Talk:Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird

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)

• Possibly permanent adjustments as in tweaks to the design. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:19, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• You must not have taken time to read the hidden No Cruft message in that section. In keeping with Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Popular culture, that state minor, non-notable appearances should not be listed. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Is Manga Science Nigerian? You have yet to show how the appearannces are notable TO the SR-71, through reliable sources. - BillCJ (talk) 07:03, 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. MythSearcher^talk 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. MythSearcher^talk 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: [1]- (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. MythSearcher^talk 10:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Finally, the popular culture section is very interesting now. 139.18.25.35 (talk) 08:16, 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)

• The Blackbird used by the X-Men is a look a like, not an SR-71. Fictional likenesses are considered original research and should not be included per Aircraft project policy. Appearances have to significant or notable to be included. The pop culture section would get huge if these every brief appearance was included. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:35, 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. MythSearcher^talk 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. MythSearcher^talk 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) MythSearcher^talk 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. MythSearcher^talk 02:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• That'll work unless the AfD decides to merge the content back to this article. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 03:10, 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) MythSearcher^talk 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. MythSearcher^talk 07:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed lead of the section so ignorant passerbys are not tempted to add more to the section. MythSearcher^talk 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. MythSearcher^talk 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)

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.

• Agree to remove entirely.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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. MythSearcher^talk 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? MythSearcher^talk 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.) MythSearcher^talk 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. MythSearcher^talk 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. MythSearcher^talk 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. MythSearcher^talk 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. MythSearcher^talk 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)

MythSearcher^talk 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. MythSearcher^talk 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. MythSearcher^talk 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. MythSearcher^talk 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. MythSearcher^talk 07:43, 29 July 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Here: [2]. The aircraft type was misstated for national security reasons. The pilot, one of the Air force's best, had a well designed cover story of being an entertainer. Even his Bio, here on WP, to this day makes no mention of his work with the USAF. 68.28.104.229 (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)