Talk:SR-71 Blackbird

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SR-71 Blackbird article.
Article policies
Good article SR-71 Blackbird has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
February 17, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1, Archive 2


Contents

[edit] No losses

The First flight and usage section included two contradictory claims. I removed one: "without the loss of aircraft or crew." since further into the section it claims that 12 aircraft were lost. Rmhermen 16:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It was poorly worded by me. In the time frame I originally mentioned--seventeen years of operational flying--it went without a loss. The 12 planes lost were before or after that 72-89 frame (it was operational from 1968 to 1990, and again from 95-98). 17 years of operational flying without a plane lost is a tremendous achievement.--Buckboard 10:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The unclarity about losses still exists throughout the article. Can a knowledgeable person please have look at this, and make the article internally consistent throughout? 80.212.63.115 18:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Rogue Pat

It appears that comments (in the article and in talk)to clarify the issue have been deleted, Possibly removed by vandalism. What was stated was something to the effect that there were some navigational errors (drift?), but that no aircraft were known to be completely lost. Can anyone clarify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.244.75 (talk)

I don't know when this last commemnt was made, but since this is becoming an issue again, I'll address it: The vandalism was the statement itself, which, for whatever reasone, tried to equate "lost" with "missing", rather than "destroyed" as the context clearly indicates. The same user is apparently changing "destroyed" back to "lost". He's a dynamic IP user, so thanks Jimbo's "sacred" policy of allowing unregistered edits, we can't even talk to the guy. THe next time this foolishness about "navigational errors" is back in the article, I'm just going to quit watching the page. I'm tired of being the only person with his finger in the hole of the dam, and people taking a hammer and hitting my hand, treating me like I'm the problem. Someone else can watch the article, it's not worth my (figuratively) broken fingers! - BillCJ 00:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I did find the IP that made the last comment, and it's the same IP that has been changing "destroyed" to "lost". Are you really so stupid as to think that "lost" means the planes went missing? If so, you should go back to talking with rocks - you have a lot you could learn from them! - BillCJ 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't think the latest IP was the same one and thought using "lost" was better anyway. However that leaves the door open for more "missing" junk. After the repeated changes back to lost, I think it probably is the same person or a close relative. ;) I was trying to change the wording a while ago in a futile effort to prevent that. If you got a problem with that just change it back.. -Fnlayson 00:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected the "Lost" statement to "temporarily lost" as no reports have been validated of SR-71's having complete navigational failure. Thank you in advance for your consideration on this matter.

The above comment has been restored after several deletions by vandals (BillCJ and Fnlanson). The comment area is for discussion and comments should not be deleted unless personal attacks or profanity is used. The two disruptive individuals should refrain from further inconsiderate actions. It appears that their knowledge would better be suited in constructive improvements in the articles than in bickering in the talk section. Wiki guidelines and policies have been developed to place rules, boundries and limitations on editing of information.

The opening that states 13 "are known to have become lost and crashed for non-combat related reasons, rendering the aircraft unusable" is not really clear. Sounds like those planes went "missing" and then turned up once they crashed. Doesn't make much sense. And by "non-combat related reasons", are we talking about training? I'll suggest a rewrite, unless someone beats me to it.--Jonashart 12:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Reworded to "No aircraft have been downed in action, but thirteen aircraft are known to have been rendered unusable for non-combat related reasons either due to crash or damage.". That should do it. -Fnlayson 13:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Nicely done.--Jonashart 14:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicaraguan airforce?

Surely the SR-71/A-12 was not co-designed by a Captain in the Nicaraguam airforce? Why was this added back in?Mumby 08:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I see it has been fixed now.Mumby 15:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline a little large perhaps?

Um... it's taking up 2/3 of the article, this seems disproportionate. WOuld it be a really good idea to separate that bit out into it's own article maybe?--WolfKeeper 05:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone has started that. I think much of the information does not need to be included. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not an information respository. The other thing is, much of the "timeline" info needs to be brought inline with the text. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I've divided it up into sub-sections, but it is still absurdly long. Much of the information is tangential and doesn't belong in this article. Patiwat 20:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be split into its own page, as with Eurofighter Typhoon timeline, for example? Certainly far, far too long to be here.Mumby 08:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I disagree. Most of it belongs in the articles on Johnson, the U-2, or the Skunk Works. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope issues

I see a problem with this article. The issue is that much of the chief material covering the SR-71, A-12, YF-12, and MD-21 are covered here. Much of the material is applicable to all three. It would not be enought to simply duplicate the same content in all four; that would grow uncontrollable. Ostensibly, the A-12 article should receive all of the relevant info regarding common items, such as the engine, fuselage, and fuel info. However, most people would go to the SR-71 article first. Any suggestions? Perhaps we need a Blackbird family article with the common info, and have the other articles link into it prodigeously? There may be better names, too. Or do we just shove all of the info into the A-12 article, and link into it in the same manner? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 08:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's a problem, and the solutions you outlined are good ones. One big problem, as you stated, is that people are most familar with the Blackbird. In addition, most of the history and development are with the SR-71, while the others are merely backdrops and footnotes, albeit important ones. Most pages on military don't spend alot of time on the technology, but with so much unique technology going into the SR-71, it needs to be covered somewhere. Perhaps an article dealing with the technology of the Blackbird family would be sufficient. It could then be linked from the various articles. - BillCJ 01:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, to be sure, the YF-12/A-12 were first by two years Anyone else have commments? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 01:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This technology must have been developed under a project title e.g. 'Project Secret Squirrel' or some such thing. Does anybody know what that might be? If we can find out what it was, perhaps we could then have a page called 'Project Secret Squirrel' that details the technological development the different aircraft had in common.Mumby 08:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The A-12 OXCART, Lockheed YF-12, Lockheed M-21, and SR-71 obviously share (generally) their origin, history, purpose, and design. The differences represent the evolution of the line. As the SR-71 was the eventual end-of-the-line for this aircraft type, had the largest number of craft, flew the most sorties, and became known publicly while still in operation, it is predictably the most well known, and best remembered. Despite the similarities in the core models (SR-71/A-12) the SR-71 is not the A-12, and the A-12 was canceled in lieu of the SR-71. These articles shouldn't be combined. A stronger case can be made for merging the YF-12 and M-21/D-21 articles into/with the A-12 article, as they are variants of the A-12. The name of that project, and associated coverterm, is OXCART (The OXCART Story ). Barring that merger, I've tried to provide an overall context for the A-12/YF-12/M-21 by including the serial numbers, and incorporating excerpts from the YF-12 and M/D-21 articles with links to the main article. Additionally, I've put some work into formatting the articles similarly, to enhance the association. - Thaimoss 00:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Junk

Thanks Mumby, Bill C and the others above who have expressed concerns about the integrity of our SR-71 article. I was gone for two weeks and am shocked to see all the "junk" and errors that have been inserted. Let me give you an example: Under the Kelly Johnson heading is a statement about the first reconnaissance flight in 1916 in France, which has nothing to do with Kelly in the first place. But, the real story is that the parent squadron of the USAF ( then the US Army ) was the 1st Aero Squadron, formed on March 5th, 1913. They accompanied Gen Jack Pershing in 1916 in open cockpit Jennies when he entered Mexico and chased Pancho Villa. Later, they did participate in WW I in a variety of different aircraft and their initial insignia was a fluttering American flag. After WWI they adopted a caveman insignia with background light rays representing the major campaigns they flew in and German Iron Crosses around the perimeter for the squadron kills. I won't try and recapture the rest of their history here, other than to point out they were part of SAC in the 1950's and 60's, flying B-47's and when those were retired, the unit designation was transferred to the SR-71 organization at Beale, AFB as the 1st Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron. It still flies now with U-2's and is designated as the 1st Reconnaissance Squadron.

My point however, is that much of what's in the article now is just flat wrong. And, there's too much Junk, that one writer has tried to justify to "set the scene" for the SR-71 story. Wrong! Much of the stuff in the new chonology is unneeded and out of place. A-12 history can be in the A-12 article. Tagboard history can be in a Tagboard article, etc., etc. We need to drastically cut out the BS and bafflegab that's not needed.

OK, I'm going to hold my breath, cool down and watch. Have at it please you Wikipedians who know how to "edit" better than I. But eventually, I'm going to take out my electronic sissors ( if I have to ) and start cutting!

David Dempster 06:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, cut away! Assuming you have the time, take out what you feel needs to go, with a short explanation of why in the edit summary, or a longer one on the talk page. Some of us are pretty good at clean-up, as long as we know the reasons for it. We'll gladly fix anything you break in the process if it means getting the junk out.
I have seen alot go in the past few weeks that I questioned, but didn't know enough about the particulars to feel confident in removing it. As you remarked, we had already questioned the "timeline", and have been considering what to take out and what to keep. Having an expert's eye to guide us will be very helpful. Good cutting! - BillCJ 06:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have butchered the timeline. I have cut out the stuff about Kelly Johnson and the U2, the rest of it needs a lot of work! I will chip away whenever I get the time but it seems to me that most of it should be integrated with the main text, and if it can't be, it probably doesn't need to be there at all.Mumby 08:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I've moved it all into a separate article. Articles are supposed to be 32K, this spin-off article starts out at 40+k, all on its own.WolfKeeper 12:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the split. The consensus here has been that much of the info is not accurate, and that it covers more than just the Blackbird itself. We are trying to integrate the info worth keeping, and then will toss the rest. This will be easier if it remains here. - BillCJ 15:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that it currently dominates the article and needs to be made to be not inline. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with the revert at all, if you want, add a few sentences back in to the main article, that's fine; but this is ridiculous.WolfKeeper 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You split it off while we were still discussing what to do with it, without trying to form a consensus first. - BillCJ 19:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and it's being done, though given the length it will take a while. To be honest, I'd like to just junk the whole thing right now, but I guess we should be courteous to the editor who added, and assume there's some useful info there. - BillCJ 17:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Could we delete it from the current version of the article and use the code preserved in the history to make the edit?Mumby 17:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but I think it would be easier to work with if it's in the current version. But I'll support it if the others want to do that. - BillCJ 17:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah Haa! I knew you more knowledgeable than I editors would come up with solutions. Thanks again to all of you and I agree with getting the junk out of the main article. David Dempster 17:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old timeline

I did some extensive research in the History regarding the TImeline. This is what I found:

  1. The timeline was originally sourced.
  2. The users adding to the timeline were Spinotus and 63.40.150.71 in a two-hour period on January 21, 2007. These are apparently the same person.
  3. Absolutely no sources were cited by these uses, who even removed the existing source for the previous timeline. Several sources were added by other useres after the fact.

Given the fact that all the additional material is unsourced, and there is agreement among omst of the editors that this should not stay as-is, I have restored the pre-21 January timeline, including the original source listing. Because this is all uncited information, I recommend against creating a separate article for the long Timeline. - BillCJ 20:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks BillC; great job! David Dempster 08:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When did this aircraft become public knowledge ?

I have a memory of seeing a plastic model of this aircraft in Britain probably in late 1964 as a child. I remember the interest of the unusual shape and large engines with pointed cones in the inlets - very macho. Is my memory faulty, would its external specs have been a total secret at that stage or not ? I remember the name SR-71 associated at the time with the aircraft (Johnson had apparently announced it), but would the model I saw at this time more likely have been of the A12 or YF-12 ? Rcbutcher 09:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Two dates of announcement are given, 29 February 1964 and 25 July 1964. I assume the A-12 was announced on the former and SR-71 (which had not yet flown) on the latter. Drutt (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • President Johnson announced the YF-12 in Feb. 1964 (referred to as A-11 for deception). Easier to tell the public about an interceptor than a spy plane. Johnson announced the SR-71 that July. This from the Lockheed Blackbirds book if someone is interested. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] INLET EDIT EXPLANATION

Shock waves from the inlet cowl lip were not significant and not the driving factor. When the spike shock wave was correctly positioned, any further lip wakes did not contribute to the inlet operation. As an example, when at mach 3.2 the inlet unstarted, and the shock waves were blown out the front of the inlet, any lip formed shocks had no effect at all and did not enter the inlet and reflect continuously to restart the capture of the normal mach 1 shock wave. Only the spike moving back forward, and then retracting with it's main shock wave to the inlet lip could restart the inlet and the capture of the mach 1 shock in front of the engine compressor face. I confirmed this with Bob Gilliland, the first SR-71 test pilot, Bg Ray Haupt ( USAF Retired ), who checked out at the Ranch, wrote much of the initial handbook and was our Ops Officer at Beale in the 60's, Don Byrnes, co-author of "Blackbird Rising" and my own inflight experiences. What minor impacts the inlet outer cowl shocks, or any other externally generated shocks had to the Blackbird I cannot address and may be of interest to some other knowledgeable Wikipedian. All I can tell you is that once the inlets were started, mach 3.2 cruise was smooth, quiet ( we heard only background oxygen flow sounds ) and very pleasant.

The thing that concerns me is that the only source for actual shockwave diagrams I have found so far show the shockwave from the cone missing the rim forward lip (page 27 [1]), and shows multiple shockwaves within the engine associated with the rim. Now, it may very well be that as the vehicle accelerates the centerbody moves backwards according to some scheme and the alpha angle changes until the shockwave just intersects the rim at about Mach 3.0, giving higher efficiency there. But I've been unable to confirm that, and as I say the only diagram I've seen implies that at at least one supersonic speed it misses the rim entirely. There's also the problem of verifiability, in that it's not enough for what you say to be right, I trust you more than I trust some ppt slides, but we need something we can reference, the citation disagrees with the text currently.WolfKeeper 23:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: See slide 31 of the Penn State reference 8 ( in the Inlet section of the article ) Power Point slides on the SR-71 engines

They're talking about the normal shock I think, not the oblique; the normal is the one that really matters. (See the diagram on page 27 - the throat is quite a way inside.) WolfKeeper 23:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

David Dempster 23:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answer To Wolfkeeper

You are right in that there are drawings that show the outer shock wave ahead of the inlet and others forming from the cowl lip. But, those are just "snap shots" of a point in time and I have no idea who did them. As the spike retracts it actually brought (what I will call here ) the primary shock wave, riding on the spike point back until it was just inside the cowl lip ( slide 31 in the reference 8 talks about that ). The angle of the outer shock wave was called the gamma angle ( at least by Kelly and Ben Rich in their Skunk Works class to us in May/June, 1965 ) and the faster you go, the more it sweeps back ( like the visible wake of a speed boat ). If the primary shock was allowed to stay outside the spillage of it's pressure over the outer nacelle would create strong vertices and turbulence over the wing, causing drag and affecting performance. Thus, the spike brought the primary shock right up to and just inside the inlet cowl lip. Don't put too much into the drawing that's on the web sites; it's not a representation of the shock position once the inlet was started and the vehicle was at mach 3.0-3.2 cruise. At that speed, the pictured cowl lip shocks were not entering the inlet body. And, yes, the capture of the normal, mach 1.0 shock wave was the real important event. Otherwise, you'd have no subsonic flow into the engine compressor. The article is a good one; my change was to get rid of the erroneous reference to the cowl lip shock waves "continuously reflecting", etc. instead of the primary, oblique shock wave that was doing that job.

David Dempster 01:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, we're probably going to need to change Jet engine as well, somebody else seems to have made the same mistake I did. I'd still like to see a shock diagram at Mach 3.2 some time though. :-) Anyway, it sounds like the inlet worked in different ways at different speeds, but Mach 3.2 is the important operating mode.WolfKeeper 01:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I had another look at the manual. You need to look at here: [2]. Even now there's a bit of wiggle room, but it seems to me that according to the diagram the shockwave never quite gets swallowed even at Mach 3.2, and certainly not below. They push the shock as close as they possibly can though. I can only speculate what would happen if it did go inside, my guess is it would unstart or something, the extra flow and pressure as it entered is pretty much bound to upset something somewhere.WolfKeeper 05:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll try and get you a better diagram from my Lockheed sources. Per your last sentence above, the bleed and bypass systems were what handled the total pressures and flow and allowed the inlet to get, and stay, started. Without them, yes the pressure would "upset something somewhere". DPD

[edit] 'film cruft'

I thought the Armageddon visibility was interesting, but even if it has no place on the page as suggested, no need to be nasty about it. Sorry. --btrotter 04:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be nasty. "Cruft" is a term used regularly on Wikipedia to refer to trivia and pop-culture items that are "trivial". "Armeggeddon" is a notatble film. However, the appearance of the SR-71 is non-notable, as it is brief, and plays no role in the plot, and any other aircraft could have been used. If the SR-71s had been used to go to the asteroids, then that would have been significant. - BillCJ 05:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
No big deal, I'm somewhat new here. I guess I thought it was more interesting because they then have the X-71 as the one going to the asteroid. For what little it's worth, I'm sort of used to IMDB where any old reference is interesting- and it is interesting to see just how many places a particular something is referenced, even if briefly. The SR-71 has such an interesting history, I got a little excited ;) --btrotter 05:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] CORRECTIONS

When we flew operational missions into "denied areas" such as North Vietnam, they were called Combat Sorties. Some missions diverted into Thailand bases when items such as a critical hydraulic system or electrical generator failed in flight. And, yes, two aircraft were lost as described in the paragraphs I just deleted. But, none of the examples were combat losses, which infers to the reader that enemy fire, etc. was responsible for bringing an aircraft down. Diversions and losses experienced resulted from the kinds of aeronautical happenings that can occur on any sortie with no connection to where the vehicle had been during it's reconnaissance run.

Errors were in the refueling sequence description of flights out of Okinawa, plus they had no relevency to the part of the article they were in, so I deleted them.

I rearranged the various Okinawa pieces so they were more in a chronological order and hopefully a help to the reader.

David Dempster 22:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that wikipedia prefers reputable references, over personal opinions. The two SR-71's lost by OPERATIONAL causes, did occur while conducting combat operations over enemy territory, in this case North Vietnam. One each on 10 May 1970 and 20 July 1972. These losses are listed in Chris Hobson's 2001 book, entitled "Vietnam Air Losses.......1961 thru 1973." ANYONE CAN LOOK IT UP. As an additional reminder, there were many other reconnissance aircraft lost to operational causes while on combat missions, they are listed also. Reconnissance is a combat mission. If one feels that readers may become confused by military terminology, such as combat operational losses, and combat loss due to surface to air missile, or air to air combat then they should be educated by those that were there.

Answer:

If you want to write that two SR-71 operational flights from Okinawa ended with accidental losses of the aircraft during the Vietnam War, you would be writing an accurate statement. But, neither loss occured "while conducting combat operations over enemy territory". Willy Lawson and Gil Martinez's accident was in Thailand after an air refueling. The second was a landing accident at Kadena Air Base in Okinawa. Both sorties had made successful recon passes over North Vietnam but were victims of accidents that had nothing to do with "combat" directly. "Vietnam Air Losses" in total is one subject, while "downing by enemy action" is another. I agree with your "education goals, and thus would not want readers of the SR-71 article to misunderstand that no SR-71 was ever brought down by enemy action.

David Dempster 04:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defensive Systems Controls and Displays

Both SR-71 crew members had threat warning displays, but the Defensive System Control panels were in the RSO's station, whose job included crew coordination warnings to the pilot and countering missile launch indications by selecting active ECM modes.

David Dempster 00:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Habu

At the very start of the section is says that Habu means sled. I know that it actually is a snake. "A habu (pronounced "hah-BOO") is a poisonous snake found in southeast Asia (Japan, Phillipines, Taiwan, southeast China). Habus are pit vipers, more closely related to the adder than to any species of North American snake. The actual "habu" (Trimeresurus flavoviridis) is relatively small, not usually getting longer than 5 feet. They are not typically aggressive but will bite if provoked. They are not as deadly as cobras or mambas, but are more much more dangerous than most North American venomous snakes. There are almost a dozen species of habu; the variety native to Okinawa (Trimeresurus okinavensis) is supposedly greenish or greenish-yellow; however, all habus are extremely rare in North America (less than a dozen specimens in all zoos combined) and photographs are very hard to come by. When the A-12s (and later the SR-71s) were first flown to their new remote base at Kadena AFB in Okinawa, the local people thought that this strange and somewhat wicked-looking airplane was shaped like the habu snake. They started calling it the habu airplane, and later just habu. Crews who flew the airplane were also called Habu, and the name came to be recognized with the blackbird program and even incorporated into the insignia worn by the crews on their uniforms." http://www.habu.org/what-is-habu.html

i don't know how to edit but this should be there instead of the reference to it meaning sled. Or possibly there are 2 definitions but I know that the snake is the reason it is called Habu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.42.239 (talk)

I think it's just bad copywriting. "Habu" should be defined or at least linked to an article defining the term. THe term "sled" appears to be the second name referred to be crews, not the definition of "habu". Again, it's not written clearly, but until an editor more knowledgeable of the subject chimes in, I'm hesitant to correct it. If "sled" is not a legitimate crew nickname, it may be sneaky vandalsim that just got by. In either case, the use of the nicknames should be cited, especially in the Lead. THis would at least give us a source to double check in cases like this. - BillCJ 18:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
"Sled" is indeed a legitimate nickname...in the "Air Inlets" section and in the refs section there's even a book by a former pilot called "Sled Driver". I have the book, and in it, it specifically says that the aircraft was nicknamed "sled" by its pilots. As for HABU, the book says: "When the SR-71 first came to the island [Okinawa] early in the program, it did not go unnoticed by the locals. Intrigued by the ominous shape of the aircraft, Okinawans began calling it "Habu". The Habu was a poinsonous black viper indigenous to the island, and residents felt the jet resembled the deadly snake. Squadron members adopted the neckname, and it stuck. A shoulder patch worn by SR-71 crew members simply read HABU. Crew members received their HABU patches only after they flew their first operational sortie." Hope that helps! Akradecki 18:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
THanks, Alan, and congratulations on beating the bot! I assumed they were legitimate, but didn't know. I will rewrite the mention to be less ambiguous. - BillCJ 19:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
After the first four SR-71 crews of us had arrived at Kadena Air base, Okinawa, we shared hanger facilities with our A-12 "brethren" and with Oxcart clearances received great tours and hospitality from them during the last few weeks of their Operations. When we first heard of the Habu snake reference to the Blackbirds that were taxiing and flying at Kadena in public view, we thought it made a great program logo and name. Dave Jensen, who was Buddy Brown's RSO, designed the first Habu patch: a snake coiled through a big red number "8" with a Blackbird head on the snake body ( Kadena at that time was called Operating Location #8 ). When Dave showed it to us we all said: "Sierra Hotel" and it was immediately taken to the local Kadena sew shops for production. Within about two days we all had them sewed on our flight suits and the Habu was born as our logo. No words were on the original patch, and over time there it slowly evolved as later generations of Habu's ammended it. Thanks Akradecki and BillC for your continued "watch" over the SR article. David Dempster 02:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Least we can do, Sir, to salute such a great bird and the men who flew her. Thanks for the stories, as they make the sometimes-difficult job of editing out the junk enjoyable! - BillCJ 03:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simulator Reference

To Akradecki: Thanks Alan for the Simulator paragraph revert. I, and John Storrie, were the two Instructor crew members that made the visit described, and I wrote and inserted the Simulator section of the article. Don't know what other reference you might need. Thanks. David Dempster 03:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myth and Lore

Does anybody else think that the Myth and Lore section should be deleted? It brings absolutley nothing to this article; doesn't really contain any facts; is not verified or cited; and is full of the worst kind of weasely language that should be avoided at all costs e.g. "Some conspiracy theorists say..." etc etc. Mumby 12:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, except that the paragraph about RCS seems worth keeping -- but not with that section title. Paul Koning 14:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point. With a bit of rewording (e.g. get rid of comparison of different door sizes) it could go in section 2.3 'Stealth'.Mumby 15:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Why is the SR-71 considered the world's fastest manned aircraft when the X-15 can hit mach 6.8?

Answer: The X-15 was a rocket powered, manned aircraft, capable of zooming to over 50 miles high, while the SR-71 was a turbojet powered, manned aircraft that operated and cruised below 90,000 feet. The latter is the context for which the SR "fastest manned aircraft" are usually made. David Dempster 16:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It may be because the X-15 can't take off from a runway. It was carried aloft under a B-52. Is that right? It's hard to tell from the North American X-15 article. --P3d0 13:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
That is correct. It's the same reason that the Space Shuttle isn't included in that "record" as well. Akradecki 14:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SR-71 has not been replaced by the GlobalHawk

Several books by aviation experts continue to hold that the Lockheed Aurora or some other secret aircraft has replaced the SR-71, I cited one such work in the successor segment. While some editors may hold that the Global Hawk is the SR-71's replacement I would point out that the Hawk has a top speed of around 400 mph while the SR-71 has been clocked at over 2,190 mph. The Hawk has no stealth capability whatsoever and it has a ceiling of 65,000 feet while the SR-71 has a measure of stealth and a ceiling of over 85,000 feet. Personally I think the Aurora is a total myth and that we here in the US have no successor to the SR-71 at all. I also hold that since the USSR is no more and we are only mildly concerned with the likes of Iran and Korea no successor will be produced in the foreseeable future. Still it is the published opinions of aviation experts that the Aurora (or some such) is real and that I am wrong, and their opinions are what counts for the article.

--Wowaconia 02:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The SR-71's role has been replaced by satellites and other surveillance aircraft. While none have the exact same capabilities of the SR-71, they do fill the void left by the SR-71. — BQZip01 — talk 03:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USSR overflights?

Is there any information on if SR-71's overflew the USSR? 63.152.13.173 01:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The United States government has never officially acknowledged a single instance of an SR-71 overlying the USSR. The two main reasons are that Eisenhower promised the USSR no more overflights after the Gary Powers U-2 incident; and that the SR-71's main cameras and sensing equipment was designed (probably mostly due to reason 1,) to be side-pointing, meaning it would skirt the EDGES of the target country, but not actually crossing into their airspace. It was used to overfly Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East, though, on a regular basis. (Korea after the war to monitor the caese fire, Vietname during the war, and the Middle East during the various flare-ups there between Israel and its neighbors.) 24.22.40.177 07:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New York to Europe speed less than Mach 3?

Could this be because the SR-71 didn't have the range to make the flight without refuleling, and the need to slow down for refueling slowed down the average speed? 24.22.40.177 07:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This can be verified at any museum that talks about the plane. The plane only had 1.5 hours of fuel, so it had to slow down to refuel at least once during the trip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.106.35 (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Launch Control Officer

Alan and BillC, I just noticed the LCO changes and I have a minor "nitpick". The USAF never planned to man and operate M-21's. The two built were for the CIA and tested with Lockheed test personnel. Thus, no "officer's", like USAF Navigator Officers and titled RSO's in the SR-71 were ever planned for the M-21. Launch Control Operator most probably should be the correct term, although I don't know that for sure. But, "Officer" is not correct. Thanks, and I'll leave it to you two to change that if you wish.

David Dempster 04:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Hum. I did searches for both LCO titles and got plenty of hits for both. They are interchangable terms depending on if 'Officer' applies or not it seems. -Fnlayson 05:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that, Sir. I've corrected the mention in the Lockheed D-21/M-21 article. Because there is a main page, I see no reason to duplicate that info here, so I have cut it back to a bare minimum. That article has a reference section, but cites no sources in the text. There may be other problems too, but I'm not going to read it thoughly due to the late hour for me. - BillCJ 05:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic booms?

Matter of interest what did the aircraft do to avoid booming mainland America and elsewhere? Did it simply fly subsonic until well off the coast like Concorde? WolfKeeper 23:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about general ops, but I clearly remember the coast-to-coast 1990 record setting flight, because I was living in Southern California, and heard the boom as it started its run to D.C. from offshore. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Habu Comments

The sonic boom from a Blackbird at normal cruise altitude was fairly quiet ( I can't give you DB's, etc. ) and if you knew one was passing overhead and were listening for it you would hear a rapid "....ba - boom...." sound which was the leading nose created sonic cone and a close coupled one from the rear of the aircraft ( the B-58 Bomber at mach 2.0 would also produce this double boom sound as the effect is created by the length of the supersonic cruising vehicle ). The strength of the boom to the "listener" on the ground is a function of slant range distance from the aircraft more than the mach 1, 2 or 3 speeds. Weather and other conditions can also affect the boom intensity.

Missions from Area 51 and Edwards were planned to satisfy mission goals and accererations to mach 3.0 were on the planned course. At Beale AFB, we usually took off to the NE and accelerated during the initial months of flying on the 006 degree radial of the Sacramento VOR. At about 33,000 feet we did the "Dipsy Doodle" ( as FAA came to know it ) where we would nose over and descend to about 29,000 feet as we punched through mach 1.0 and then resume climbing to mach 3.0. Unfortunately, the town of Susanville ( which as I recall has an elevation of about 3500 feet ) was right under that spot and was getting a tremendous blast from our mach 1.0 passage which was only about 26,000 feet above them. As more and more sonic boom claims hit the Beale USAF legal office from Susanville, we all got wise to what was happening. From then on, we would level off at about 33,000 feet and remain subsonic until we were at a newly selected acceleration point over the desert where we would relight the burners and start our "Dipsy Doodle" acceleration.

At cruise however, we went where ever the mission was planned with little reaction from the public as the muted boom from 80,000 feet was not a hugh problem. Yes, there were some complaints and law suits and occasionally, we crew members would be called to the Base legal office to sign affidafits that we had been on "Higher Headquarter Directed Missions", etc. for their court room paperwork.

Also there were times when malfuntions forced us to make unplanned decelerations that did create problems. One day, Jim Watkins and I lost an inlet Spike control at mach 3.2 and as we decelerated in a turn back to Beale we overflew Salt Lake City at mach 1.44 and about 44,000 feet ( descending ). By the time we got home the phone lines were lit up and it appeared later that our sonic boom had reflected off the mountains surrounding Salt Lake city and enhanced their strength; lots of windows were broken that day!

But, overall, sonic booms from 80,000 + feet were not show stoppers with the public and we flew everywhere over the continental US at mach 3-3.2. Hope this helps.

David Dempster 05:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Alloy

I can remember i read somwhere that part of the fuselage was made of a specific heat-reistant alloy, which has a name. Does someone know the name of the alloy? I can remember it was a word staring with the letter I and ending with the letter X.--Arado 15:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Don't know specifically about the S-71, but possible heat resistant alloys with X in the name include Hastelloy X and Inconel X-750. Those are nickel based alloys. Maybe what you're thinking of is one of those.. -Fnlayson 15:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's it: Inconel X. I searched on the web and it was not used on the SR-71, but on the X-15--Arado 08:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name and Designation

Hi, i was reading through the above mentioned section of the article and something struck me as odd. The statement that the USAF planned to redesignate the A-12 as the B-71, an apparent successor to the XB-70. This statement seems to imply that the A-12 and the SR-71 are one in the same, that only the name changed. This is patently false, as most of the people here know. I checked the refrences and there is no mention of the A-12/B-71. Am I missing something here?

Shatzky 23:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  • A version of B-70, called the RS-70 (Recon-Strike) was proposed around 1960, but that program was canceled. That's where the numbering comes from. That sentence should be 'designate the A-12's successor' or something to that effect. -Fnlayson 23:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, this may be an urban myth, but at least one source indicates that the actual designation had been the RS-71 but when President Lyndon Johnson mangled the name into SR-71, the US military resorted to changing the designation rather than facing the wrath of changing Johnson's statement. FWIW Bzuk 23:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC).
  • OK. This article actually goes into that some in this Name section. -Fnlayson 00:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Just to clarify, was the SR-71 ever planned to have strike capability? Could this be a reference to a possible YF-12 variant which never made it off of the drawing board? I can't recall reading anything that has suggested that the SR-71 or A-12 was to be used for anything other than reconnasance. Thanks. Shatzky 01:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The A-12 was originally designed to be an interceptor (basically a high-speed missile platform). When the high-speed interceptor turned out not to be needed, its original design was converted to a reconnaissance program. — BQZip01 — talk 02:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A few points. The YF-12 certainly got off the drawing board. And flew. It can be identified by the lack of chines on the nosecone in comparison to other A-12 and SR-71 models. At the time it was predicted that the natural progression would be toward mach 3 bombers and therefore a need for mach 3 interceptors. This reality never materialised and so the YF-12 development never made it to deployment. The A-12 was NOT designed as an interceptor. It was designed from the ground up as a recon plane, funded by the CIA, who would have no use for an interceptor. Specifically it was designed for overflight missions. After the U-2 incident it was agreed that there would be no more overflights of Soviet territory, making the A-12 somewhat redundant. Using the development work from the A-12 the Skunk Works produced 3 new planes - the SR-71 (originally called the R-12) - which was essentially a lenghtned A-12 with sideways looking recon equipment to obviate the need for overflights, the YF-12 - where the recon equipment was replaced by internal missiles and fire control radar fitted - and the MD-21, which carried a drone craft. I'd guess strike capability was certainly considered in the program but had it would not have been under the SR-71 name. --LiamE 03:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost Aircraft

Is it 12 or 13? does anyone have the references?68.245.212.244 02:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Originally the article stated 12 were lost or destroyed. There have been numerous changes though. Now the artical states 13 in one section and 12 in another. There is also alot of changes with respect to lost aircraft and destroyed aircraft. Possibly 12 of them were destroyed and the 13th was lost. This should be clarified.68.244.13.195 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be taken seriously on Wikipedia, I highly suggest you drop this "lost due to navigational error" idea you are pursuing. In the context of aircraft articles, "lost" always means they were destroyed, or otherwise rendered unuseable. If you think you're just trying to have fun with us, it isn't funny, never was. Try Uncyclopedia for that kind of silliness. If you genuinely think that is what "lost means", please beleive me, it does NOT mean that here.
I have removed the sentence regarding 12 or 13 aircraft being lost/destroyed, in the hopes that we can find a source without the constant edit-warring that has been going on. If that doesn't work, I'll ask to have the page semi-protected again. THis is getting really old, really fast, and it is NOT funny. - BillCJ 00:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I was confused on that. So I didn't know which way was right. I was guessing it was 12 aircraft plus 1 trainer, but not sure... -Fnlayson 02:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This what David Donald says in Black Jets (2003):

  1. Lockheed A-12 60-6926/123 lost during training flight
  2. Lockheed A-12 60-6928/125 lost during training/test flight
  3. Lockheed A-12 60-6932/129 lost during mission over Philippines
  4. Lockheed A-12 60-6939/133 lost during landing at Groom Lake
  5. Lockheed A-12 60-6941/135 lost during tests
  1. Lockheed SR-71 64-17950/2001 lost during test
  2. Lockheed SR-71 64-17952/2003 lost during test flight
  3. Lockheed SR-71 64-17954/2005 lost during takeoff accident
  4. Lockheed SR-71 64-17957/2008 lost during fuel cavitation
  5. Lockheed SR-71 64-17965/2016 lost during night training
  6. Lockheed SR-71 64-17966/2017 lost during night refuelling
  7. Lockheed SR-71 64-17969/2020 lost during refuelling
  8. Lockheed SR-71 64-17974/2025 lost during sortie over Okinawa
  9. Lockheed SR-71 64-17977/2028 lost during aborted takeoff
  10. Lockheed SR-71 64-17978/2029 lost during landing

(p.188-191) Jay Miller in Skunk Works (1995) says: "Of the thirty-one original aircraft, twenty had survived to the program's finish." (p. 150) FWIW Bzuk 04:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC).

Thank you, The above list, without the A-12 losses appears low. The following reference gives details of individual losses:

http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/losses.php It is summerized below:

Type Built Lost
  1. A-12 13 5
  2. M-21 2 1
  3. YF-12A 3 2
  4. SR-71A 29 11
  5. SR-71B 2 1
  6. SR-71C 1 0
Is there an authority on the subject that can discern the actual numbers and restore the article? 68.244.15.214 10:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
This is the authority I would quote:
  • Donald, David, ed. Black Jets: The Development and Operation of America's Most Secret Warplanes. Norwalk, Connecticut: AIRtime Publishing Inc., 2003. ISBN 1-880588-67-6.

When I reviewed the information on the website cited above, it looked to be an exact copy of the Donald entries in his book. FWIW Bzuk 14:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC).

Info from [3] -
  • 17950/2001 SR-71A Destroyed by fire 1967
  • 17951/2002 SR-71A On display AZ
  • 17952/2003 SR-71A Destroyed during test flight 1966
  • 17953/2004 SR-71A Destroyed during test flight 1969
  • 17954/2005 SR-71A Destroyed on take-off 1969
  • 17955/2006 SR-71A On display CA
  • 17956/2007 SR-71B On display MI
  • 17957/2008 SR-71B Destroyed on approach 1968
  • 17958/2009 SR-71A On display GA
  • 17959/2010 SR-71A On display FL
  • 17960/2011 SR-71A On display CA
  • 17961/2012 SR-71A On display KS
  • 17962/2013 SR-71A On display UK
  • 17963/2014 SR-71A On display CA
  • 17964/2015 SR-71A On display NE
  • 17965/2016 SR-71A Destroyed during night training sortie 1976
  • 17966/2017 SR-71A Destroyed after high-speed stall during air-refuelling 1967
  • 17967/2018 SR-71A On display LA
  • 17968/2019 SR-71A On display VA
  • 17969/2020 SR-71A Destroyed after high-speed stall during air-refuelling 1970
  • 17970/2021 SR-71A Destroyed in mid-air collision with KC-135Q 1970
  • 17971/2022 SR-71A On display OR
  • 17972/2023 SR-71A On display VA
  • 17973/2024 SR-71A On display CA
  • 17974/2025 SR-71A Destroyed after engine explosion 1989
  • 17975/2026 SR-71A On display CA
  • 17976/2027 SR-71A On display OH
  • 17977/2028 SR-71A Destroyed on failed take-off 1968
  • 17978/2029 SR-71A Destroyed during landing 1972
  • 17979/2030 SR-71A On display TX
  • 17980/2031 SR-71A On display CA
  • 17981/2000 SR-71C On display UT

Total 12 Destroyed, total 20 Preserved/on display. Same as other sources above. MilborneOne 20:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I was starting to question the 17 year loss change. But I see one (/2016) lost between 21 July 1972 and 21 April 1989. So OK. -Fnlayson 18:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure that SR-71 was the highest manned in the world

Looks like the F-53 lightning achieved >87,000 ft in sustained flight[4]. Seems to edge the blackbird, unless anyone knows better, although I don't know how official it was, but it seems to me pretty likely it could do this, the lightning was incredibly stripped, it was just all engine(!), and its known it could get to U2 altitudes and above with ease.

In any case, that the blackbird was the world altitude record doesn't seem to be referenced...WolfKeeper 00:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • So add a fact tag to that sentence. ;) -Fnlayson 00:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I may do. If anyone is interested I did some more searching and there's a description of the two attempts here. Conditions were just right, and it sounds like it was really touchy ;)WolfKeeper 01:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I've learned that highest altitude records require level flight. We'll have to see what the FIA (or FAI) records say on this one. -Fnlayson 16:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
FAI says SR-71 is the current record holder. As for the other reference, 87,300 ft is pretty impressive. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it wasn't official in any way. Furthermore, I am not sure pilots (as a whole) are the best sources for information... ;-) — BQZip01 — talk 03:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Added refs accordingly. — BQZip01 — talk 03:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Good job. I had forgotten to check. Thanks. -Fnlayson 15:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SLED Deletion

During the June, 2007 Blackbird Reunion in Reno and the September 15 and 16, 2007 Blackbird Forum at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, I asked Habu crew members of the 1986 - 1990 time frame where the term Sled came from ( in my crew time during '65 -'69, it was Habu only ). They told me that when the U-2's joined the SR-71's at Beale AFB, the U-2 crews jokingly called the Blackbird a "Sled" with Blackbird names then jokingly applied to the U-2's. Good O'Club rivalry and joking. One of the Blackbird pilots wrote a book and titled it and published it as "Sled Driver". However, all of the Blackbird crewmembers I spoke with told me they never really used Sled as a name among themselves for the SR-71. It was always Habu after the 1968 Okinawa naming of it there as a program nickname. Thus, I have deleted the term "Sled" from the article as a more correct reading. If one of our editor's thinks that should be reverted I won't complain, I just don't believe it belongs in our article. Thanks.

David Dempster 02:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Picture?

Sorry I am not a registered wiki user at this point... but i think the main picture on the left, the one in the box with all the plane stats, is really an A-12, the second cockpit is raised well above the first, which is a characteristic of the trainer A-12, which in its deployed version really only had one person in it i believe. The SR-71 did have two "cockpits" one for the pilot and the other for the navigation, but those were in line and not stacked as the picture shows. I am not sure how to edit the picture, and dont have another. The picture in the "fuel" section is a correct photo. It has the inline cockpit with the two windows, and no forward facing ones. The trainer A-12 can be noticed in the picture of the A-12s at Groom Lake, it is the second plane.


72.200.190.30 00:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Wednesday sept 26 20:07

It looks that way to me too. It's not obvious in the small picture in the plane stats, but if you look at the full size original it's clear. Paul Koning 01:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Answer

"The main picture on the left", is a puzzlement to me as on my computer screen display of our article, it is on the right side of the page, and it is an SR-71B model, which like the Groom Lake A-12 mentioned had a raised rear cockpit for the Instructor-Pilot instead of a Reconnaissance Systems Officer's cockpit. The chines are definately those of the SR which had a more rounded front end down to the pitot-static tube. Compare the difference with the M-21 nose chine design in the "Other Pictures" section and you'll see the more pointed chine nose design that was on the A-12's. Hope that helps.

David Dempster 05:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Price?

Is there any data on an average cost on one of these planes? Even the B-2 Spirit has some rough figures attached. It seems almost like an "If you have to ask..." situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.67.203 (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cost Comments

We were told in 1965 "about $30 M each" and I see $33 M each in some of the SR-71 available books. Most probably about right, in 1960's dollars. Remember, that although there are no technical parts of the SR-71 that are still classified today ( except perhaps some of the defensive system electronics ), the Congressional funding profiles have never been been fully revealed and/or published ( that I know of ). I suspect that this is the reason there is still some lingering speculation and intrigue about the Blackbird that is not justified by it's outdated technical merits.

David Dempster (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coal slurry powerplant

The mention of a coal slurry powerplant is not vanaldism. The subject was brough up before in a brief discussion at Talk:SR-71 Blackbird/Archive2#Original fuel. The long-time editor who added the original item states that "The information is taken from Johnson's autobiography." - BillCJ (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I think the Johnson autobiography seems to covers it. The issue should be discussed here not by back and forth edits. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, if this part were removed I don't think the wording can be simply changed to "Johnson initially researched a liquid hydrogen powerplant..." as has been done. The "initially" part should be checked the Johnson reference or another one. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • (Expanded slightly from what i put on Ivandias' talk page) Powering by coal is not powering by coal slurry; this shouldn't evoke the 1800s image of a person shoveling lumps of coal into an incinerator. Coal slurry is a suspension of coal particulate in a liquid (kerosene, jet fuel, water, ...). A brief use of Google turns up various patents and research on using slurries in jet engines, including this USNA graduate mentioning his work at Lockheed on such a thing (search on the page for 'Lockheed'). Quaeler (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the info. Also, one of the synthetic fuels the Air Force is researching involves a coal to liquid process.[5] -Fnlayson (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
        • The CTL plant is a different thing -- that's just a device for making liquid fuel for conventional engines, starting with coal as the raw material. This was common practice in Germany in WW2 (because coal was domestically available while oil was not) but it doesn't affect the engines themselves. Paul Koning (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Well yea its different. My only point was that's a jet fuel derived from coal. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Popular Culture' section

take at a look of this BillCJ's operation on this page, he reverted other's contributes without any reason, there is also complains about his actions in his personal page, i'm wondering why he hasn't been banned yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.18.25.35 (talk • contribs)

i add a paragraph about SR-71's appearance in Japanese anime Hellsing and Trinity Blood, and then been reverted twice, once by BillCJ without any reason, again by Fnlayson 'remove non-notable appearances, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Popular culture)'

in Hellsing, the SR-71 was specifically identified as an SR-71, not fictional variants, and it's a key item used by the protagonist to approach the enemy, since it's fast and high enough to not to be intercepted, i think this appearance is fully qualified, take the popular culture section of F-14 Tomcat#Popular culture as an example. consider that again plz.

for Trinity Blood, i agree with Fnlayson's reason, but BillCJ, your attitude is rude, write down your apology here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.18.25.35 (talk • contribs)

When people don't take the time to read, understand, and follow instructions, such as the lengthy "No More Cruft" notice, then I take it that they are vandals, or not serious contributors looking to improve Wikipedia, and thus an explanation is not needed. Nor is an apology from me. Any further comments such as above will not be responded to, and perhaps reported if necessary. - BillCJ (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
sorry for not noticing the notice, i'm a newbie here, and thanks Fnlayson for the mention, by your reply newbie is not welcomed? and, i bet you didn't watch that, why are you so sure it's not qualified and undo it in no time? - 139.18.25.35 (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, than, that's understandable. I'm sorry I didn't explain myself in your case. - BillCJ (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, then, back to the topic. still wondering if you two agree with the appearance in Hellsing is qualified or not? take a look at the fourth paragraph of this section plz. - 139.18.25.35 (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, because it's minor and non-notable TO the SR-71. If it's an important appearance, then you should have no problem finding reliable sources attesting to its notability. - BillCJ (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are on a single topic. The anime SR-71 is not the real aircraft. This is an article about the real aircraft, not fictional discriptions of a similar-looking aircraft even if they have the same name. If you wish there to be an article on fictional SR-71s and you think it is notable, and there is enough to write and reference, then by all means start an article like SR-71 (fiction).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
to BillCJ, so how about the recently added Area 7 quote? why is that notable to SR-71? to WolfKeeper, i DID claim that was not a fictional variant like the X-Jet in X-Man series, it didn't show any fictional functionality beyond the real aircraft. the Area 7 quote was just been tagged 'citation needed', but the Hellsing quote was been removed immediately, i thinks this is unfair. - 139.18.25.35 (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
seems no one is answering this simple and clear question, I'm adding the quote back. 58.242.201.42 (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
removed again by someone reasoning "fancruft", anyone tell me how do you separate "fancruft" and "popular culture"? you're never been on a playboy cover so you are not "popular culture"? why the "Area 7" quote was staying there? Also noticed that the Metal Gear Solid was banned because it's fictional, I think there is some mistake here, weapons mentioned in that series were NEVER fictional variants, you can ban Metal Gear Solid because the presence is unnoticeable, but not because it's fictional. and I CLAIM IT AGAIN, it is the KEY the protagonist used in that episode to approach the enemy because it's high altitude and speed. the only reason I can imagine is that you guys hate Japanese culture, I don't think this is wikipedia about to be. 58.242.201.42 (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Is Manga Science Nigerian? You have yet to show how the appearannces are notable TO the SR-71, through reliable sources. - BillCJ (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Sorry, never heard of that. 139.18.25.35 (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, WP:FANCRUFT and WP:CRUFTCRUFT. The problem could be seen in two difference sides. This article once had a very long, too long, pop culture section, in order to make it short, all trivia appearance has to go. The selection method should be sources that are third party publication, say, if you want to have the Hellsing reference in the section, you should find a publication stating that instead of citing the original Hellsing manga. The idea to find a source stating "The SR-71 is so famous that it appeared in fictional stories like X, Y and Z" instead of stating "SR-71 appeared in X", "SR-71 appeared in Y", "SR-71 appeared in Z". Also, I see no one hating Japanese Culture, the Manga Science reference is there for so long due to its education based instead of plot based appearance. MythSearchertalk 07:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The "Area 7" line is marked "citation needed" and it's still there. 139.18.25.35 (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, removed now. 139.18.25.35 (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The subject of this article is the real aircraft. The manga cartoon is not about the real aircraft, it is fiction about the aircraft. But this is about the real aircraft. If you want to write about fiction about this aircraft, I suggest you create a separate article and define the topic there appropriately to include it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 07:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
By your opinion the entire popular culture section should be removed since all novel/movie is fictional, well, even sometimes they are based on real things, the story itself is still fictional. 139.18.25.35 (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The only one left is non fiction. :-)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 08:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Manga Science it NOT fictional. It is an education series that teaches real science. SR-71, Saturn V, Sputnik, etc. used in it are all devoted to education purposes. MythSearchertalk 08:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a hand-drawn comic, depicting non real events. Correct?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 09:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
And doesn't it have artificially intelligent robots in it?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 09:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Dunno. There's a few cartoons from the french translation: [6]- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 09:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I must admit, I'm not thrilled with it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 09:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Any book is drawn/written, and most educational books sets up situations instead of using real events. Just pick up a high school physics and see the example questions. Do you call that fictional? It got artificial intelligent robots, yes, like the Honda Asimo, the Sony AIBO. It even got fictional characters, yet its target reader is primary school students what do you expect? Super detailed technical background with extremely text based content? Get real, you must make it interesting to help the kids to learn, not force feed hard data into their brains. MythSearchertalk 10:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Finally, the popular culture section is very interesting now. 139.18.25.35 (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

First post, as I'm new here. What about the reference to it in the movie Iron Man? And I don't know it it's been coverede before, but is the X-Men's "Blackbird Jet" based on this (at least as far as the new movies are concerned,) because the visual similarity is uncanny. Davehoekst (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The Blackbird used by the X-Men is a look a like, not an SR-71. Fictional likenesses are considered original research and should not be included per Aircraft project policy. Appearances have to significant or notable to be included. The pop culture section would get huge if these every brief appearance was included. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] By-pass door wording

Under the 'Air Inlets' sub-heading, the sentence "The SR-71 machinists were responsible for the hundreds of precision adjustments of the forward air by-pass doors within the inlets." doesn't seem to make sense. Should 'machinists' be 'flight computer'? TtyR2 (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Possibly permanent adjustments as in tweaks to the design. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Records

"Any discussion of the SR-71's records and performance is limited to declassified information. Actual performance figures will remain the subject of speculation until additional information is released.[citation needed]" In what way is citation needed? Do we need to cite the Definitions of Declassify, or maybe cite where it says classified or unreleased info can't be used? I'd hate to see "Citation Needed" slapped on everything that isn't cited(whether it needs it or not). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.90.8 (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph is a bit of a nonsense statement and somebody is assuming good faith and asking if a citable source is available rather than just deleting it. The only way the statement could stay is if somebody could prove a reliable source that states that classified information does indeed exist and relates to performace data. MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not gonna happen. There is such a rarity in sources that actually state such obvious things, it won't be sited. The best we could do I cite wiktionary for the word "Classified". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.90.8 (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I was forced to delete it for unclassified reasons: it wasn't reliably sourced that there was classified records.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Retirement

The homepage for Source 1 at http://www.sr-71.org/ states "...it was retired in 1990. However, the USAF still kept ... operation up until 1998, after a few were brought back to service in 1995. NASA... flew the SR-71 from 1991 until the program was cancelled in late 2001." My point is that the wikipedia article states that they were retired in 1999 in the info box, but in the first paragraph it says "...in service from 1964 to 1998." Thus according to the source, military retired the aircraft in 1990, with about a five year hiatus, and then again in 1998. Civilian (or rather, NASA), used the jets until 2001. I'm going to change the year on the info box so it matches the article. Whoever wants to can change it later, but figure out the date and provide a different source if you do. --Trakon (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. The USAF date should be specified like "1998 (USAF)". NASA's date was the latest retire date and that should be listed one way or another. I'll look a book or two of mine and see how NASA's usage is described. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)