specific heat-reistant alloy, which has a name. Does someone know the name of the alloy? I can remember it was a word staring with the letter I and ending with the letter X.--Arado 15:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Don't know specifically about the S-71, but possible heat resistant alloys with X in the name include Hastelloy X and Inconel X-750. Those are nickel based alloys. Maybe what you're thinking of is one of those.. -Fnlayson 15:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Yes, that's it: Inconel X. I searched on the web and it was not used on the SR-71, but on the X-15--Arado 08:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it 12 or 13? does anyone have the references?68.245.212.244 02:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Originally the article stated 12 were lost or destroyed. There have been numerous changes though. Now the artical states 13 in one section and 12 in another. There is also alot of changes with respect to lost aircraft and destroyed aircraft. Possibly 12 of them were destroyed and the 13th was lost. This should be clarified.68.244.13.195 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be taken seriously on Wikipedia, I highly suggest you drop this "lost due to navigational error" idea you are pursuing. In the context of aircraft articles, "lost" always means they were destroyed, or otherwise rendered unuseable. If you think you're just trying to have fun with us, it isn't funny, never was. Try Uncyclopedia for that kind of silliness. If you genuinely think that is what "lost means", please beleive me, it does NOT mean that here.

I have removed the sentence regarding 12 or 13 aircraft being lost/destroyed, in the hopes that we can find a source without the constant edit-warring that has been going on. If that doesn't work, I'll ask to have the page semi-protected again. THis is getting really old, really fast, and it is NOT funny. - BillCJ 00:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I was confused on that. So I didn't know which way was right. I was guessing it was 12 aircraft plus 1 trainer, but not sure... -Fnlayson 02:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This what David Donald says in Black Jets (2003):

1. Lockheed A-12 60-6926/123 lost during training flight
2. Lockheed A-12 60-6928/125 lost during training/test flight
3. Lockheed A-12 60-6932/129 lost during mission over Philippines
4. Lockheed A-12 60-6939/133 lost during landing at Groom Lake
5. Lockheed A-12 60-6941/135 lost during tests

1. Lockheed SR-71 64-17950/2001 lost during test
2. Lockheed SR-71 64-17952/2003 lost during test flight
3. Lockheed SR-71 64-17954/2005 lost during takeoff accident
4. Lockheed SR-71 64-17957/2008 lost during fuel cavitation
5. Lockheed SR-71 64-17965/2016 lost during night training
6. Lockheed SR-71 64-17966/2017 lost during night refuelling
7. Lockheed SR-71 64-17969/2020 lost during refuelling
8. Lockheed SR-71 64-17974/2025 lost during sortie over Okinawa
9. Lockheed SR-71 64-17977/2028 lost during aborted takeoff
10. Lockheed SR-71 64-17978/2029 lost during landing

(p.188-191) Jay Miller in Skunk Works (1995) says: "Of the thirty-one original aircraft, twenty had survived to the program's finish." (p. 150) FWIW Bzuk 04:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC).

Thank you, The above list, without the A-12 losses appears low. The following reference gives details of individual losses:

http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/losses.php It is summerized below:

Type Built Lost

1. A-12 13 5
2. M-21 2 1
3. YF-12A 3 2
4. SR-71A 29 11
5. SR-71B 2 1
6. SR-71C 1 0

Is there an authority on the subject that can discern the actual numbers and restore the article? 68.244.15.214 10:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the authority I would quote:

• Donald, David, ed. Black Jets: The Development and Operation of America's Most Secret Warplanes. Norwalk, Connecticut: AIRtime Publishing Inc., 2003. ISBN 1-880588-67-6.

When I reviewed the information on the website cited above, it looked to be an exact copy of the Donald entries in his book. FWIW Bzuk 14:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC).

Info from [3] -

• 17950/2001 SR-71A Destroyed by fire 1967
• 17951/2002 SR-71A On display AZ
• 17952/2003 SR-71A Destroyed during test flight 1966
• 17953/2004 SR-71A Destroyed during test flight 1969
• 17954/2005 SR-71A Destroyed on take-off 1969
• 17955/2006 SR-71A On display CA
• 17956/2007 SR-71B On display MI
• 17957/2008 SR-71B Destroyed on approach 1968
• 17958/2009 SR-71A On display GA
• 17959/2010 SR-71A On display FL
• 17960/2011 SR-71A On display CA
• 17961/2012 SR-71A On display KS
• 17962/2013 SR-71A On display UK
• 17963/2014 SR-71A On display CA
• 17964/2015 SR-71A On display NE
• 17965/2016 SR-71A Destroyed during night training sortie 1976
• 17966/2017 SR-71A Destroyed after high-speed stall during air-refuelling 1967
• 17967/2018 SR-71A On display LA
• 17968/2019 SR-71A On display VA
• 17969/2020 SR-71A Destroyed after high-speed stall during air-refuelling 1970
• 17970/2021 SR-71A Destroyed in mid-air collision with KC-135Q 1970
• 17971/2022 SR-71A On display OR
• 17972/2023 SR-71A On display VA
• 17973/2024 SR-71A On display CA
• 17974/2025 SR-71A Destroyed after engine explosion 1989
• 17975/2026 SR-71A On display CA
• 17976/2027 SR-71A On display OH
• 17977/2028 SR-71A Destroyed on failed take-off 1968
• 17978/2029 SR-71A Destroyed during landing 1972
• 17979/2030 SR-71A On display TX
• 17980/2031 SR-71A On display CA
• 17981/2000 SR-71C On display UT

Total 12 Destroyed, total 20 Preserved/on display. Same as other sources above. MilborneOne 20:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I was starting to question the 17 year loss change. But I see one (/2016) lost between 21 July 1972 and 21 April 1989. So OK. -Fnlayson 18:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

During the June, 2007 Blackbird Reunion in Reno and the September 15 and 16, 2007 Blackbird Forum at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, I asked Habu crew members of the 1986 - 1990 time frame where the term Sled came from ( in my crew time during '65 -'69, it was Habu only ). They told me that when the U-2's joined the SR-71's at Beale AFB, the U-2 crews jokingly called the Blackbird a "Sled" with Blackbird names then jokingly applied to the U-2's. Good O'Club rivalry and joking. One of the Blackbird pilots wrote a book and titled it and published it as "Sled Driver". However, all of the Blackbird crewmembers I spoke with told me they never really used Sled as a name among themselves for the SR-71. It was always Habu after the 1968 Okinawa naming of it there as a program nickname. Thus, I have deleted the term "Sled" from the article as a more correct reading. If one of our editor's thinks that should be reverted I won't complain, I just don't believe it belongs in our article. Thanks. David Dempster 02:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I am not a registered wiki user at this point... but i think the main picture on the left, the one in the box with all the plane stats, is really an A-12, the second cockpit is raised well above the first, which is a characteristic of the trainer A-12, which in its deployed version really only had one person in it i believe. The SR-71 did have two "cockpits" one for the pilot and the other for the navigation, but those were in line and not stacked as the picture shows. I am not sure how to edit the picture, and dont have another. The picture in the "fuel" section is a correct photo. It has the inline cockpit with the two windows, and no forward facing ones. The trainer A-12 can be noticed in the picture of the A-12s at Groom Lake, it is the second plane. 72.200.190.30 00:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Wednesday sept 26 20:07

It looks that way to me too. It's not obvious in the small picture in the plane stats, but if you look at the full size original it's clear. Paul Koning 01:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"The main picture on the left", is a puzzlement to me as on my computer screen display of our article, it is on the right side of the page, and it is an SR-71B model, which like the Groom Lake A-12 mentioned had a raised rear cockpit for the Instructor-Pilot instead of a Reconnaissance Systems Officer's cockpit. The chines are definately those of the SR which had a more rounded front end down to the pitot-static tube. Compare the difference with the M-21 nose chine design in the "Other Pictures" section and you'll see the more pointed chine nose design that was on the A-12's. Hope that helps. David Dempster 05:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)