Talk:SR-71 Blackbird/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive page 2006 to --.

Contents

[edit] Info

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

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

[edit] Absolute Altitude Record

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

Don't forget the distinction between classified and declassified records... Plus, the SR-71's record was for sustained flight at altitude, not a zoom climb. The F-15 has beaten the SR-71, but only for zoom climbs. Mugaliens 19:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, from the "Records" section:
The SR-71 remained the world's fastest and highest-flying operational aircraft throughout its career. From an altitude of 80,000 ft (24 km) it could survey 100,000 miles²/h (72 km²/s) of the Earth's surface. On July 28, 1976, an SR-71 set two world records for its class: an absolute speed record of 2,193.167 mph (3,529.56 km/h) and an US absolute altitude record of 85,068.997 feet (25,929 m). Only the Soviet MIG-25 high-altitude interceptor broke the record, reaching an altitude 37,650 m on August 31, 1977 (MIG-25).
-User:Lommer | talk 17:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Jet fuel claim

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

[edit] Chines

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

Can someone please add more information to the article describing what a chine is? As someone fairly ignorant of fighter planes, it's impossible for me to tell what the heck they are given only the information in this article. --P3d0 06:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
From chines:

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

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

[edit] Perhaps information about the Blackbird's tires should be added?

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

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

[edit] Destruction of Tooling in 1968

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

[edit] NASA SR-71 aircraft

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

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

I live outside of Huntsville, Alabama, home of the U.S. Space & Rocket Center. We have an SR-71 on display outside the center. This article says that the plane in question is actually an A-12, but comparing the picture on the A-12 page and what I see every day, I wonder if this is accurate. The plane clearly has NASA markings on it and looks more like an SR-71 than a A-12. I ask you, oh great Wikipedians..what plane do I look at on my drive to work every day? I can provide a picture if necessary. Reverend Raven 20:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
sr-71.org claims it's an A-12 with fake markings, and the photos show it as a single-seater, whereas SR-71s had two seats: http://www.sr-71.org/photogallery/blackbird/06930/ Mark Grant 16:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to tell them apart

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

[edit] Radar Signature section

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

[edit] Chine Comments for User Nekura

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

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

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

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

So do you think the chines should be included in the Fuselage section, or have their own section. They do need to be taken out of the Radar Signature section. -- Nekura 19:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I've rewritten the section on Radar signature, if you want to look it over. Thanks --Nekura 20:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] In operation?

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

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

Done. Guinnog 23:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Purrrfect, thanks. The Minister of War (Peace) 14:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments for User Flyer 190

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

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

[edit] 3000 missiles?

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

I pulled it. I'm extremely skeptical that someone went through the PVO records and added up the numbers, especially considering that pretty much all aspects of Blackbird missions, including the number of USSR overflights, are still very much classified. This sounds like self-perpetuating lore. - Emt147 Burninate! 23:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Guinnog 00:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top speed

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Skunk Works

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

[edit] References

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

I have no idea but I tried to go way back into the history and still cannot see any references listed except for 2 site links back in Jan. I do not know which edit got enough references (and are legimate for wiki articles) so I am not reverting it back yet. MythSearcher 17:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
And yes, I can tell you why the Aurora link was removed, someone said it is not directly related to SR-71 as I recalled. MythSearcher 17:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Line 62 Edit Change

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

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

[edit] X-Men

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

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Popular culture:
Fictional versions and speculation about fictional likenesses should not be included, as they constitute Original Research. This includes most arcade simulations.
The X-men's X-Jet Black bird is just a similar plane and is not the same one. Therefore, it should not be placed here. Unless official sources specificly states that is an SR-71. Like an official source from X-man's creator or copyright owner stating it is one. MythSearcher 15:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, the one in the 70s comics was called a modified version, I'll have to check thru to actually see if they call it a SR-71. Highlandlord 09:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
X-men evolution, I believe, cited the plane as the SR-71 Blackbird, although I may be mistaken in this. TomStar81 09:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] 1 Question

Why was it discontinued?

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

From what I remember: high cost, difficulty of maintenance after the production lines were closed down (so few spare parts were available), and rivalry from the people operating spy satellites. Mark Grant 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I totally think that should be in the article! Epachamo 18:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, but we'd need to drag up real verifiable cites first :). Mark Grant 18:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
One other thing you forgot to mention: Remotely Controlled Drones (or Unmanned Arieal Vehicals), which can do the same job as a spy plane but with less risk to involved parties. TomStar81 10:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
There's good indications that a successor aircraft became operational in 1989. This has been confirmed as much as possible within the civilian intellignece community, while still remaining speculative. The most likely successor was an aircraft reported to be in development at Lockheed's Skunk Works from 1982 to 1988 that has become popularly known as the Aurora Project. It's believed to be a hybrid scram jet powered aircraft with a top speed of near MACH 5. The aircraft was likely incorporated in the 1988 Department of Defense budget. There are sources who claim an operational base now exists in Scotland as well as a main base at Edwards AFB. The fact that the SR-71 was still fulfilling its duties with an excellent track record at the time of its retirement, that those duties still exist, and that none of the systems suggested as a replacement for the SR-71 are true replacements strongly suggests that a successor is operational. As a result I've added a general "Successor" catagory to the article.

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

[edit] So even though its retired its true speed is still classified?

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

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

[edit] Senior Crown Program

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

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

[edit] Original fuel

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

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

[edit] Inlet Spike Position Errors

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

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

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

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

whereas the manual says:

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

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

[edit] Comment Answer

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

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

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

[edit] Comment Answer

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

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

[edit] Supercruise?

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

[edit] Comment Answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Popular Culture

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

As popular culture/trivia items are frowned upon by the Wiki Aircraft Project and Wiki policy, I have cut back some of the entries here. If it keeps growing, some other editor may remove it altogether. As there in now a Blackbird (comics) article, I moved the detailed information its talk page. Thanks. --BillCJ 14:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I must state that the Manga Science apperance shoule be noted because it is a demonstration on the flight ability of SR-71 and its popularity in Japan that it is used in a learning material. Manga Science is first a serial on magazines published by Gakken Co., Ltd. on Science of Grade 5 and Science of Grade 6, later it is published into separate books(currently totalled to 9 volumes). This apperance is different from the others trivial apparance and carry more cultural significance. MythSearchertalk 04:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Weasel Words

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

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

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

[edit] Response

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

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

David Dempster 21:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)