9 ms·

SR-71 Disintegrates Around Pilot During Flight Test (in 1966)

126 points by frisco 18y ago

jbyers 18y ago
... in 1966. Perhaps there should be an HN rule about dating articles not from this year in their titles? That said, this is a great story.
- paulgb 18y ago
  I've noticed a number of people following the convention of putting the year in parenthesis at the end of a dated article. It would be great if everyone followed this. (Edit: just noticed this article follows the convention; I assume that the title was edited after your comment)
jwilliams 18y ago
The SR-71 was an amazing piece of engineering. The panels actually didn't line up - as they expanded when it got warm. So basically at take off the aerodynamics of the plane were shot - you had to fly for a bit for it to hit normal performance (it also meant it literally leaked until it got hot enough and sealed).
- g2petter 18y ago
  Which is why they took off with a minimum of fuel, flew around to heat up, and then refueled in mid-air.
ryanwaggoner 18y ago
Amazing story. Read the story carefully. Note the incredible details of what that aircraft could do. Now read this line again: By far, the most memorable flight occurred on Jan. 25, 1966. This was more than four decades ago. Can you imagine what they're doing today? In some ways, it makes me angry, because I suspect that the military solved some engineering challenges decades ago that scientists are still wrestling with today.
- rudyfink 18y ago
  If you like that sentiment, you will probably like Burt Rutan's talk at Ted ( http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/burt_rutan_sees_the_future_of_space.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/burt_rutan_sees_the_futur... ). The theme is a lack of progress in aerospace and how to resolve it.
  - pchristensen 18y ago
    Seconded. That's one of my favorite TED talks.
- amichail 18y ago
  The F-22 is pretty cool. Total overkill actually.
  - Rod 18y ago
    I am particularly amazed by the F-22 avionics. More info on this at: http://www.f22fighter.com/avionics.htm http://www.f22fighter.com/avionics.htm An excerpt: "The F-22's avionics and software system is the most advanced ever integrated into an aircraft. It is the first aircraft to use integrated avionics, where the radar, weapons management system and electronic warfare system work as one, giving the pilot unprecedented situation awareness."
- katz 18y ago
  That is true - it is the same with space. They put a man on the moon 40 odd years ago and now they are still struggling to launch a shuttle without it blowing up.
  - andyn 18y ago
    The moon trips were single shot with the sole purpose of putting someone on the moon before the Russians. Additionally, only a tiny part of the rocket had to re-enter the atmosphere to return the crew. This link http://www.metafilter.com/48654/Jan-28-1986#1189388 http://www.metafilter.com/48654/Jan-28-1986#1189388 perhaps explains what's wrong with the shuttle better than I could.
fnazeeri 18y ago
Awesome! I loved the SR-71 as a kid and have been wondering what the replacement (Aurora) can do. I'm sure my son (now 3) will be fascinated!
comatose_kid 18y ago
From the SR-71 wikipedia entry: "A defensive feature of the aircraft was its high speed and operating altitude, whereby, if a surface-to-air missile launch were detected, standard evasive action was simply to accelerate."
- pieterbreed 18y ago
  There is a rumor going around in the South African Air Force that the South Africans with the help of the Israeli Air Force (who had big ties in the bad old days) figured out a way to shoot the SR71s down. It had to do with a technique called storm-climbing (which was novelized by Wilbur Smith in 'Eagle in the Sky') where a normal fighter aircraft would go full-tilt with maximum weight in a downward trajectory, flatten out the dive, dump excess weight, and start climbing vertically. This way the pilots would get to an altitude where the missiles could get a successful lock, which in this case was far higher than the 'normal' ceiling for these aircraft. From this height they could then fire off the missiles. I'm not at all sure if they ever attempted it, but I'm pretty sure they didn't succeed. Still in interesting thing to hear :)
  - Rod 18y ago
    That storm-climbing maneuver sounds really cool!!! Do you have more detailed info on that? Other than Wilbur Smith's novel, that is. It reminds me of that classical optimal control problem in the 1960s: the U.S. Air Force wanted to find the fastest climb for its F-4 Phantoms (so they could reach their operational ceiling ASAP to intercept Soviet bombers). The optimal path was counter-intuitive: first climb, then dive, reach supersonic, climb again. Sounds crazy, but they could reduce the climbing time dramatically that way!
    - nuclear_eclipse 18y ago
      I've actually noticed that behavior myself when screwing around in X-Plane with the F-4E; I take off at low-speed, high AOA to gain a few thousand feet, and then drop the nose at full afterburner to use both the engines and gravity to go transsonic, at which point the F-4 can accelerate faster, and maintain a higher angle of climb without losing velocity, due to the "lower" drag at supersonic speeds. I had figured it was perhaps a weird characteristic of the simulation's breakdown of airframe components, but if that's how things worked in the real F-4's, that just gives me that much more respect for the physics simulation in X-Plane. No wonder it's FAA certified :)
froo 18y ago
Simply awe inspiring. Bookmarked for sure. I've recently started assembling an SR-71 kit (with an f-117 to go) because I've always wanted the models sitting on my bookshelf.
cdr 18y ago
This has been posted regularly to Digg, Reddit, etc for years. Guess it's HN's turn - though I'm surprised it hasn't come up already.
- brandnewlow 18y ago
  ahem http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=133282 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=133282
  - hussong 18y ago
    Thanks for digging, I knew I had seen this before. Amazing story anyway.
mugwunk 18y ago
I always thought it would be safer to stick the pilot in the center of the plane, using periscopes or (now) video to fly. But I guess you're more likely to be thrown free of a disintegrating plane if you're in the usual pilot position.
- pavel_lishin 18y ago
  Like the pilot said, though, it was only incredible luck that left him alive. I doubt that your odds are significantly improved or decreased by where you're sitting if your supersonic airplane falls apart around you.
chadgeidel 18y ago
Also take a look at "Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years of Lockheed" by Ben Rich (manager at Lockheed after Kelly Johnson). Despite the title, he also talks extensively about the U2 and SR-71 projects - Amazing pieces of engineering all. http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003 http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/d...

126 points by frisco 18y ago

... in 1966. Perhaps there should be an HN rule about dating articles not from this year in their titles? That said, this is a great story.

paulgb 18y ago
I've noticed a number of people following the convention of putting the year in parenthesis at the end of a dated article. It would be great if everyone followed this. (Edit: just noticed this article follows the convention; I assume that the title was edited after your comment)

jwilliams 18y ago

The SR-71 was an amazing piece of engineering. The panels actually didn't line up - as they expanded when it got warm. So basically at take off the aerodynamics of the plane were shot - you had to fly for a bit for it to hit normal performance (it also meant it literally leaked until it got hot enough and sealed).

g2petter 18y ago
Which is why they took off with a minimum of fuel, flew around to heat up, and then refueled in mid-air.

ryanwaggoner 18y ago

Amazing story. Read the story carefully. Note the incredible details of what that aircraft could do. Now read this line again: By far, the most memorable flight occurred on Jan. 25, 1966. This was more than four decades ago. Can you imagine what they're doing today? In some ways, it makes me angry, because I suspect that the military solved some engineering challenges decades ago that scientists are still wrestling with today.

rudyfink 18y ago
If you like that sentiment, you will probably like Burt Rutan's talk at Ted ( http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/burt_rutan_sees_the_future_of_space.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/burt_rutan_sees_the_futur... ). The theme is a lack of progress in aerospace and how to resolve it.
- pchristensen 18y ago
  Seconded. That's one of my favorite TED talks.
amichail 18y ago
The F-22 is pretty cool. Total overkill actually.
- Rod 18y ago
  I am particularly amazed by the F-22 avionics. More info on this at: http://www.f22fighter.com/avionics.htm http://www.f22fighter.com/avionics.htm An excerpt: "The F-22's avionics and software system is the most advanced ever integrated into an aircraft. It is the first aircraft to use integrated avionics, where the radar, weapons management system and electronic warfare system work as one, giving the pilot unprecedented situation awareness."
katz 18y ago
That is true - it is the same with space. They put a man on the moon 40 odd years ago and now they are still struggling to launch a shuttle without it blowing up.
- andyn 18y ago
  The moon trips were single shot with the sole purpose of putting someone on the moon before the Russians. Additionally, only a tiny part of the rocket had to re-enter the atmosphere to return the crew. This link http://www.metafilter.com/48654/Jan-28-1986#1189388 http://www.metafilter.com/48654/Jan-28-1986#1189388 perhaps explains what's wrong with the shuttle better than I could.

fnazeeri 18y ago

Awesome! I loved the SR-71 as a kid and have been wondering what the replacement (Aurora) can do. I'm sure my son (now 3) will be fascinated!

comatose_kid 18y ago

From the SR-71 wikipedia entry: "A defensive feature of the aircraft was its high speed and operating altitude, whereby, if a surface-to-air missile launch were detected, standard evasive action was simply to accelerate."

pieterbreed 18y ago
There is a rumor going around in the South African Air Force that the South Africans with the help of the Israeli Air Force (who had big ties in the bad old days) figured out a way to shoot the SR71s down. It had to do with a technique called storm-climbing (which was novelized by Wilbur Smith in 'Eagle in the Sky') where a normal fighter aircraft would go full-tilt with maximum weight in a downward trajectory, flatten out the dive, dump excess weight, and start climbing vertically. This way the pilots would get to an altitude where the missiles could get a successful lock, which in this case was far higher than the 'normal' ceiling for these aircraft. From this height they could then fire off the missiles. I'm not at all sure if they ever attempted it, but I'm pretty sure they didn't succeed. Still in interesting thing to hear :)
- Rod 18y ago
  That storm-climbing maneuver sounds really cool!!! Do you have more detailed info on that? Other than Wilbur Smith's novel, that is. It reminds me of that classical optimal control problem in the 1960s: the U.S. Air Force wanted to find the fastest climb for its F-4 Phantoms (so they could reach their operational ceiling ASAP to intercept Soviet bombers). The optimal path was counter-intuitive: first climb, then dive, reach supersonic, climb again. Sounds crazy, but they could reduce the climbing time dramatically that way!
  - nuclear_eclipse 18y ago
    I've actually noticed that behavior myself when screwing around in X-Plane with the F-4E; I take off at low-speed, high AOA to gain a few thousand feet, and then drop the nose at full afterburner to use both the engines and gravity to go transsonic, at which point the F-4 can accelerate faster, and maintain a higher angle of climb without losing velocity, due to the "lower" drag at supersonic speeds. I had figured it was perhaps a weird characteristic of the simulation's breakdown of airframe components, but if that's how things worked in the real F-4's, that just gives me that much more respect for the physics simulation in X-Plane. No wonder it's FAA certified :)

froo 18y ago

Simply awe inspiring. Bookmarked for sure. I've recently started assembling an SR-71 kit (with an f-117 to go) because I've always wanted the models sitting on my bookshelf.

cdr 18y ago

This has been posted regularly to Digg, Reddit, etc for years. Guess it's HN's turn - though I'm surprised it hasn't come up already.

brandnewlow 18y ago
ahem http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=133282 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=133282
- hussong 18y ago
  Thanks for digging, I knew I had seen this before. Amazing story anyway.

mugwunk 18y ago

I always thought it would be safer to stick the pilot in the center of the plane, using periscopes or (now) video to fly. But I guess you're more likely to be thrown free of a disintegrating plane if you're in the usual pilot position.

pavel_lishin 18y ago
Like the pilot said, though, it was only incredible luck that left him alive. I doubt that your odds are significantly improved or decreased by where you're sitting if your supersonic airplane falls apart around you.

chadgeidel 18y ago

Also take a look at "Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years of Lockheed" by Ben Rich (manager at Lockheed after Kelly Johnson). Despite the title, he also talks extensively about the U2 and SR-71 projects - Amazing pieces of engineering all. http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003 http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/d...