On the way back from a mission to the middle east, they ended up flying over France, even though France had refused them clearance. They were flying low and slow (relative terms obviously), and the pilot looked to his left and saw a French Mirage just off his left wing.
The Mirage pilot called over and requested their diplomatic clearance code. The SR-71 pilot told the Mirage to hold on. The reconnaissance systems officer (RCO, the other guy in the plane) then informed the pilot that the code had been transmitted and they went back up to full speed and left the Mirage quickly behind.
The code that the RCO transmitted? The middle finger.
That story is out of Brian Schul's book (he used to be an SR-71 pilot). I am lucky enough that years ago, a girl who had a crush on me bought me that book. Its out of print now, and I've seen copies on eBay for > $1000.
Next to Ben Rich's "Skunk Works", it is one of the best books on the SR-71 that I have ever read.
Not badass-plane exactly, but Bill Weaver's story is another cracker. His SR-71 disintegrated around him (no ejection) at Mach 3.18 and 78,000 feet. He was back in the cockpit two weeks later.
For anyone who's interested in this stuff, I highly recommend the book "Skunk Works" – about Lockheed's famous operation that designed the SR-71, U-2, F-117 (stealth fighter), etc.
Yes. it's also interesting that it's from the point of view of a guy who worked on something like 17 planes over the course of their career. I think that's very rare now.
One of the most amazing fact I'd learned was that invisibility to radars was not mostly due to the absorbing material but rather a specific geometry of the plane! The materials certainly enhanced it but it was still like 25% or so contribution. Even more amazing fact was that this possibility was first discussed in a Russian research paper but that was never followed through because it was too complex to compute such shape and no one believed it would actually work. The folks at Stunkworks got hold of the paper, hired a mathematician and used computers to do the computation to actually find the shape that would have invisibility property to radars. No one in army at the time believed that some special shape can just become invisible to radar. They did the demo to army to prove it and landed their contract. Considering all these was in 1960s, its just amazing.
>because it was too complex to compute such shape and no one believed it would actually work
I don't want to put down your enthusiasm, but this is not very exact info. Stealth design never makes the plane invisible, it just increases the detection distance or the power requirement of the radar.
You get relatively long way by simply avoiding corner reflectors. There are rumors that Avro Vulcan used to disappear from friendly radars accidentally just because of that.
One of the features that increases stealth is the radar. Because radars tend to show on radar. SR-71 had "side looking radar" which might have been optimized not to show the array towards any hostile ground stations.
I enjoy science-fiction, but I'm not an aircraft aficionado. What makes the SR-71 so awesome to me is that it looks like about the coolest spacecraft I could have imagined when I was 10 years old. And it still looks that way to me.
" The U-2 can still fly higher than the Global Hawk, carry a greater payload, and its sensors have more of a slant range. The Global Hawk also lacks de-icing equipment and countermeasures against Russian SAMs. We may be entering the age of drones, but old-fashioned piloted planes can still do a thing or two."
Why not just copy the U2 and make an improved, unmanned version?
If you are interested in how the Pentagon, Air Force and Navy decides to fund and build aircraft, I highly recommend reading this book [1]. It's about the father of the A-10, F15 (sort of), F-16 and FA-18. Fascinating read about how the armed forces will completely ignore data on flight characteristics due to politics. (it's about the life of John Boyd, not just how aircraft a chosen but its covered quite a bit in the book)
- The U2 uses old parts that aren't wildly/cheaply available anymore.
- The Global Hawk doesn't have a person in it. So they can send them into more dangerous situations without worrying. Which means they likely want a cheaper robot version. (Though, before RnD costs which skyrocketed, the price appeared to be only about 10mil cheaper.)
- New sensor modules have a different footprint that the shell can be designed around than a plane designed in the 70's. Also, more computer aided design into the entire thing.
- More fuel economy means more air time. (Additionally no fatigued pilot means more air time.) I know you said "remove the pilot" but the point is the entire thing can be designed for more air time, and more efficient fuel use.
Of course, often the most obvious answer is simply: Money. Tax payer dollars are "Free", and there's political power to be had in rewarding "your" defense contractor the ability to make brand new, amazing, super, bells-and-whistle aircraft. (::cough::F-35::cough::) And there's no ego boost for simply upgrading existing planes. (::cough::A-10::cough::)
Since every new program seems to be full of cost overruns I really wonder if they intentionally do that. They low-ball it, pocket the surplus "costs" as long as they can until congress gets pissed and then magically "fix" the product with a "modest" cash-influx bill from congress to finally finish it off. Because it's politically dangerous to be a congressperson that voted for this failed product that then has to be repealed. So they could, in essence, "fail" at making their product up until the point where it's just under "repeal time" and pocket all that cash.
[edit]
Here's a quote on Wikipedia that lines up partially with my comment about costs to fly:
"Secretary stated: "The Global Hawk is essential to national security; there are no alternatives to Global Hawk which provide acceptable capability at less cost; Global Hawk costs $220M less per year than the U-2 to operate on a comparable mission; the U-2 cannot simultaneously carry the same sensors as the Global Hawk; and if funding must be reduced, Global Hawk has a higher priority over other programs."[21]"
this is a bit tangential, but my grandfather flew U-2's in the late 50s over china. a few months ago my aunt sent me a photocopy of a small essay he wrote about some of his experiences during his time flying, and particularly technical details about flying them. i transcribed it and put it on my blog here:
Because it would be designed by engineers using computers and would eventually become so over-engineered that it would be a money sink and never fly in any real missions.
The thing that really amazes me is that these badass planes were designed with slide rules, drafting tables, and wind tunnels. No fluid-flow simulations; these things predate the CDC6600. The engineering was as badass as the product.
If you like the SR-71, and are interested in other Skunk Works projects like the U-2 and F-117, the book Skunk Works is a great read (and also a great audio book).
Also if you're in the DC area, it's really worth going to the National Air & Space Museum, as well as their 'oversize' Udvar Hazy centre. The out of town place is special and hardly gets any tourists, even though they have an SR-71 and the Shuttle, Discovery. Other things include an X-15, the Enola Gay (feels weird if you've visited Hiroshima too), an exhibit on the Keyhole satellite program, a U2 and tons more. I don't think they have an F117, sadly.
I met a gentleman around 20-25 years ago that told me the story of the "$500 hammer". Years ago the press went crazy that the government was overpaying for tools for military projects. This guy gave me "the rest of the story". The cost for tooling is what it should be for a limited run of "special metal" tools. I'm guessing the tool manufacturer had to shutdown their normal operations to supply Skunkworks with all new tools. It would have cost a fortune. Not to mention the secrecy surrounding why some company wanted titanium tools. I don't recall if he mentioned the tools were make of titanium, but he did mention that the chrome bake on normal tools had caused problems on the SR-71 project. I'm glad to see that this little tidbit of information was covered in the article.
The backstory is related in Skunk Works by Ben Rich [1]; cadmium-plated tools caused embrittlement in titanium skin panels; it took them a while to track down the cause but eventually they purged the Burbank factory of everything that was cadmium plated to solve the production problem.
[1] Ben Rich and Leo Janos. Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed. Boston: Back Bay Books, 1996. ISBN 0-316-74300-3.
You can talk about the unobtainium skin, the Pratt-Whitney engines, the radar-bouncing fuselage angles but what really made it such a bad ass plane was Kelly Johnson and his team.
Consider that not much more than a decade before the SR-71 project started the state of the art in plane design was canvas over a wooden frame with a V12 engine that went at 300mph.
How much technology did they have to invent from first principles to build a plane which flew at Mach 3 at the edge of space? Using slide rules and chalk boards?
I had a coworker once who claimed that he got a ride on one before it was declassified. Apparently he was waiting at an air station to go home on leave and was constantly being bumped from flights by higher ranks. A "special" fight came in that he could get on, though, after signing some paperwork to keep quiet about it.
The first I remember reading about the "Blackbird" was in the _The Uncanny X-Men_, during the Claremont & Byrne run in the early 80's. Their jet was modeled on the SR-71, although I don't recall if they explicitly mentioned that model number.
> the supersonic SR-1 Blackbird spy plane is the stuff aviation legend.
Does nobody proofread these articles anymore? A missing word in the first sentence. This sort of sloppy publishing really doesn't leave a good first impression with the reader.
Oh good, I'm not the only one who gets really bothered by this! I hate seeing these kinds of errors. It happens to everyone, I understand that. But when you're an internationally read journal, you should really be holding yourself to a higher standard than, say, the twice-a-week village newspaper or your aunt's emails.
i can remember watching these take off/land at Kadena air base in Okinawa while i was stationed in Camp Hansen (USMC).
We assume they were flying recon missions over North Korea. They would take off then quickly bank almost 180 degrees
we referred to them as "Habu" because that's how the locals called them, which is the name of the large black (and extremely poisonous) snake indigenous to the island.
i recall reading that the SR-71 was originally designed as a strategic interceptor, rather than a long-range recon bird.
Guys, I thought NASA is not supposed to disclose it's military affiliations publicly?
"As reported in PM, NASA is currently the revisiting the supersonic spy plane concept. It recently awarded a contract to Lockheed Martin Skunk to test the feasibility of the SR-2, a supersonic drone that would fly almost twice the speed of the Blackbird. The idea is that speed would play the role that stealth once did in beating enemy air defense network. "
[+] [-] mikeokner|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Retric|8 years ago|reply
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-sr-71-blackbirds-most-...
[+] [-] strictnein|8 years ago|reply
On the way back from a mission to the middle east, they ended up flying over France, even though France had refused them clearance. They were flying low and slow (relative terms obviously), and the pilot looked to his left and saw a French Mirage just off his left wing.
The Mirage pilot called over and requested their diplomatic clearance code. The SR-71 pilot told the Mirage to hold on. The reconnaissance systems officer (RCO, the other guy in the plane) then informed the pilot that the code had been transmitted and they went back up to full speed and left the Mirage quickly behind.
The code that the RCO transmitted? The middle finger.
[+] [-] cyberferret|8 years ago|reply
Next to Ben Rich's "Skunk Works", it is one of the best books on the SR-71 that I have ever read.
[+] [-] jonah|8 years ago|reply
Here's Brian Shul telling the story live:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg73GKm7GgI
[+] [-] mrec|8 years ago|reply
https://theaviationist.com/2015/03/17/sr-71-mid-air-disinteg...
[+] [-] scrooched_moose|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gxs|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jksmith|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevincennis|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lentil|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jfoutz|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josephcooney|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] regulation_d|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sytelus|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vlehto|8 years ago|reply
I don't want to put down your enthusiasm, but this is not very exact info. Stealth design never makes the plane invisible, it just increases the detection distance or the power requirement of the radar.
You get relatively long way by simply avoiding corner reflectors. There are rumors that Avro Vulcan used to disappear from friendly radars accidentally just because of that.
One of the features that increases stealth is the radar. Because radars tend to show on radar. SR-71 had "side looking radar" which might have been optimized not to show the array towards any hostile ground stations.
[+] [-] mikeash|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DoofusOfDeath|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ProAm|8 years ago|reply
[1] https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0a/8c/a7/0a8ca767c485d88869af...
[+] [-] jotm|8 years ago|reply
Why not just copy the U2 and make an improved, unmanned version?
[+] [-] ProAm|8 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed/dp/031...
[+] [-] katastic|8 years ago|reply
- The U2 uses old parts that aren't wildly/cheaply available anymore.
- The Global Hawk doesn't have a person in it. So they can send them into more dangerous situations without worrying. Which means they likely want a cheaper robot version. (Though, before RnD costs which skyrocketed, the price appeared to be only about 10mil cheaper.)
- New sensor modules have a different footprint that the shell can be designed around than a plane designed in the 70's. Also, more computer aided design into the entire thing.
- More fuel economy means more air time. (Additionally no fatigued pilot means more air time.) I know you said "remove the pilot" but the point is the entire thing can be designed for more air time, and more efficient fuel use.
Of course, often the most obvious answer is simply: Money. Tax payer dollars are "Free", and there's political power to be had in rewarding "your" defense contractor the ability to make brand new, amazing, super, bells-and-whistle aircraft. (::cough::F-35::cough::) And there's no ego boost for simply upgrading existing planes. (::cough::A-10::cough::)
Since every new program seems to be full of cost overruns I really wonder if they intentionally do that. They low-ball it, pocket the surplus "costs" as long as they can until congress gets pissed and then magically "fix" the product with a "modest" cash-influx bill from congress to finally finish it off. Because it's politically dangerous to be a congressperson that voted for this failed product that then has to be repealed. So they could, in essence, "fail" at making their product up until the point where it's just under "repeal time" and pocket all that cash.
[edit]
Here's a quote on Wikipedia that lines up partially with my comment about costs to fly:
"Secretary stated: "The Global Hawk is essential to national security; there are no alternatives to Global Hawk which provide acceptable capability at less cost; Global Hawk costs $220M less per year than the U-2 to operate on a comparable mission; the U-2 cannot simultaneously carry the same sensors as the Global Hawk; and if funding must be reduced, Global Hawk has a higher priority over other programs."[21]"
[+] [-] nyolfen|8 years ago|reply
https://hyperstition.al/u2-james-black/
[+] [-] strictnein|8 years ago|reply
And Russian SAMs can easily take out a U-2, so I'm not sure what the author is trying to say there, to be honest with you.
[+] [-] JustSomeNobody|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hudibras|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leeoniya|8 years ago|reply
http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strange...
[+] [-] jonah|8 years ago|reply
I'd also recommend "The Hunt for the Death Valley Germans"
http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/search-and-rescue/the-hun...
[+] [-] pklausler|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asmithmd1|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] strictnein|8 years ago|reply
https://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/...
[+] [-] joshvm|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thule|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jloughry|8 years ago|reply
[1] Ben Rich and Leo Janos. Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed. Boston: Back Bay Books, 1996. ISBN 0-316-74300-3.
[+] [-] matt_wulfeck|8 years ago|reply
A: it would simply fly faster than them.
What ana amazing piece of engineering.
[+] [-] sizzzzlerz|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway456321|8 years ago|reply
Towards the end of his life Kelly Johnson suffered from dementia.
They wheeled him out on a runway and there was a fly-past of SR-71s.
Ben asks Kelly "Did you see that? They were saluting you!" I was bawling when I read first that and I am tearing up now. Talk about Epic Men.
[+] [-] amenghra|8 years ago|reply
[0] http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strange...
[+] [-] oasisbob|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway456321|8 years ago|reply
How much technology did they have to invent from first principles to build a plane which flew at Mach 3 at the edge of space? Using slide rules and chalk boards?
[+] [-] kevin_thibedeau|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lylejohnson|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sdfjkl|8 years ago|reply
Does nobody proofread these articles anymore? A missing word in the first sentence. This sort of sloppy publishing really doesn't leave a good first impression with the reader.
[+] [-] doctorRetro|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cyberferret|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doug1001|8 years ago|reply
We assume they were flying recon missions over North Korea. They would take off then quickly bank almost 180 degrees
we referred to them as "Habu" because that's how the locals called them, which is the name of the large black (and extremely poisonous) snake indigenous to the island.
i recall reading that the SR-71 was originally designed as a strategic interceptor, rather than a long-range recon bird.
[+] [-] Abishek_Muthian|8 years ago|reply
"As reported in PM, NASA is currently the revisiting the supersonic spy plane concept. It recently awarded a contract to Lockheed Martin Skunk to test the feasibility of the SR-2, a supersonic drone that would fly almost twice the speed of the Blackbird. The idea is that speed would play the role that stealth once did in beating enemy air defense network. "