Jump to content

Talk:Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird/Archive 4

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

Non-fibrous asbestos

The article says "Non-fibrous asbestos with high heat tolerance was used..." That can't be right, since all asbestos is fibrous by definition. Sometimes the same mineral can assume either asbestiform habit (fibrous) or non-asbestiform habit (non-fibrous), but in the latter case it is not called asbestos. I am not sure what was intended here-- Finely-ground asbestos? Non-friable asbestos-containing material? The information was unsourced when introduced. The citation was added two years later, but I'm not convinced it was intended to apply to this particular unlikely detail. Maybe someone with access to the book (Johnson, C. L. (1985), Kelly: More Than My Share of it All. Ch.14. Smithsonian Books. ISBN 0874744911.) can check? Riick (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is true, there is no such thing as Non-Fibrous Asbestos. There are a few varieties of Asbestos used in the Blackbirds. Mostly on the "Plastic Components" of the aircraft. These are a "asbestos impregnated silicon laminate" applied to the back of the "Pyro-Ceram" composites leading edge structures and early rudders and nose assembly. Large blocks of finely milled asbestos were shaped and fitted to the inside of the "spikes" (engine nose cone) assemblies. Dan Freeman, USAF (RET) SR-71 Machinist / Metals Technologist / Asbestos Inspector Management Planner / Asbestos Microscopical Analyst. http://mach3ti.com (4 Nov 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkkjj$$&& (talk • contribs) 17:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Overflight

The SR-71 penetrated many countries of interest and hostile airspace including North Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, Libya, and areas of the Middle East during "hot conflicts". These areas had real SAM capabilities and in monitoring our cockpit Def System displays of SAM locked-on tracking and/or launch guidance radars plus turning on our jammers as required, there was no doubt to us we were in hostile airspace. The writer above is perhaps referring to heartland Russia or the PRC. The SR-71 did made many "border" surveillance flights of these countries collecting Electronic Signals Intelligence data plus side looking imagery. I do not know the source or veracity of "numbers" of attempts ( totals ) to "down" the SR-71 during it's entire active lifetime, but in my program time, there was indeed attempts against us over North Vietnam.

David Dempster, SR-71 RSO 14:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Dempster (talk • contribs)

SR's were fired at all the time, the notable fact is No Blackbird was ever lost due to hostile fire. Mlpearc powwow 15:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

MiG-25

Starting this thread for futher input and discussion, regarding these edits [1] [2].

Discussion C/P'd from my talk:

just wanted to let you know that i reverted your edit on the SR-71 i found infomation on http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/mig-25_foxbat.pl that stated the MIG to fly at speeds of mach 3.2
"The Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 (NATO reporting name "Foxbat") was a super fast interceptor and reconnaissance/bomber aircraft (its speeds are still not matched today!) designed by the Soviet Union's Mikoyan-Gurevich bureau. First flown as a prototype in 1964, it entered service in 1970.With a top speed of Mach 3.2(however the engines would blow up at that speed ), a powerful radar and four air-to-air missiles, the MiG-25 worried Western observers and prompted development of the F-15 Eagle."
-The lost library (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the note but, I've already seen your change. Still looking into the validity of your reference, "its speeds are still not matched today!" seems to be pretty "far fetched" Mlpearc powwow 14:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Just found this on another website (http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/mig25.html) thought you would be interrested

  • With huge Tumansky R-15D-300 engines the Mig was considered almost a rocket.
  • Pilots were forbidden to exceed Mach 2.5. There was a total of three engine instruments and the airspeed indicator was redlined at 2.8 Mach.
  • Above Mach 2.8 the engines would overheat and burn up. The Americans had clocked a Mig-25 over Israel at Mach 3.2 in 1973. Upon landing in Egypt, the engines were totally destroyed. We did not understand that the engine destruction was inevitable.

I am going to look into that to see if i can't find the acctuly millatry report.
i knew migs were fast but like you i do have a hard time beliving that they were that fast
-The lost library (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the things that I'm having trouble with is how did this inspire the Eagle ? It seems if the Eagle was inspired from the Mig, wouldn't the Eagle be at least able to match the M3.2 claim ? the Eagle post this: High altitude: Mach 2.5+ (1,650+ mph, 2,660+ km/h). Mlpearc powwow 14:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The mig was designed to be an interceptor so it needed speed not maneuverability. The F-15 was built to combat or fight the Mig so it was thus an Air superiority fighter and need maneuverability over speed. That is why it does not need to match it speeds to be have been devloped to combat the MIG 25
-The lost library (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The West initially believed the MiG-25 was a fighter and that pushed for faster/better F-15 development. This is explained in the F-15 Eagle article, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-inserting of uncited text

Can editors please not re-insert text that has been tagged as uncited for six months - this is quite long enough for someone to find a reliable source if they are bothered and if the sources exist. It is entirely reasonable to delete this text and unreasonable to re-insert nit without a source.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Text has been removed again. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Correcting engine information using definitive engineering sources

I propose replacing erroneous engine descriptions with details from US Patent 3,344,606 and the SR-71 Fflight Manual, the two definitive engineering descriptions of the engine available on the web. Where the erroneous descriptions come from referenced sources either the sources are also incorrect or the meaning has been incorrectly transposed. Pieter1963 (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image

I replaced the infobox image, but before I get an uprising of hate, this is my rationale: the new image is exactly the same, except it is 2.89 times larger and sharper. The color and brightness are otherwise precisely the same. The new image needs to be used (and replace a current FP) for several days in order for a delisting/replacement nomination to take place at Featured Pictures. If this is unsatisfactory with anyone, please discuss it here with me first. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 09:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. This is really a no change. So nothing critical should need discussing. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
It's been presumed the image I uploaded was enlarged (rather than being a larger original). Sorry about that! Original image restored and all is well with the world again. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

2193 mph = 3529 km/h = Mach 2.88 / Mach 3.2 = 3920 km/h = 2435 mph

Why does it say Mach 3.2 everywhere?

Note: google "mach 2.88 in km/h" if you don't believe me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radmoustic (talk • contribs) 19:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The speed of sound varies with pressure = height (among other parameters). Zac67 (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Unrefueled range?

Can anyone provide some figures for unrefueled range of the SR71 ? Also, is in flight refueling the reason that various "records" are not accepted for this aircraft ? eg trans atlantic.(SM527RR (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC))

Apparently the sr-71 fuel tanks don't seal properly when the hull is at ambient temperature so it leaks fuel on the runway and while flying at subsonic speeds. I guess that makes the use of aerial refueling a must. This is usually omitted when comparing the sr-71 and the mig-25 range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.99.55 (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be foolish to take off with the tanks topped ... most of the fuel would be spilled. Therefore: After take-off the aircraft quickly climbs to the stratosphere and does a 'Speed-dash' to heat up the hull ... after which it can descend, slow down and meet the tanker aircraft. This scenario is mandatory. Sorry for not signing this entry ... 'Tildes' are nowhere to be found on an AZERTY-Mac-keyboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.100.126 (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked in here for a long time, so I'll just make a few comments:

1. Re. the NY to London record discussion, realize the SR would have needed an aerial refueling to fly 3490 nm. I'm guessing that was staged so that the SR crossed over the London timing gate at mach 3.2 and 80,000 plus altitude and ready to start descent. A little investigation should sort that all out.

2. Re. "Mach 3.2 everywhere", the Blackbird was a "single point design" meaning although it could fly subsonic, it was intended to normally cruise at supersonic speeds. Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich ( the Inlet's father ) designed and optimized the Inlet for mach 3.2 which is why that mach number is typically associated with the Blackbird's speed. Realize however, that the real limitation was 427 degrees C Compressor Inlet Temperature and in some colder than normal air missions north of Russia crews experienced mach 3.3 to mach 3.32 for brief periods before planned start descent. Then, at other times, during my HABU flight years we would deliberately enter some denied areas at mach 3.0 and leave the capability to accelerate to mach 3.2 with a climb, if a SAM was launched against us.

3. When we did fly subsonic ( such as a CONUS ferry flight or return to Beale flight from an unplanned / emergency SAC base landing site ), we would cruise at mach .92 ( as I best recall from my couple of subsonic flights with my pilot Jim Watkins ). A little Flight Hand Book work ( max fuel on board after A/R, subsonic speed and engine fuel burn rates ) should let you calculate subsonic range estimates.

Hope this helps.

David Dempster, SR-71 RSO 00:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Dempster (talk • contribs)

recent history of SR-71 Blackbird

although I have seen the section for the sr-71 blackbird in the "aircraft in fiction" page- a "popular culture" section of THIS page would be helpful- considering the sale of a panel of an SR-71 blackbird on the TV show, Pawn Stars, for $2,500 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.53.122 (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Just say "no" to cruft which clutters articles. Here is the appropriate guideline.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Deionized water for welding???

The comment about using D.I. Water for welding titanium, supposedly over concerns about chloride contamination is at best unclear (and that takes some assumption gymnastics). Although there are welding processes that involve splitting water to then combine in a high temp oxyhydrogen flame, this is not used with titanium. Hydrogen and oxygen are detrimental to the metal if absorbed at temperatures near melting. You wouldn't have to worry about chloride contamination in any water in contact with titanium being welded....the element would already be ruined by the hydrogen and oxygen 'contamination' of the water.

166.216.162.32 (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)BGriffin.

Losses

The high rate of loss isn't addressed. Taking the statement that none were ever downed due to enemy action at face value, must presume they were mechanical failures due to stretching technology limits but maintenance issues are also suggested by their being bunched together. Glaring that there's no discussion of this. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Max. Range Speed, Subsonic cruise performance

Does anyone know which speed or mach number results in the maximum range? Is the range in subsonic cruise greater or smaller than supersonic? --Hbquax (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

There are numerous sources for Mach 3.2 as "the most efficient speed", so I'd guess subsonic performance would be inferior (without being any expert). The necessarily high angle of attack at low speed probably is a killer. Zac67 (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Could you give me one reliable source? I don't want to guess, I want to know ;-) --Hbquax (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • At least two former SR-71 pilots have provided information during interviews that have pointed to the SR-71's top speed and altitude. Brian Shul gave a speech, during which he showed the audience photographs taken from 88,000 feet. Former pilot Richard Graham told an interviewer at the Frontiers of Flight Museum that he had taken the SR-71 to Mach 3.2 and a test pilot had taken it to Mach 3.4. The Air Force got very nervous about the airplane flying faster than that, due to problems with engine inlet temperatures and the danger that the airplane would come apart at the expansion joint at the border of the aft body if its angle of attack changed too quickly, causing a rapid pitch-up movement. It stands to reason that the Blackbird could sustain Mach 3.4 at 90,000 feet (and you could speculate perhaps as much as Mach 3.5); that is good enough so that if you took a Blackbird today (2013), updated its radar absorbent paint, you could fly it right over Moscow or Beijing or Pyongyang with impunity.

BTW, I thought I read that the SR-71, on its 1990 cross country flight, reached 2,242 mph between two of the radar gates in one of the news stories covering it. That's just about Mach 3.4 Raryel (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Loss Rate Comments

There were multiple causes of the SR-71's lost, and there are excellent HABU web sites that list the reasons for every one. Some were pitch up problems after refueling, some were system failures such as electrical generator failures ( example, the first B model crash ), and the last SR-71 loss tail number 974 ( a great aircraft that came back from Kadena Air Base with "Ichibon' and a big red number ! over a HABU ) had an inflight catastrophic system failure over the ocean near the Philippines; both crew members ejected and bailed out successfully. Hope you read the story on each loss; it's there in the internet.

David Dempster, SR-71 RSO 09:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Dempster (talk • contribs)

revise descriptions in inlet and engine sections

These sections contain incorrect/misleading terms and explanations, some obtained from references which are also not well informed. I will improve shortly, including credible references. I will delete the worst offending text first because while it remains I think it degrades the quality of the article and potentially harms the credibility of Wikipedia.Pieter1963 (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

remove reference to thesis on Mach 6 inlets

Ref Col Graham in his book "SR-71 Revealed" the maximium temperature observed by the pilots with regard to limiting the flight speed was the compressor inlet temperature of 427degC because the engine was not certified beyond that temperature. The current wording in the article tends to suggest the intake itself was the cause of the limit with the thesis reference added for insight into how to increase it. I don't see any relevance to including this particular aspect of the aircraft's design as the whole airframe and all the systems would be redesigned for flight beyond the SR-71 design speed of Mach 3.2. This design speed is also quoted in Col Graham's book. I will reword the temperature limit statement.Pieter1963 (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Fnlayson, you shouldn't have to correct sloppy work. Sorry about that. Why is ISBN-13: 978-0-7603-0122-7 not acceptable? ThanksPieter1963 (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

remove sentences

"Ben Rich, who designed the inlets at Skunk Works, often referred to the engine compressors as "pumps to keep the inlets alive"; he sized the inlets for Mach 3.2 cruise, the aircraft's most efficient speed.[1]"

Ben Rich didn't design the inlet. He was the program manager for the propulsion system ref "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich. "pumps to keep the inlets alive" just raises more questions than it answers as it is an insightful comment for people "in-the-know" and I don't think is appropriate for this article. After all, what's the difference between an alive inlet and a dead one? I kept the Mach 3.2 comments but repositioned them.Pieter1963 (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed "No other engine did this" Although it is very likely that this assertion is true I don't believe that it can be verified.Pieter1963 (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Johnson 1985
Please provide sources here before removing cited text. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
It is not clear in which reference the statement "No other engine did this" originated because there are 3 references giving blanket coverage to several sentences. Since I cannot find the statement in any of the cited refs it could even be the contributor's personal opinion.
A more fundamental reason for deletion is that the statement infers certainty as a consequence of not being aware of something, that something being Soviet engine developments.
A safer statement, if one is required at all, might be "This mode of operation was thought to be unique, at least in the Western world."
There is no reference for this of course because I made it up. However, it's a better way of bringing attention to what is perceived to be a distinctly unique characteristic of the engine.Pieter1963 (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, but I was only asking for sources where cited text is to be removed as a general request. If it is not actually covered by the sources, then it is uncited and can be readily removed. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
What is "Please provide sources here" referring to? "Here" makes it sound specific to my latest edit, not a general request.Pieter1963 (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Dates are contradictory

Wow, the amount of contradictory information here is astounding. It was retired in 1990. It was retired in 1988. It was retired in 1998. It was retired in 1999. Just wow. Sloppy journalism, at best. My first question is: if this article is about a PRODUCT, an object (the SR-71), then what does "retirement" mean? Isn't it a specific reference to some owner/operator's USE of that object? (That is, it is a paper or conceptual distinction, not a physically meaningful one; wouldn't "last flight" be more meaningful?). I suggest you eliminate the "retirement" language, since its last USAF flight was in 1997, and for NASA in 1999. Some of the planes were "decommissioned" but continued to fly. So, perhaps you need to distinguish between mission flights and transportation flights? (And so, distinguish between its principle owner/operator's program(s) and its two separate times in service.) In the timeline, it is claimed that the 1989 explosion was the first in 17 years...this implies that during all or almost all of those 17 years, the plane was in active use...is this correct, and not misleading? Also, the "in service" dates are different than the dates the plane was actually flown. The program was reactivated in 1994 but the first flight was 1995, I think its not too difficult to be clear about whether you're talking about funding or about actual operation. Confounding Congressional funding decision dates (votes as well as effective dates), program dates, and operational dates is sloppy and simply unnecessary, imho.173.189.73.1 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Life support rubbish

The section contains the following:" Furthermore, an emergency ejection at Mach 3.2 would subject crews to an instant heat rise of about 450 °F (230 °C); thus, during a high altitude ejection scenario, an onboard oxygen supply would keep the suit pressurized during the descent.[citation needed]" Oh, my! First of all, it is absolute rubbish to claim someone is "subjected" to a "heat rise". This is high school science we're talking about! I don't know what the author intended to mean: did he mean a temperature rise of 450°F? I doubt it, but since there is no reference, there's no way to find out. Did he mean the friction would heat his clothing (and any exposed skin) by 450°F ? Probably, but no way to know... Finally, what possible connection is there to a "heat" rise after ejection and onboard oxygen supply?? It seems to imply that the ejected person remains tethered to the plane. (Perhaps the author meant to imply that ejection at that speed (and altitude, although the relationship between altitude and frictional heating isn't straightforward) was prohibited because of the friction...it would seem to me that the force of the wind, regardless of temperature/thermal effects, could cause serious injury, too?) But he didn't say that. Instead he created a mash-up of two distinct thoughts. It needs to be removed (without citation) or fixed.173.189.73.1 (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Possibly two fatal accidents

Folks, I apologize for my sloppy editing here. However, my knowledge of how to properly edit Wikipedia talk pages is minimal. However, I do have a serious point to make. The Wikipedia page says that only one pilot was lost. I am not sure if that is true or not. There were two well documented fatal accidents in the history of the program. The first was the MD21 Blackbird Accident. See "SR71 Sistership, The MD21 Blackbird Accident" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMyC2urCl_4). This was apparently on July 30,1966. The second (and better known) accident was in 1966. See "Subject: Test Pilot Bill Weaver tells about a Mach 3.18 in-flight breakup of an SR-71 Blackbird" (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_NPGmF1ql90J:www.barthworks.com/aviation/sr71breakup.htm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a).

At least in my opinion, the SR-71 Wikipedia page should provide information on both accidents. Does anyone agree? Disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pschaeffer (talk • contribs) 20:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The accident to the Drone carrier 60-6941 is covered in the Lockheed A-12 article as it wasnt an SR-71 it is not included in the total here. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction.

Timeline

@Fnlayson: 01:39, 29 April 2015‎ Whalestate . . (+335)‎ . . (→‎Timeline: made sub-divisions to 1960's + added additional factors to dating

I thought since the 1960's period shows formative events it might be further sub-divided, and added the rd,th,st to the dating, although I don't know if this second change is an improvement, having looked at the section afterwards. Whalestate (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Mlpearc reverted, per MOSDATES, though maybe the sub-divisions might be retained (which were lost in the reversion). I couldn't find the appropriate page on Over-sectioning to check as to guidelines or policy on this.Whalestate (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any references for this section, is it necessary to have ref.'s attached? Whalestate (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Whalestate: To be more specific MOS:DATESNO - "Do not use ordinals (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.)". Mlpearc (open channel) 02:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mlpearc: yes, thanks, I gathered the ordinals were the reason, I wasn't sure whether they were an improvement in any case, it was just as to the loss of the further sub-division through reversion that's all I wanted to know. Whalestate (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Record in present perfect?

In the intro is written: Since 1976, it has held the world record for the fastest air-breathing manned aircraft, a record previously held by the related YF-12.
As far as I understand the article, the SR 71 still holds the record. Could anyone explain to me why there isn't used present tense or at least present perfect progressive?
Yours --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"has held" is perfectly OK for something that's been going on for a while. --Zac67 (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast answer.
Yours --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion before edit warring / reliable sources?

Amdurbin has been edit warring over content they want included but has been sourcing with a blog website. Starting this discussion to try and resolve this issue. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

That website (http://theaviationist.com/about/) calls itself a weblog but it is not really a blog. It is actually closer to a standard news resource run by a very small team (mostly one guy with a few regional contributors). A number of news websites put "blog" in their title to make it sound trendy. We had a lot of these in the automobile project. The big question is how is it verified? The main contributor seems to be highly qualified - although I'm taking his word that he has listed his qualifications truthfully.  Stepho  talk  06:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources is at WP:Identifying reliable sources. The "News organizations" section is the section there most relevant. I'm not sure this one meets the criteria there. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Mlpearc and Fnlayson, who were also edit warring, made some comments about the source. In looking into the sources references, the blog post didn't summarize them well. However, the source materials qualify as reliable sources. I changed it to reference a primary source, which Mlpearc reverted here to my earlier edits. I'd recommend changing to cite the two sources (a book and a web magazine article) if it's included, and to note that SR-71 "overflights" of the Soviet Union were not described as such in the sources cited by TheAviationist. As a side note, although Fnlayson called TheAviationist "self-published", the post/article itself was not written by the site's owner, so it is not exactly "self-published". As another side note, the same Aviationist article is cited on the MiG-31 page in support of the same thing I said in my original edit. Amdurbin (talk) 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The only think I did here was tag a questionable source. This is clearly not edit warring. Stop these accusations and stick to the real issues. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
If what I did was edit warring, then what you and Mlpearc were doing is also edit warring. All I ever intended to do here by the way is add a source that I found on the MiG-31 page that mentioned the SR-71 to the SR-71 page and bring consistency to the information contained in each page. The reason you gave for it being a questionable source- it being self-published- is not really accurate, as it was not written by the site owner. Nonetheless, as I've mentioned, we can also change the citation for this info to be the references, a book and a webmagazine article, that the aviationist.com post cites. Amdurbin (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't believe the edits truly got to edit warring stage. And that's the point of the section label at the top. My edit summary only said theaviationist.com article appeared to be self-published. Self-published source is one type of source that generally do not meet reliable source criteria; . If you have those sources and they support the article text then please make those changes. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Aviationist site is not reputable and cites unverifiable claims. Recommend all references to this site within this article be flagged or removed. Jason.r.newell (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)jason

Claim that Foxhound intercepts forced the SR-71 away from Soviet border

A cited reference titled "Foxhound vs Blackbird: How the MiGs reclaimed the skies" is used to support a passage in the article that the MiG-31 Foxhound successfully tracked the SR-71 and locked onto it with missiles that could shoot it down. I find this reference questionable. It states that the SR-71 was at 72,000 feet, with the MiG-31 trailing it at 65,000 feet in firing position. However, the Blackbird could routinely and easily climb to over 80,000 feet if necessary (and retired Major Brian Shul showed photos to a lecture audience of the ground from 88,000 feet), and could accelerate to Mach 3.4 and even perhaps beyond - so the claim that a Foxhound could track it from behind (with missiles on the rails it would not be realistic for the Foxhound to even reach Mach 3 because it was not in clean configuration) is not credible. And the article's taking corroboration from Peter Ustnov is ridiculous. Should we be looking for better sources?Raryel (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Also attempted to track cited reference(s) used in "The Aviationist" article. Turns out that they're not reputable and fail litmus after initial leg. Suspect click-bait style blogging. I work with and frequently discuss operations with personnel that retired from this program (more on this if necessary). The aforementioned article, while interesting with respect to the MiG-31's technology and capability, does not consider the fact that the USA and USSR were right in the middle of Gorbachev's "Perestroika", arms reduction treaties, and other positive diplomacy. I've been told first hand by no less than two operators that American doctrine at the time would not have violated Soviet airspace -- there was no need. This can be traced to books by Shul, Graham, Byrnes, et al. Above all else, the SR-71 was (is) a diplomatic tool that was used delicately. The flights became more and more conscientious of the fact that relations between the USA and USSR were softening and warming. It had nothing to do with so-called intercepts.

Now, the physics of such an intercept is a whole other argument. As stated by user Raryel, an intercept is just not credible. Jason.r.newell (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)jason.r.newell

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone have access to the Rich and Janos book listed for citation #24?

In the airframe section of this article there is a sentence that makes no real sense. "Welding titanium requires distilled water, as the chlorine present in tap water is corrosive...". It lists citation #24 as its source (I think) however I don't have access to the Rich and Janos book. Does anyone have access to the Rich and Janos source material to provide clarification for this sentence? What welding process were they using? Why did it require water of any sort? Was it a resistance process where water was used to cool the part and electrodes? I highly doubt it was arc welding of any sort, so maybe oxyhydro welding I guess? I'm struggling to come up with a welding process suitable for the aerospace industry that requires the use of water. I'd like to keep some information about the struggles they had working with what at the time was a new material, but I find that part of the sentence to be borderline non-sense without further explanation or detail. 2601:601:C780:72F:89E2:1EF8:68F4:9E4 (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Pages 213-214 talk about Chlorine's affect on titanium. It says that a chlorine based ink in a marker worked like acid on titanium. Also,a panel that was spot welded and washed during summer (when the local water supply was chlorinated to stop algae growth) caused the spot welds to fail within 6-7 weeks. So they swapped to distilled water to wash the spot welds. It says that the spot welded panels had to be washed after acid treatment but not why it was acid treated.  Stepho  talk  07:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I edited that sentence to try and mention that it was in regards to washing spot welded panels. I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning here, but spot welding titanium can create alpha case to form on the surface, which is brittle and not desirable for airplane parts. It's pretty standard practice in the aerospace industry (maybe not back then) to remove the alpha case using chemical etching. After you dip a part in a big vat of acid you of course want to clean the remaining acid off, hence the rinsing it with water. Anyways, thanks for providing the information from the source material for me! 2601:601:C780:72F:FCFD:A902:D4A4:CCEF (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Horsepower

The standard formula for converting thrust (68,000 lbs) and speed (2200 mph) yields just under 400,000 horsepower needed to go that fast. AMCKen (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Chevy big block engine

@BilCat: Are you objecting to the link because it goes specifically to the Gen 2? How would you feel about a link to Chevrolet Big-Block engine? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be acceptable, assuming the cited source does mention Chevrolet Big-Block engines in the first place. If it mentions the Gen 2, then it needs to be made clear that that's in the source. - BilCat (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

D-21 ref seems misleading and off topic

I'm not changing it because I lack sufficient expertise to be certain, but it seems to me this implies that the "D-21" is a variation of the SR-71 retrofitted to be flown without an onboard pilot, while the link provided doesn't seem to support this. Perhaps someone with relevant expertise will clarify either this or the linked article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I need a clue where did you see a ref that the D-21 is a variant of the SR-71 because I cant see it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The Lockheed D-21 is the drone – the A-12 as mothership is referred to as M-21, or MD-21 with the drone docked. --Zac67 (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Or to put it another way, the D-21 was a single engine cruise missile that was launched from the M-21. The M-21 was part of the A-12, YF-12, SR-71 family (shared basic design and many parts) but the D-21 differed in almost every detail (no pilot, different wing, different engine, different number of engines).  Stepho  talk  23:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • But the D-21 only carried a camera, not ordnance. Calling it a cruise missile would be inaccurate and misleading. This is unrelated to the SR-71 and belongs on the D-21 talk page or possibly A-12 talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
True, but the aim of the discussion was to move it out of this article - which has happened.  Stepho  talk  22:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm appalled by the deception being told on this topic! ??

About two months ago I read about the SR-71 here on Wikipedia, and the history lesson being told now is different. I learned that the SR-71 had been through 800 bombing runs during combat, but suffered never to be shot down. Now when I read the story today, I get, "Over the course of its reconnaissance missions during the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese fired approximately 800 SAMs at SR-71s, none of which managed to score a hit.[78]" I'd like to know who is telling the truth. And I know all about Wikipedia being an open source encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean its not credible, because I still found that the SR-71 fighter jet to be the best fighter jet ever to be used by the United States Government — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.139.67.88 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It didn't do bombing runs. It was a reconnaissance aircraft. It was shot at but never shot down. I don't understand your conflict or issue with this. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

My conflict started back in college, when my college professor told us not to trust Wikipedia. He said that you are unreliable source of information. From my experience thus far it was perfectly fine until I started to mention the SR-71 capabilities in my conversations at home with friends, then it became a problem. Because I was so excited, some snooper went on and made me sad by changing the content of a fighter jet that was barnone the best the government has ever had. That's my confilict! 162.252.126.45 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@162.252.126.45: Your problem is you think and keep referring to the Blackbird as a "Fighter jet", which it is not. The SR-71 was an information gathering plane not a war jet with weapons, it's weapons were camera's. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
It was (and still is) the world's fastest camera platform. Not a bomber. Never dropped a single bomb, incapable of doing so, there are no mounts or bay for bombs. It's a pure spy plane, which is why so few were made, and why the pilots had to wear pressurized suits, like an astronaut. It doesn't even have a single gun on it. If shot at, it simply hits the afterburner and outruns the bullets and missiles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
WP should always be treated as unreliable because it is edited by self-appointed people with no proof of expertise. It is also subject to vandalisation at any time - sometimes subtle. Never use it for a reference in any college assignment. However, use it as a first place to go to get a general overview. Look at the references it gives and follow them up. Many of those references are suitable for using on a college assignment. Use the facts mentioned here and type them into google to see if the rest of the web agrees with us - but be aware that the wbe is also often unreliable. And as always, if you find errors here then feel free to correct them or to at least ask on this talk page.  Stepho  talk  00:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
So we are clear, there was no "deception." Wikipedia was right. The complainant doesn't get the difference between being shot at and being shot down. Missiles were launched but were ineffective. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Story of Russian interception of SR-71 not corroborated

Regarding citation #83 - that's a propaganda piece. It's basically a paid advertisement placed in US newspapers. Yes, the Blackbird could be tracked but was not endangered by that tracking. Interviews with Maury Rosenberg, Brian Shul, and Frank Murray as well as other sources have consistently showed that the SR-71 may have initially leveled off at 75,000 feet but continued climbing from there going into the mission area. Missions were flown anywhere from 80,000 to 88,000 feet and with the airplane flying at Mach 3.0 and capable of accelerating and holding 3.2 and better, a Mig-25 Foxbat could not remain in trail behind the Blackbird. The Foxbat's brief Mach 2.8 flights across Israel during the 1973 war required engine replacement upon landing. I did not remove that small section from the article because I think it would be better to use a credible reference for flights in that region to correct the sentence. Raryel (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Your information is wrong. 1) no replacement of the MiG-25 engines were not required at M2,8. And sometimes M3,2. It is old fiction that told Belenko. He was an ordinary pilot and not a test pilot. He was not allowed to fly faster M2,8. Here test-pilot Boris Orlov says that during the test many times had more 3M without any consequences. Without missiles MiG-25 could fly faster SR-71 but with missiles - around M2.83-2.93 (Maximal speed in test M2.93 with 4 AA-6, without weapons - about 15-20% faster. E-266M/MiG-25M top speed without weapons 3800+ and with weapons 3200 km/h) 2) The most important - a MiG-25 do not need to fly 3M to bring down SR-71. He just needs time in front missile launch area. 212.41.54.32 (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Can fly that fast != can operate at that speed continuously. And we know it can't. Because Mikoyan and the Soviet/Russian air forces placed continuous operating speed limits on the engine. It doesn't matter if your engines can reach speeds of Mach 3.2 if they can't do it continuously/long enough for an interception. Given that this is the first (and only) account of a MiG-25 not only catching up to but somehow keeping pace with an SR-71 and the source is dubious at best, I can't see why it's still on the page (it's even contradicted by an earlier source and sentence in the "Overview" section for pete's sake!). Also, your claim that all a MiG-25/31 pilot would need to do is "get time in front missile launch area" shows a clear lack of understanding of how air interception/interdiction and air-to-air missiles work. If this was the case, an SR-71 would - I GUARANTEE YOU - have been shot down according to your claims. None were. Trust me, the Soviets tried. The fact that they didn't succeed (despite what a huge propaganda victory it would have been) shows that this story should be purged. 216.16.184.181 (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • You haven't posted any credible information to disprove me. Or maybe you have, but it's impossible for me and many other readers to evaluate it. First, the reference is in Russian, which by itself doesn't discredit it but most readers don't read Russian. Second, you claim the Foxbat can fly 3,800 km/hour; but divided by 2.2 km per mile that equals 1,727 miles per hour, which is Mach 2.6. The Blackbird's official top speed recorded in 1990 was 2,242 mph, or Mach 3.4, and it could sustain that speed for the full 90 minute endurance supplied by 80,000 lb of fuel in the tanks. Third, several credible accounts indicated the Foxbat's engines could not tolerate more than one flight at or near Mach 3 without engine replacement. These sources are authoritative because the United States had the opportunity to inspect the engines, the electronics, everything on the airplane, so the US knows exactly what the plane can do. We would know that even if Belenko dropped dead after leaving the cockpit. Fourth, "ordinary pilots" who flew the Foxbat would have known generally what the airplane could do. Belenko was told not to fly faster than 2.8 because his superiors didn't want to wreck the airplane. Lastly, the Foxbat could not keep the Blackbird in his missile launch area because it could not fly fast enough or sustain high speed long enough. See http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0239.shtml as one source. If the Foxbat fired on the Blackbird with a head-on shot, likely the warheadv would explode behind the Blackbird because the electronics of missiles in the 1970s and 1980s could not detonate a warhead fast enough. (And the Mig-25 could not take off and position itself in time anyway). The Mig-25 was an impressive accomplishment for Mikoyan, and is one reason why he is every bit as much aerospace legend as designers in the West. But no Russian airplane has ever come close to threatening the SR-71. It and the A-11 are in a class by themselves. I welcome your posting a credible, corroborative source. Raryel (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I deleted that bit. The suspiciously pro-Russian source is alone in saying that the MiG-25 can keep up with the Blackbird. If there were multiple corroborating sources then we would certainly put it into the article. But there are not. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

SR-71 never violated the air border of the USSR - so it was not shot down. In Vietnam, several S-75 were launched, but without success. SR-71 FLASH ONLY WHERE THERE WERE s-75. S- 75 was not targeted against SR-71, it was targeted against U-2 and B-52. Against SR-71 is intended S-200 but Where there were S-200s and FOXBATs he never flew because the US military understood that SR-71 had no chance and he would be killed. The MiG-25 could reach more than M 3.6 (3800-4000) but only without rockets and 2-3 minutes. He actually reached the speed of M3.6 in 1971 with the test pilot Nikolai Stogov. I do not want to say that 71 is worse than 25. These are different planes with different goals. At a speed of M3.2, sr-71 could fly 3000 miles and mig-25 only 300 miles. but when you say SR-71 could not be knocked down, you should know that the S-200 had a 40 km altitude and a target speed of up to 4,300 km / h, and the P-40 missile had a height of 30 km and could fly at a speed of Mach 5 212.41.52.61 (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

here is the sensor Mach mig-25. It shows 3 mach and not 2.8 212.41.52.61 (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Fuel tank design and refueling

This appears to be wrong, the reasons for in air refueling after takeoff was due to the design of the tanks i believe. I was watching a documentary on youtube that showed how the tanks leak simply because they had expansion joints that would not seal until the aircraft had warmed up due to friction in the air at supersonic speeds. I know this sounds ridiculous, but you could see for yourself the fuel leaking out of the aircraft in the video. Its on youtube if you want to see for yourself, I will try and find the link later. Nzoomed (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's "wrong". It just lacks part of the story.
In order for the SR-71 to fly the worldwide missions, it has a special fleet of modified KC-135Q tankers for refueling. SR-71s run on JP-7 fuel, that fills the six large tanks in the fuselage. The component parts of the Blackbird fit very loosely together to allow for expansion at high temperatures. At rest on the ground, fuel leaks out constantly, since the tanks in the fuselage and wings only seal at operating temperatures. There is little danger of fire since the JP-7 fuel is very stable with an extremely high flash point. Taken from http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/sr-71/. Since this is a personal site, you'd have to get a real reference.
Ckruschke (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke
Can the national gepgraphic documentary be used as a source? The video evidence should speak for itself i expect.Nzoomed (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I think so if its properly sourced with the time stamp where the reference comes up. Ckruschke (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke
I haven't looked in here for so long I can't remember my User Name or Password, so I'll enter this in the open. I was one of the first RSO's at Beale AFB and started my SR-71 flights after the birds arrived at Beale, new and the Lockheed installed sealant fresh in the fuel tanks. But, the sealant would cook out after about 50 hours of hot time ( mach 3.0 and above ) and as that happened the aircraft would start dripping JP-7 on the ground. Our Maintainers made large aluminum "cookie sheets" with turned up catch edges to place under the the engines in-between flights, etc. Resealing the tanks again required a very small Maintainer who would go into the empty tanks to reseal and do this very difficult job. In the meantime, in these early flight days, we would often take-off with full fuel and accelerate out on out assigned mission mach 3+ profiles. In time however, it became apparent that these heavy T/O weights were causing fatigue wear on the landing gear ( especially the wheels ) so procedures were changed and T/O's were scheduled with a much lower amount of fuel and tapping a KC-135Q soon after T/O became a common standard. Yes, inflight heat expansion did cause tank leakage to stop airborne until after landing and bird cool down. But, the tank design was not faulty. Rather during the Blacbbird's entire life and up to it's final retirement, a sealant was never developed or became available that could withstand the mach 3+ heat ( 550 degrees F or higher ) on the wing skins. She flew as the Record Setting Champion she was, but, yes dripped on the ground for this reason. David P. Dempster, Colonel, USAF Retired, SR-71A RSO
Good comments - thanks sir! Ckruschke (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Page Display Problems in Specifications

The formatting appears fine on a PC screen, but on a phone screen - at least the ones I have access to for testing - the image (a technical sketch of the sr71s geometry in this case) takes up almost the whole screen width but not quite, so it displays the text "Data from Pace[1]" as:
"D
a
t
a
f
r
om Pace[1]" with the image taking up all the space to the right and pushing the text into a one-character wide column on the left. Obviously, we want the text to be displayed completely below the image on a phone screen. I messed around with several ideas, and {{clear}} is the only one I found that looks acceptable on both PCs and phones. Resizing the picture seems like it would just move the problem from my phone to somebody else's with different screen dimensions or font sizes. But maybe somebody knows a way around that?

Really, I think using {{clear}} is at least acceptable looking on all platforms, but hopefully somebody can do better

Ninjalectual (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The main problem was actually too many images with similar views in the section above (Accidents and aircraft disposition). -Fnlayson (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

A source for one of the accident/lost SR-71s: 61-7974

Here's a source for the 61-7974 SR-71 crash, which currently in the article says only "61-7974 Lost, 21 April 1989". Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

61-7974 (SR-71A) Nicknamed "Ichi-Ban", this aircraft was lost on 21 April 1989 over the South China Sea and is the last loss of any Blackbird.

kc10 extender

Dunno if this is a photoshop

https://external-preview.redd.it/vTCxak9q9y-qC3nmCQzPhkGbK3z2kjZ2XCHdDOWQ0KM.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=59828920c5e7c26300d758f3e943296b699106f6

Cheers Greglocock (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Photos aren't reliable sources, and certainly don't verify the additional information on the tanks. As to photoshop, it could have been a compatibility test, with no fuel transfered. The point is that we need reliable sources, or it's all just science fiction. :) - BilCat (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Add fuel capacity to general characteristics data

Since it usually took off partially fuelled it would be nice to add fuel capacity to General characteristics data (as done with XB-70). Otherwise it's not clear if it was possible to takeoff with full fuel load ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Trivia

Hi I added the following in november 2018 and it got taken out with the comment "trivial trivia":

The navigation system NAS-14V2 used in the SR-71 has been 'affectionately' called R2-D2 like the fictional Star Wars droid character R2-D2.[1] Like the droid did the NAS-14V2 have navigational purposes, using stars as reference points and was mounted behind the pilot directed upward.

What do you think should it be reinserted, or does it fulfill Wikipedia's trivia requirements? Nsae Comp (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Nortronics NAS-14V2 Astroinertial Navigation System". Time and Navigation. Smithsonian. Retrieved November 22, 2018.
I'm generally against trivia of the "mentioned in passing on a TV show" type but if it is 'known by Blackbird crews, mission planners, and maintainers as "R2-D2,"'[1] then it has as much right to be mentioned as the Habu nickname.  Stepho  talk  06:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "SR-71's "R2-D2" Could be the Key to Winning Future Fights in GPS Denied Environments".
Still look like trivia to the aircraft article, if it is of note then the nav system should have a stand-alone article in which it can be mentioned. MilborneOne (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
That's a slightly different question. You are questioning whether the ANS (and by extension, other sensors and payloads) should be in the article about the aircraft. Do you want to delete the 'Astro-inertial navigation system' and 'Sensors and payloads' sections?  Stepho  talk  00:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I see little wrong with adding "The Astro-inertial navigation system, nicknamed R2-D2 by the crews due to its placement and function, was an integral part..." A little "color" sometimes makes an article more interesting/compelling while remaining encyclopedic. Buffs (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Details in timeline need explaining or removal.

Two sections of the timeline have no other reference in the article:

  • "29 May 1968: CMSgt Bill Gornik begins the tie-cutting tradition of Habu crews' neckties" - this isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article, nor does it have any references. This is confusing on its own.
  • "3 December 1975: First flight of SR-71A (AF Ser. No. 61-7959) in "big tail" configuration" - likewise, not mentioned anywhere else, with no references. There is no discussion of any tail changes anywhere in the article.

These two should either be explained/sourced or removed from the timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:4701:EA70:B14A:5F42:EF9B:739B (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Misleading thrust values in Specifications Power plant

I don't know how to edit this. Is there someone out there who can help?

The thrusts quoted are for an uninstalled engine which are misleading for an aircraft article. The flight manual emphasizes that max afterburning thrust on an ISA day at sea level is 34,000 lb uninstalled. It shows the corresponding installed values as (ISA SLS) dry 18,000 lb and 25,500 lb wet. ie there is a considerable pressure loss in the inlet. Note the correct values are shown in Pratt & Whitney J58. Pieter1963 (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

SEEALSO

Per what, exactly, makes this exempt from WP:SEEALSO? That it's in an awkward template doesn't create an exemption, and they're both linked prominently in the lede already. - Aoidh (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a long story. The short is that {{aircontent}} was originally part of a navbox, but was forced to be moved into the See also section. The "Related development" and "Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era" fields. are by their nature goimg to repeat links from the article. However. the "See also" parameter does follow the guidelines. BilCat (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

to remove the nonsense

Please remove this popular nonsense:SR-71 pilot Brian Shul states in his book The Untouchables that he flew in excess of Mach 3.5 on 15 April 1986 over Libya to evade a missile. On April 15, 1986 over Libya, the SR-71 did not Dodge the s-200 missile, but flew around the area where the S-200 complex was located. And Speed was 3.15 Mach, not 3.5.[3]. boastful stories of retired pilots have no place in the encyclopedia, as well as fantastic stories of fishermen and hunters. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelmen220 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The text clearly says "states in his book" which is a kind of quoting – removal reverted. --Zac67 (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that with the declassification of the SR-71 Flight Manual we find that despite Brian Shul's assurances, the SR-71 can't fly in excess of Mach 3.5, now the speed limitations are in black & white in the manual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Simpson54 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

"he states in his book" is equivalent to "he claims". That claim is a fact to read in his book, regardless of whether the claim itself is true. --Zac67 (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Maximum Speed

There is a problem with the maximum speed listed.

It is quoted as Mach 3.2 with 3.3 when a specific metric is met.

The problem is Mach 3.2 = 2455mph or 2133.5 knots but the maximum speeds listed do not match the calculated speed when you converts Mach to mph or knots.

I tend to believe the Mach number to be accurate (probably faster still, we may never know?) but can somebody investigate and edit the maximum speed numbers so they are consistent in their accuracy?

Thanks 115.64.74.126 (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You can't use the speed of sound at standard conditions (sea level, 15°C). The speed of sound and subsequently the Mach number vary with temperature. Between 12,000 and 24,000 m the speed of sound is roughly 295 m/s or 660 mph. --Zac67 (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
To show the difference, {{convert}} has a Mach facility that accepts height as a parameter.
Height Markup Displayed
0 ft {{convert|3.2|Mach|altitude_ft=0|mph knot}} Mach 3.2 (2,440 mph; 2,120 kn)
40000 ft {{convert|3.2|Mach|altitude_ft=40000|mph knot}} Mach 3.2 (2,110 mph; 1,840 kn)
85000 ft {{convert|3.2|Mach|altitude_ft=85000|mph knot}} Mach 3.2 (2,140 mph; 1,860 kn)
100000 ft {{convert|3.2|Mach|altitude_ft=100000|mph knot}} Mach 3.2 (2,160 mph; 1,880 kn)
 
0 ft {{convert|3.3|Mach|altitude_ft=0|mph knot}} Mach 3.3 (2,510 mph; 2,180 kn)
40000 ft {{convert|3.3|Mach|altitude_ft=40000|mph knot}} Mach 3.3 (2,180 mph; 1,890 kn)
85000 ft {{convert|3.3|Mach|altitude_ft=85000|mph knot}} Mach 3.3 (2,210 mph; 1,920 kn)
100000 ft {{convert|3.3|Mach|altitude_ft=100000|mph knot}} Mach 3.3 (2,230 mph; 1,940 kn)
The height parameter makes an estimate of the temperature and pressure at that altitude.  Stepho  talk  22:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Mach only depends on temperature. In practice the top speed was set by the skin temperature (from memory), which would have varied at a given mph depending on both the density and the temperature of the air. Mach only depends on one of those things. That is they could fly at higher mach at higher altitudes, even at the same atmospheric temperature, because the density was lower. https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/aerodynamic-heating-calculator-advanced.84537/ has an interesting discussion Greglocock (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird/Archive_4&oldid=1232375069"