10 ms·

Behind the stick of the SR-71

241 points by canistr 13y ago

z3phyr 13y ago
Pilots were wearing HEV suit!
anigbrowl 13y ago
I don't know why this is on a sports website, but it's great stuff all the same.
- odacrem 13y ago
  because, awesome
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
melling 13y ago
The world's fastest plane was built before we landed on the moon. We're spoiled in tech by Moore's Law but the difficultly in making advances in commercial and military aviation is disappointing. In the 1970's everyone probably though NY to London in 2 hours was a given by now. Here's a great book to read about the SR-71. http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003 http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/d...
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  > In the 1970's everyone probably though NY to London in 2 hours was a given by now. https://medium.com/lift-and-drag/7885a299bca2 https://medium.com/lift-and-drag/7885a299bca2
  - Sambdala 13y ago
    To be fair, a lot of the "We're too cheap to fly >Mach 1" comes down to the fact that door-to-door travel time doesn't really come down commensurate with the increased costs of faster-than-sound travel. When the airport is outside town, and you have to arrive 1.5 hours before the flight takes off, taking even a large % of the flight time off doesn't make a significant dent in total travel time.
    - venomsnake 13y ago
      I think that for any travel there is some critical time when it doesn't matter how long it is as long it is < 24h and more than a long commute. You are wasting a whole day for that leg of the trip anyway no matter if the flight is 4 or 10 hours. So why waste money.
      - melling 13y ago
        There is a big difference between a 4 and 10 hour flight. For a 4 day weekend, I wouldn't take a 10hr trip but 4 is doable. Of course, I live 20 minutes from an international airport.
      - ghaff 13y ago
        It makes some difference but I agree with your basic point. Especially as you have to add 2 hours or so buffer for check-in, security, etc.--especially for an international flight. And if you're looking for more generalized "reduced pain of travel," the reality is that really comfortable seating arrangements and decent food/drink can be delivered on a sub-sonic widebody for a lot less $$ than it would cost you to travel the route on a hypothetical supersonic passenger jet. Transpacific is probably where the difference would matter the most, assuming the supersonic jet had that kind of range (which is sort of doubtful). But it's worth noting that, even with today's jets, some really long haul routes that would significantly cut travel time for some don't make economic sense and have been eliminated (e.g. New York-Singapore).
    - dalyons 13y ago
      I'm from melbourne, australia, where its ~15 hours to LAX, or ~24 hrs to LHR. I'll take that large % off flight time please :)
      - nikhizzle 13y ago
        Would you pay 25x an economy ticket for it?
        ghaff 13y ago
- TylerE 13y ago
  In aviation there is also a law of diminishing returns because there are certain parts of the flight profile that are flown well below maximum speed. Even if you could do Mach 20 at altitude, you're still going to spend about 30-40 minutes between climbout (keep it under 250 below 10k!), descent, pattern entry, and approach.
- AmVess 13y ago
  A seismologist tracked the sonic booms of the new Aurora spy plane at mach 5.2. A pretty slick hack as I've ever seen.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
cobrausn 13y ago
I'll be honest, I'm kind of enjoying 'Aviation Week' here on HN. This is the kind of stuff that got me interested in math and science to begin with. Too bad my vision is so awful.
- to3m 13y ago
  I think it's more like War Machinery Porn Week, really. Never really felt fully comfortable about this stuff myself. But for whatever burred tooth in the cogs of fate got us here, we'd be reading of (and marvelling at) the derring-do of people history has taught us to despise. Nevertheless, here we are. And here, most importantly, at least from my perspective, I am. And - or perhaps, "and so" - I enjoyed this one.
  - thenmar 13y ago
    That's a good point. People on HN are sometimes a little quick to put on their "it's just a really cool piece of technology!" blinders and ignore the gruesome, wasteful military industrial complex that brought them these "badass fuckin' guns" which do, in fact, kill real humans in real life.
    - cobrausn 13y ago
      Nobody is really ignoring the reality of it. These are weapons of war. Not everyone reading HN shares the same outlook on the morality of war. I am personally an anti-war veteran, but that's a personal outlook that comes from some careful deliberation after observing how and why we wage war, and being fairly dissatisfied with both.
    - Crito 13y ago
      For whatever it is worth, while obviously a part of the military-industrial complex, the SR-71 was built to spy, not kill. The YF-12 was to kill however.
    - joyeuse6701 13y ago
      The beauty of technology is it's ability to overcome obstacles and act as solutions to a problem. I do not find that the morality of the problem can tarnish it.
amiramir 13y ago
Obligatory great SR-71 story: http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/favorite-sr-71-story-1079127041 http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/favorite-sr-71-story-107912...
- sehr 13y ago
  I've probably seen this story posted a dozen times in various places, but each time I can't help but read it again.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Had a feeling it was ground speed check. My favorite story.
- coldcode 13y ago
  It's the best flight story I've ever read each time I read it.
anfedorov 13y ago
Related: http://www.econrates.com/reality/schul.html http://www.econrates.com/reality/schul.html
TempleOSV2 13y ago
C:\TAD\Text\WORD2.TXT Mariner! For death will be his doom. Strong is the current; but be mild, Ye waves, and spare the helpless Child! If ye in anger fret or chafe, A Bee-hive would be ship as safe As that in which he sails. 110 But say, what was it? Thought of fear! Well may ye tremble when ye hear! --A Household Tub, like one of those Which women use to wash their clothes, This carried the blind Boy. Close to the water he had found This Vessel,
gokhan 13y ago
It's again this time of the year on HN where avalanche of aviation stories eventually leads to the great SR-71 articles. I love it.
lisper 13y ago
There's a link to the SR-71 manual, where I found this gem, in the takeoff section: "The tires may skid with the brakes on at high engine thrust." That is not a problem you have to deal with when flying a Cessna 172.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  They had some other interesting problems. The big one was that the chines allowed very high angle of attack turns. The result was that you could actually stall your engines without stalling the plane (the engine inputs would blank and you'd lose compression). That's not a problem you'd have with other planes either because usually the wings would stall first. This is a problem because you don't get an aerodynamic sense of being near the danger zone when things go haywire.
dbarlett 13y ago
If you liked this, you'll love Flying the SR-71 Blackbird: In the Cockpit on a Secret Operational Mission http://www.amazon.com/Flying-SR-71-Blackbird-Cockpit-Operational/dp/0760332398/ http://www.amazon.com/Flying-SR-71-Blackbird-Cockpit-Operati...
Scuds 13y ago
Got to see one of these in person along with the engines and external starter engines at Seattle's Museum of Flight. UNREAL especially for 1960 era technology.
- wiredfool 13y ago
  The Blackbird there is an M-21, which has a pylon on the top for launching drones. Though, they do have the cockpit of an SR71 that went off the end of a runway and was totalled. There's also a Blackbird at Dulles, in the Udvar Hazy Air and Space annex. That one's an SR71. The concordes are amazing too. They look sooo spindly, until you're right up close to those engines. (and hmm, both museums have concordes too. But the Seattle one lets you walk through the inside.)
  - lotharbot 13y ago
    > "the Seattle one lets you walk through the inside" As long as the weather is nice enough. We had to close down if there was either a threat to safety (lightning, ice on the stairs) or a lot of moisture getting inside the aircraft. As a bonus, you can also walk through Eisenhower's Air Force One aircraft and see a lot of other cool stuff. Apparently in the summer they even open the 747 prototype, one of the 727s, and the Super Connie: http://www.museumofflight.org/airpark http://www.museumofflight.org/airpark (I used to work in the museum, and later volunteered to monitor those two aircraft. Never got to see inside the 747 though.)
kposehn 13y ago
If you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend reading Ben Rich's autobiography Skunk Works. Very good book, and a ton more information about their projects with some great pilot excerpts. My favorite is the SR-71 that had to cut across France, was intercepted by a Mirage fighter and then left it behind in seconds :D
jpmattia 13y ago
Not mentioned in the story (or comments yet): You can see the SR-71 at the Smithsonian out by Dulles Airport, along with a shuttle and a huge array of other hardware. Very cool if you're into that sort of thing. http://airandspace.si.edu/visit/udvar-hazy-center/ http://airandspace.si.edu/visit/udvar-hazy-center/
- canistr 13y ago
  If you're ever in Seattle, you can also see one at the Museum of Flight. http://www.museumofflight.org/exhibits/blackbird http://www.museumofflight.org/exhibits/blackbird I also highly recommend people book a tour for the Boeing factory in Everett (about an hour just north of Seattle) where you can see 747s, 787s, 777s, etc. being manufactured in the world's largest building (by volume). http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/tours/index.page http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/tours/index.page
  - jzwinck 13y ago
    Likewise the Airbus plant in Toulouse, France. You can see A380s being put together in one of the world's other largest buildings. The tour is usually in French but highly worthwhile even if you don't know the language.
  - lotharbot 13y ago
    Pedantry: the aircraft at the Museum of Flight is actually an M-21 blackbird (with a D-21 drone attached), not an SR-71 blackbird. It's the only surviving M-21. There are about 20 SR-71s in museums (plus an SR-71 cockpit at the Museum of Flight, which you can sit in.) Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#Accidents_and_aircraft_disposition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#Accide... plus personal knowledge as a former Museum of Flight employee
- tillinghast 13y ago
  For those firmly lodged in the center of the US, there's an SR-71A on permanent display at the Strategic Air & Space Museum near Omaha, Nebraska: http://sasmuseum.com http://sasmuseum.com
HillOBeans 13y ago
Got one of these good 'ole birds in the Museum next to Robins AFB in Georgia. They also have the start carts, and even have an engine pulled so you can see the six bypass ducts. They have recently mounted the plane on a stand so it looks like it has just left the runway, headed for the stratosphere....
haberman 13y ago
> There was a titanium bulkhead between you and the backseat. [...] Literally, a wall. This is what makes the famous "speed check" story about the SR-71 so effective (http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/favorite-sr-71-story-1079127041 http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/favorite-sr-71-story-107912...). There is no eye contact or body language possible between the pilot and the communicator in the SR-71. What makes that story so perfect is not just the speed aspect, not just the smugness of the other planes, but the interpersonal relationship between the pilot and his crew member. It's just perfect story-telling.
- jrockway 13y ago
  Perhaps equally exciting is that the inertial navigation system on the SR-71 is calibrated by looking through a telescope at stars in broad daylight. Apparently quite simple, but still cool.
  - jjoonathan 13y ago
    It's the same way with ICBMs. Once they've gone ballistic they look up at the stars to get their bearings. Then they switch to their gyroscope to guide themselves in. It makes sense, in a chilling way: you can't rely on radio signals like GPS, because in a nuclear exchange your satellites are likely to be destroyed or jammed. You can't rely on surface features because in a nuclear apocalypse those might be changing too. The only things that can be trusted to work are the gyroscope and the stars. And the payload. (In case you're wondering, I know this because I was wiki-ing around after my iphone's accelerometer went nuts to figure out how state-of-the-art gyroscopes worked. Turns out that there's a special type of gyroscope, the Ring Laser Gyroscope, which uses relativity and interference patterns to achieve ~0 drift. RLGs were developed for ICBMs.)
    - lambdaphage 13y ago
      It is a dreadful poesy to think that the last stargazer from this planet might have been a robotic rocket, looking up once at the fixed stars for all of humanity before ending it.
zibit 13y ago
Check out this list of 14 Rules of Management by Kelly Johnson. It was true back then for building fighter jets and it's true now for basic software development projects: "Johnson's famed "down-to-brass-tacks" management style was summed up by his motto, "Be quick, be quiet, and be on time." He ran Skunk Works by "Kelly's 14 Rules": The Skunk Works manager must be delegated practically complete control of his program in all aspects. He should report to a division president or higher. Strong but small project offices must be provided both by the military and industry. The number of people having any connection with the project must be restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good people (10% to 25% compared to the so-called normal systems). A very simple drawing and drawing release system with great flexibility for making changes must be provided. There must be a minimum number of reports required, but important work must be recorded thoroughly. There must be a monthly cost review covering not only what has been spent and committed but also projected costs to the conclusion of the program. Don't have the books 90 days late, and don't surprise the customer with sudden overruns. The contractor must be delegated and must assume more than normal responsibility to get good vendor bids for subcontract on the project. Commercial bid procedures are very often better than military ones. The inspection system as currently used by the Skunk Works, which has been approved by both the Air Force and Navy, meets the intent of existing military requirements and should be used on new projects. Push more basic inspection responsibility back to subcontractors and vendors. Don't duplicate so much inspection. The contractor must be delegated the authority to test his final product in flight. He can and must test it in the initial stages. If he doesn't, he rapidly loses his competency to design other vehicles. The specifications applying to the hardware must be agreed to well in advance of contracting. The Skunk Works practice of having a specification section stating clearly which important military specification items will not knowingly be complied with and reasons therefore is highly recommended. Funding a program must be timely so that the contractor doesn't have to keep running to the bank to support government projects. There must be mutual trust between the military project organization and the contractor with very close cooperation and liaison on a day-to-day basis. This cuts down misunderstanding and correspondence to an absolute minimum. Access by outsiders to the project and its personnel must be strictly controlled by appropriate security measures. Because only a few people will be used in engineering and most other areas, ways must be provided to reward good performance by pay not based on the number of personnel supervised." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Johnson_(engineer) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Johnson_(engineer)
curiousDog 13y ago
This is what sometimes makes me wonder if the US Air Force came into contact with alien technology ;). Imagine going to this in just 60 yrs of flight being invented. Incredible, inspiring engineering.
bane 13y ago
From http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/vetscor/1981814/posts?page=1 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/vetscor/1981814/posts?page... "The plane was flying a mile every 1.6 seconds, well above our Mach 3.2 limit." So asked Wolfram about this https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+mile+per+1.6+seconds+in+miles+per+hour https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+mile+per+1.6+seconds... 2250 mph (3629 kph) Mach 2.956 at Sea level (340.3 m/s) I couldn't figure out the magic English sentence that would get it to calculate the Mach at different altitudes.
- snogglethorpe 13y ago
  http://www.fighter-planes.com/jetmach1.htm http://www.fighter-planes.com/jetmach1.htm According to that page, at 60,000 feet the speed of sound is 1062 km/h, making 3629 km/h approximately mach 3.4.
djyaz1200 13y ago
"Skunk Works" by Ben R Rich is a great book about the Lockheed guys and the SR-71 + F117. They were basically running a startup at Lockheed.
kayoone 13y ago
Pretty amazing. Here is another SR-71 story that broke up mid-flight at Mach >3: http://www.barthworks.com/aviation/sr71breakup.htm http://www.barthworks.com/aviation/sr71breakup.htm
- dba7dba 13y ago
  Thanks for the article. Quotes from it. > The SR-71 had a turning radius of about 100 mi. at that speed (above Mach 3) and altitude. Also, during his 1st flight after the accident, Eject light went on in the back seat due to electrical issue. Because the backseater cannot see front seat, the backseater momentarily thought the pilot ejected without telling him...
dba7dba 13y ago
Interesting quotes from the article > You'd fly the T-38 every day (for proficiency sake). > As we took off from there and came back around for a pass, the right engine exploded. We had to dump gas, and set about thirteen acres of Maryland on fire as we did that. That was kind of interesting, just spewing flaming fuel and titanium pieces around.
kyberias 13y ago
What's with this aviation / war topics week on HN?
NAFV_P 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie
Schweigi 13y ago
Interesting interview with a former SR-71 pilot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeBu6mRDaro http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeBu6mRDaro
naturalethic 13y ago
"You would get a couple of sunsets and sunrises, because at those northern latitudes often you would see day to night, and then a terminator line..." Eh, this would only happen if they were adjusting their vector in like a wave, or their speed, right? It's not like they are shooting around the planet. And he says England to Russia, so not following the sun. What is he talking about? edit: reading further i'm having a real hard time believing this shit.

241 points by canistr 13y ago

z3phyr 13y ago

Pilots were wearing HEV suit!

anigbrowl 13y ago

I don't know why this is on a sports website, but it's great stuff all the same.

odacrem 13y ago
because, awesome
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

melling 13y ago

The world's fastest plane was built before we landed on the moon. We're spoiled in tech by Moore's Law but the difficultly in making advances in commercial and military aviation is disappointing. In the 1970's everyone probably though NY to London in 2 hours was a given by now. Here's a great book to read about the SR-71. http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003 http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/d...

toomuchtodo 13y ago
> In the 1970's everyone probably though NY to London in 2 hours was a given by now. https://medium.com/lift-and-drag/7885a299bca2 https://medium.com/lift-and-drag/7885a299bca2
- Sambdala 13y ago
  To be fair, a lot of the "We're too cheap to fly >Mach 1" comes down to the fact that door-to-door travel time doesn't really come down commensurate with the increased costs of faster-than-sound travel. When the airport is outside town, and you have to arrive 1.5 hours before the flight takes off, taking even a large % of the flight time off doesn't make a significant dent in total travel time.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    I think that for any travel there is some critical time when it doesn't matter how long it is as long it is < 24h and more than a long commute. You are wasting a whole day for that leg of the trip anyway no matter if the flight is 4 or 10 hours. So why waste money.
    - melling 13y ago
      There is a big difference between a 4 and 10 hour flight. For a 4 day weekend, I wouldn't take a 10hr trip but 4 is doable. Of course, I live 20 minutes from an international airport.
    - ghaff 13y ago
      It makes some difference but I agree with your basic point. Especially as you have to add 2 hours or so buffer for check-in, security, etc.--especially for an international flight. And if you're looking for more generalized "reduced pain of travel," the reality is that really comfortable seating arrangements and decent food/drink can be delivered on a sub-sonic widebody for a lot less $$ than it would cost you to travel the route on a hypothetical supersonic passenger jet. Transpacific is probably where the difference would matter the most, assuming the supersonic jet had that kind of range (which is sort of doubtful). But it's worth noting that, even with today's jets, some really long haul routes that would significantly cut travel time for some don't make economic sense and have been eliminated (e.g. New York-Singapore).
  - dalyons 13y ago
    I'm from melbourne, australia, where its ~15 hours to LAX, or ~24 hrs to LHR. I'll take that large % off flight time please :)
    - nikhizzle 13y ago
      Would you pay 25x an economy ticket for it?
      - ghaff 13y ago
TylerE 13y ago
In aviation there is also a law of diminishing returns because there are certain parts of the flight profile that are flown well below maximum speed. Even if you could do Mach 20 at altitude, you're still going to spend about 30-40 minutes between climbout (keep it under 250 below 10k!), descent, pattern entry, and approach.
AmVess 13y ago
A seismologist tracked the sonic booms of the new Aurora spy plane at mach 5.2. A pretty slick hack as I've ever seen.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

cobrausn 13y ago

I'll be honest, I'm kind of enjoying 'Aviation Week' here on HN. This is the kind of stuff that got me interested in math and science to begin with. Too bad my vision is so awful.

to3m 13y ago
I think it's more like War Machinery Porn Week, really. Never really felt fully comfortable about this stuff myself. But for whatever burred tooth in the cogs of fate got us here, we'd be reading of (and marvelling at) the derring-do of people history has taught us to despise. Nevertheless, here we are. And here, most importantly, at least from my perspective, I am. And - or perhaps, "and so" - I enjoyed this one.
- thenmar 13y ago
  That's a good point. People on HN are sometimes a little quick to put on their "it's just a really cool piece of technology!" blinders and ignore the gruesome, wasteful military industrial complex that brought them these "badass fuckin' guns" which do, in fact, kill real humans in real life.
  - cobrausn 13y ago
    Nobody is really ignoring the reality of it. These are weapons of war. Not everyone reading HN shares the same outlook on the morality of war. I am personally an anti-war veteran, but that's a personal outlook that comes from some careful deliberation after observing how and why we wage war, and being fairly dissatisfied with both.
  - Crito 13y ago
    For whatever it is worth, while obviously a part of the military-industrial complex, the SR-71 was built to spy, not kill. The YF-12 was to kill however.
  - joyeuse6701 13y ago
    The beauty of technology is it's ability to overcome obstacles and act as solutions to a problem. I do not find that the morality of the problem can tarnish it.

amiramir 13y ago

Obligatory great SR-71 story: http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/favorite-sr-71-story-1079127041 http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/favorite-sr-71-story-107912...

sehr 13y ago
I've probably seen this story posted a dozen times in various places, but each time I can't help but read it again.
toomuchtodo 13y ago
Had a feeling it was ground speed check. My favorite story.
coldcode 13y ago
It's the best flight story I've ever read each time I read it.

anfedorov 13y ago

Related: http://www.econrates.com/reality/schul.html http://www.econrates.com/reality/schul.html

TempleOSV2 13y ago

C:\TAD\Text\WORD2.TXT Mariner! For death will be his doom. Strong is the current; but be mild, Ye waves, and spare the helpless Child! If ye in anger fret or chafe, A Bee-hive would be ship as safe As that in which he sails. 110 But say, what was it? Thought of fear! Well may ye tremble when ye hear! --A Household Tub, like one of those Which women use to wash their clothes, This carried the blind Boy. Close to the water he had found This Vessel,

gokhan 13y ago

It's again this time of the year on HN where avalanche of aviation stories eventually leads to the great SR-71 articles. I love it.

lisper 13y ago

There's a link to the SR-71 manual, where I found this gem, in the takeoff section: "The tires may skid with the brakes on at high engine thrust." That is not a problem you have to deal with when flying a Cessna 172.

einhverfr 13y ago
They had some other interesting problems. The big one was that the chines allowed very high angle of attack turns. The result was that you could actually stall your engines without stalling the plane (the engine inputs would blank and you'd lose compression). That's not a problem you'd have with other planes either because usually the wings would stall first. This is a problem because you don't get an aerodynamic sense of being near the danger zone when things go haywire.

dbarlett 13y ago

If you liked this, you'll love Flying the SR-71 Blackbird: In the Cockpit on a Secret Operational Mission http://www.amazon.com/Flying-SR-71-Blackbird-Cockpit-Operational/dp/0760332398/ http://www.amazon.com/Flying-SR-71-Blackbird-Cockpit-Operati...

Scuds 13y ago

Got to see one of these in person along with the engines and external starter engines at Seattle's Museum of Flight. UNREAL especially for 1960 era technology.

wiredfool 13y ago
The Blackbird there is an M-21, which has a pylon on the top for launching drones. Though, they do have the cockpit of an SR71 that went off the end of a runway and was totalled. There's also a Blackbird at Dulles, in the Udvar Hazy Air and Space annex. That one's an SR71. The concordes are amazing too. They look sooo spindly, until you're right up close to those engines. (and hmm, both museums have concordes too. But the Seattle one lets you walk through the inside.)
- lotharbot 13y ago
  > "the Seattle one lets you walk through the inside" As long as the weather is nice enough. We had to close down if there was either a threat to safety (lightning, ice on the stairs) or a lot of moisture getting inside the aircraft. As a bonus, you can also walk through Eisenhower's Air Force One aircraft and see a lot of other cool stuff. Apparently in the summer they even open the 747 prototype, one of the 727s, and the Super Connie: http://www.museumofflight.org/airpark http://www.museumofflight.org/airpark (I used to work in the museum, and later volunteered to monitor those two aircraft. Never got to see inside the 747 though.)

kposehn 13y ago

If you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend reading Ben Rich's autobiography Skunk Works. Very good book, and a ton more information about their projects with some great pilot excerpts. My favorite is the SR-71 that had to cut across France, was intercepted by a Mirage fighter and then left it behind in seconds :D

jpmattia 13y ago

Not mentioned in the story (or comments yet): You can see the SR-71 at the Smithsonian out by Dulles Airport, along with a shuttle and a huge array of other hardware. Very cool if you're into that sort of thing. http://airandspace.si.edu/visit/udvar-hazy-center/ http://airandspace.si.edu/visit/udvar-hazy-center/

canistr 13y ago
If you're ever in Seattle, you can also see one at the Museum of Flight. http://www.museumofflight.org/exhibits/blackbird http://www.museumofflight.org/exhibits/blackbird I also highly recommend people book a tour for the Boeing factory in Everett (about an hour just north of Seattle) where you can see 747s, 787s, 777s, etc. being manufactured in the world's largest building (by volume). http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/tours/index.page http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/tours/index.page
- jzwinck 13y ago
  Likewise the Airbus plant in Toulouse, France. You can see A380s being put together in one of the world's other largest buildings. The tour is usually in French but highly worthwhile even if you don't know the language.
- lotharbot 13y ago
  Pedantry: the aircraft at the Museum of Flight is actually an M-21 blackbird (with a D-21 drone attached), not an SR-71 blackbird. It's the only surviving M-21. There are about 20 SR-71s in museums (plus an SR-71 cockpit at the Museum of Flight, which you can sit in.) Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#Accidents_and_aircraft_disposition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#Accide... plus personal knowledge as a former Museum of Flight employee
tillinghast 13y ago
For those firmly lodged in the center of the US, there's an SR-71A on permanent display at the Strategic Air & Space Museum near Omaha, Nebraska: http://sasmuseum.com http://sasmuseum.com

HillOBeans 13y ago

Got one of these good 'ole birds in the Museum next to Robins AFB in Georgia. They also have the start carts, and even have an engine pulled so you can see the six bypass ducts. They have recently mounted the plane on a stand so it looks like it has just left the runway, headed for the stratosphere....

haberman 13y ago

> There was a titanium bulkhead between you and the backseat. [...] Literally, a wall. This is what makes the famous "speed check" story about the SR-71 so effective (http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/favorite-sr-71-story-1079127041 http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/favorite-sr-71-story-107912...). There is no eye contact or body language possible between the pilot and the communicator in the SR-71. What makes that story so perfect is not just the speed aspect, not just the smugness of the other planes, but the interpersonal relationship between the pilot and his crew member. It's just perfect story-telling.

jrockway 13y ago
Perhaps equally exciting is that the inertial navigation system on the SR-71 is calibrated by looking through a telescope at stars in broad daylight. Apparently quite simple, but still cool.
- jjoonathan 13y ago
  It's the same way with ICBMs. Once they've gone ballistic they look up at the stars to get their bearings. Then they switch to their gyroscope to guide themselves in. It makes sense, in a chilling way: you can't rely on radio signals like GPS, because in a nuclear exchange your satellites are likely to be destroyed or jammed. You can't rely on surface features because in a nuclear apocalypse those might be changing too. The only things that can be trusted to work are the gyroscope and the stars. And the payload. (In case you're wondering, I know this because I was wiki-ing around after my iphone's accelerometer went nuts to figure out how state-of-the-art gyroscopes worked. Turns out that there's a special type of gyroscope, the Ring Laser Gyroscope, which uses relativity and interference patterns to achieve ~0 drift. RLGs were developed for ICBMs.)
  - lambdaphage 13y ago
    It is a dreadful poesy to think that the last stargazer from this planet might have been a robotic rocket, looking up once at the fixed stars for all of humanity before ending it.

zibit 13y ago

Check out this list of 14 Rules of Management by Kelly Johnson. It was true back then for building fighter jets and it's true now for basic software development projects: "Johnson's famed "down-to-brass-tacks" management style was summed up by his motto, "Be quick, be quiet, and be on time." He ran Skunk Works by "Kelly's 14 Rules": The Skunk Works manager must be delegated practically complete control of his program in all aspects. He should report to a division president or higher. Strong but small project offices must be provided both by the military and industry. The number of people having any connection with the project must be restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good people (10% to 25% compared to the so-called normal systems). A very simple drawing and drawing release system with great flexibility for making changes must be provided. There must be a minimum number of reports required, but important work must be recorded thoroughly. There must be a monthly cost review covering not only what has been spent and committed but also projected costs to the conclusion of the program. Don't have the books 90 days late, and don't surprise the customer with sudden overruns. The contractor must be delegated and must assume more than normal responsibility to get good vendor bids for subcontract on the project. Commercial bid procedures are very often better than military ones. The inspection system as currently used by the Skunk Works, which has been approved by both the Air Force and Navy, meets the intent of existing military requirements and should be used on new projects. Push more basic inspection responsibility back to subcontractors and vendors. Don't duplicate so much inspection. The contractor must be delegated the authority to test his final product in flight. He can and must test it in the initial stages. If he doesn't, he rapidly loses his competency to design other vehicles. The specifications applying to the hardware must be agreed to well in advance of contracting. The Skunk Works practice of having a specification section stating clearly which important military specification items will not knowingly be complied with and reasons therefore is highly recommended. Funding a program must be timely so that the contractor doesn't have to keep running to the bank to support government projects. There must be mutual trust between the military project organization and the contractor with very close cooperation and liaison on a day-to-day basis. This cuts down misunderstanding and correspondence to an absolute minimum. Access by outsiders to the project and its personnel must be strictly controlled by appropriate security measures. Because only a few people will be used in engineering and most other areas, ways must be provided to reward good performance by pay not based on the number of personnel supervised." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Johnson_(engineer) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Johnson_(engineer)

curiousDog 13y ago

This is what sometimes makes me wonder if the US Air Force came into contact with alien technology ;). Imagine going to this in just 60 yrs of flight being invented. Incredible, inspiring engineering.

bane 13y ago

From http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/vetscor/1981814/posts?page=1 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/vetscor/1981814/posts?page... "The plane was flying a mile every 1.6 seconds, well above our Mach 3.2 limit." So asked Wolfram about this https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+mile+per+1.6+seconds+in+miles+per+hour https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+mile+per+1.6+seconds... 2250 mph (3629 kph) Mach 2.956 at Sea level (340.3 m/s) I couldn't figure out the magic English sentence that would get it to calculate the Mach at different altitudes.

snogglethorpe 13y ago
http://www.fighter-planes.com/jetmach1.htm http://www.fighter-planes.com/jetmach1.htm According to that page, at 60,000 feet the speed of sound is 1062 km/h, making 3629 km/h approximately mach 3.4.

djyaz1200 13y ago

"Skunk Works" by Ben R Rich is a great book about the Lockheed guys and the SR-71 + F117. They were basically running a startup at Lockheed.

kayoone 13y ago

Pretty amazing. Here is another SR-71 story that broke up mid-flight at Mach >3: http://www.barthworks.com/aviation/sr71breakup.htm http://www.barthworks.com/aviation/sr71breakup.htm

dba7dba 13y ago
Thanks for the article. Quotes from it. > The SR-71 had a turning radius of about 100 mi. at that speed (above Mach 3) and altitude. Also, during his 1st flight after the accident, Eject light went on in the back seat due to electrical issue. Because the backseater cannot see front seat, the backseater momentarily thought the pilot ejected without telling him...

dba7dba 13y ago

Interesting quotes from the article > You'd fly the T-38 every day (for proficiency sake). > As we took off from there and came back around for a pass, the right engine exploded. We had to dump gas, and set about thirteen acres of Maryland on fire as we did that. That was kind of interesting, just spewing flaming fuel and titanium pieces around.

kyberias 13y ago

What's with this aviation / war topics week on HN?

NAFV_P 13y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie

Schweigi 13y ago

Interesting interview with a former SR-71 pilot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeBu6mRDaro http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeBu6mRDaro

naturalethic 13y ago

"You would get a couple of sunsets and sunrises, because at those northern latitudes often you would see day to night, and then a terminator line..." Eh, this would only happen if they were adjusting their vector in like a wave, or their speed, right? It's not like they are shooting around the planet. And he says England to Russia, so not following the sun. What is he talking about? edit: reading further i'm having a real hard time believing this shit.