[HN Gopher] Pilot explains how he Survived Blackbird Disintegrat... ___________________________________________________________________ Pilot explains how he Survived Blackbird Disintegration at Mach 3.2 Author : mzs Score : 316 points Date : 2022-06-06 15:28 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (theaviationgeekclub.com) (TXT) w3m dump (theaviationgeekclub.com) | cm2187 wrote: | To those interested in the blackbird, the museum of flight had a | series of panels on their youtube channel, including actuals sr71 | pilots and mechanics [1] | | Lots of more minor annecdotes (including a brown pants one). One | thing I learned is that the idea that the sr71 flew faster than | anti-air missiles is a misconception. But the missiles at the | time couldn't be reprogrammed once launched, so what made it safe | is that because the sr71 flies so fast and so high, between the | time the missile is launched and the time the missile reaches the | expected sr71 position and altitude, the sr71 will have had time | to change course and be far away. | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbuOD6bgPc4 | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1uq-qOzf5o | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54FEBBPCZ-Y | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmiX_JPuir0 | rvba wrote: | > I didn't appreciate it at the time, but the suit's | pressurization had also provided physical protection from intense | buffeting and g-forces | | What is "buffeting"? | Justin_K wrote: | When airflow around an object is spoiled, not aerodynamic, it | creates oscillations of high and low pressure. Here's an | example of buffeting on a wing during a stall. | https://youtu.be/6UlsArvbTeo?t=94 | myself248 wrote: | I believe it's related to the phenomenon that makes whistles | work. A flow instability produces an oscillation, which results | in intense pressure fluctuations adjacent to a surface which | then experiences corresponding mechanical forces. | theideaofcoffee wrote: | You can experience this first-hand if you are driving: roll | down one window and keep the others up while you are at highway | speeds, oftentimes that feeling of the air vibrating and | pulsing when you do that is the same effect. Outside air at | slightly less pressure due to the movement across the car body | is interacting with the cabin air, causing the whole mass to | oscillate, also called wind buffeting. | 83 wrote: | Just wind hitting the body. If you've ever ridden a motorcycle | in high winds (or high speeds) it's amazing how much force it | exerts on your body. It typically "buffets" or feels like a | rapid series of someone pushing or lightly hitting your body. | That's at ~70mph, I can't imagine what it's like at mach 3. | etrevino wrote: | Basically getting banged around. It's like a series of rapid | blows. In the case of aircraft it's where everything just | rapidly swings from side to side. | H8crilA wrote: | Eh, no, the pre-stall buffeting in small aviation is more | like driving on small rubble, or like touching some of that | vibrating paint marking the side of a highway, maybe a bit | stronger than that. Some aircraft do not buffet at all when | approaching critical angle of attack, which is actually worse | for safety - you're deprived of a useful signal. And | regardless of whether they buffet or not the standard stall | warning in big aviation consists of shaking/vibrating the | stick/yoke (called a "stick-shaker"). Every professional | pilot is intimately familiar with that kind of feedback from | their training on smaller aircraft and will instinctively | push on their controls mostly without thinking. Unless they | actually want to stall the plane, for example for aerobatics. | bell-cot wrote: | tldr version: pilot was extremely lucky, in a situation where he | had no control and/or was blacked out | Overtonwindow wrote: | That was more than just luck, descending in the pressurize suit | and having the presence of mine to understand the situation, | ascertain limitations and abilities, saved his life. He | could've easily panicked on the way down especially with the | oxygen line the way it was. | bell-cot wrote: | Well, yes. But "Lockheed test pilot assigned to fly SR-71's" | kinda guarantees that he's got "great presence of mind", | "never panics", etc. down cold. | gxs wrote: | Right, for example he said he took off his mask so that he | could see his altitude and manually deploy his shoot if | necessary. | | The whole story sounds horrific and it's very unfortunate the | co-pilot died. | | The other bit I found interesting was how they were able to | replicate the accident in a flight simulator. Can you imagine | the work that went into that simulator as well? Would be | awesome to see the systems involved. | | Very cool story - makes you wonder what the state of the art | is. | geocrasher wrote: | The sim also struck me as very interesting, especially for | 1960's technology! How much do you want to bet that they | ran every test flight through the simulator _first_ after | this accident? | hermitdev wrote: | > he took off his mask | | He didn't take off his mask, he took off his visor (or | rather held it out of the way). The flight crew of an SR-71 | wear pressure suits very similar to that of astronauts. The | helmets they were are also similar in appearance, at least. | They've got a "sunglass" visor that slides down over the | transparent bubble of the helmet. This is likely what he | was "removing". It sounded like the latch that would | normally hold it in its stowed position broke, | necessitating him holding it out of the way (mentioned | several times). You can see a close up of the helmet here | [0], full body view [1], side view with the visor up [2]. | The crew doesn't wear a mask light you'd see in, say, a | fighter jet. The entire suit is pressurized. I'm not even | sure a crew member is capable of removing their helmet | without assistance. They certainly need help getting the | entire suit, gloves and helmet on & sealed. | | [0] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brian_Shul_in_t | he_co... [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SR71_c | rew.jpg#/media... [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi | le:Brian_Shul_in_the_co... | robonerd wrote: | Luck and great engineering. You're right, by the pilot's | admission he was only along for the ride once the plane | disintegrated. The headline could be seen as a bit misleading, | but the story as told by the pilot is pretty interesting. | TrevorJ wrote: | Reminds me of a quote attributed to Picasso: Inspiration | exists, but is has to find us working. The hard engineering | work and planning is what enabled the good luck to exist. | moritonal wrote: | "along for the ride" as 100 engineer's work simultaneously | attempt to keep him alive. | robonerd wrote: | The work of the engineers that kept him alive was all done | before the accident, not simultaneous to it. When the | accident was unfolding, the engineers were either unaware | or assumed the pilot was dead. | dtparr wrote: | I parsed it the way you did at first, but on second | reading, I believe it could be rephrased to "the work of | 100 engineers simultaneously attempt" to make it clear | the simultaneity referenced all the various systems | working together. | moritonal wrote: | Ah, my dyslexic brain might have misused an apostrophe? | | My belief is that "engineer's work" changed the subject | to the work. | | Whilst "engineers work" makes the subject the engineers. | Is that right or wrong? | dboreham wrote: | The unstart problem was eventually solved by microelectronics | becoming sufficiently advanced to add a digital computer | controlling each engine spike, I believe based on a 68k. | beagle3 wrote: | Tangentially related: An F-15 pilot managed to land an F-15 with | (essentially) one wing. https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/that-time- | an-f-15-landed-withou... , and | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxJcEz3h4tU | more_corn wrote: | This is the most exciting story I've read this year. What a ride. | The bit at the end about his copilot wondering if he's still | there was awesome. Netflix should make a series about this. | iammru wrote: | I'm also curious how Marevick survived the destruction of | Darkstar going Mach 10. | bell-cot wrote: | Plot armor. | the_watcher wrote: | Randall Munroe references this in an answer to a What If? | question (my very quick Google of it doesn't find it on the site, | so it might be book only). | labrador wrote: | If like me you have a hard time reading this low contrast text, | here's a bookmarklet to bold it | javascript:(function(){let list = | document.getElementsByTagName('p'); for (let element of list) { | element.style.fontWeight = 'bold'}})(); | mattlondon wrote: | I love hearing these stories about these little automatic backups | and failsafes kicking-in and heroically doing their jobs in the | case of unthinkable situations (e.g the flight suit emergency | oxygen, automatic parachute etc here). I get kinda goose pimples | thinking about all the systems that were probably spasmodically | firing off in that last second or two or flight (and perhaps in | the split seconds after breakup if they had power still?), trying | their damn best to valiantly do their final important tasks, even | when doomed to fail. | | Kudos to all the engineers involved. | | Anyone got any other first-hand stories or links to similar | stuff? | mzs wrote: | Auto-GCAS https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/features/auto- | gcas_pe... | jaywalk wrote: | I've watched the video on that page numerous times, and it's | still amazing. | austinl wrote: | I'd highly recommend the book _Skunk Works_ by Ben Rich. It 's | about the engineering team at Lockheed Martin that designed the | Blackbird (and the U-2, and several other amazing planes), and | describes many of the engineering challenges in detail. | jeffdn wrote: | Such a fascinating read! I particularly enjoyed the part | where they are testing the radar cross section of Have Blue, | the initial design for the F-117. They had put it up on the | test stand, but think the radar is malfunctioning, as they | don't see any returns on the scope. Finally, they get a tiny | return -- a bird had landed on the test object! | hef19898 wrote: | The F-117 is such great plane, and defense project. | Developed as complete black project, it was delivered in | time and, allegedly, in budget. The latter point is hard to | verify, after all they used parts from the F-15 and F-16 | programms. Up to the point where congress challenegd the | spare needs for those programms. | | Plus, it was a beautiful plane. | bee_rider wrote: | The B-2 and F-117 are so bizarre and alien looking | compared to everything that came before and after (in a | good way). If we were picking planes for a space opera, | IMO the big villain guy would fly around in a B-2, his | minions would get F-117s, and probably the hero would get | a Blackbird (although, with a less menacing paint job). | tomcam wrote: | Analysis: True | NegativeLatency wrote: | There's an audiobook of it which was pretty well done | 0000011111 wrote: | I 2ed this recommendation. After reading the book, I felt | like I understood the fundamentals of why the Blackbird | program was limited in scope and time in contrast to their | cheeper to build and operate style aircraft. | gumby wrote: | I second this recommendation. I've read this book more than | once. I'm amazed at how quickly they developed and shipped | product, and developed their own tooling in the process. | inasio wrote: | My favorite part of the new Top Gun movie was the first 10-15 | minutes. It features a very nice looking plane with a cool | skunk logo [0] | | [0] https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed- | martin/a... | Victerius wrote: | (Spoilers?) | | I thought the Darkstar plane (or a copy, since it | disintegrates in flight) would return at the end of the | movie to save the day or as a surprise, but it didn't. | narrator wrote: | (Spoilers?) | | I don't think disintegrating at mach 10 would be | survivable. You're basically a meteorite at that point | burning up in the atmosphere, not to mention the speed at | which you'll hit the ground even with a parachute if the | parachute could even stay intact at that speed. | twh270 wrote: | Yeah that scene completely ruined my suspension of | disbelief (which was already set to 7/10 because Top Gun | is pure entertainment anyway). | | I guess you could theorize a 'capsule' consisting of some | part of the cockpit that would last long enough to | decelerate the pilot to a "more survivable" speed, no | idea what the engineering tradeoffs are there though. | edrxty wrote: | I got the feeling they recut a lot of the first act in | post. A lot of effort was put into the darkstar both in | production and in marketing and it was turned into a | throwaway | mrguyorama wrote: | I could have literally been thrown together for marketing | reasons. It was turned into a nice promotional event in | both microsoft flight simulator and Ace Combat 7 | MarkMarine wrote: | Spoilers: | | Maverick died during that crash and the whole movie is | just his last DMT hit before brain death. (Not my theory, | lifted from the internets) | [deleted] | K2h wrote: | Related to backups and fail-safes heroically doing their jobs - | Found on HN awhile ago - stories of successful ejection seat | deployment saving each pilots life. https://martin- | baker.com/ejection-tie-club/ | yardie wrote: | I wonder how many HNers grew up on Top Gun and thinking | ejection seats are inherently dangerous because Goose died | while operating one. | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | Ejection seats are inherently dangerous for sure. Even an | ideal ejection is a big enough hit on your spinal column | your height will measure different for a bit afterwards. | fsagx wrote: | Ward Carroll (a former F14 rear-seater) has a good | breakdown on F14 ejection issues (and the dreaded flat | spin) on his youtube channel: | | The Truth About the F-14 and Goose's Death: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwS1k8LKxJg | | Synopsis: Goose's death was based on a real accident, but | ejection protocol was changed by the Top-Gun timeline. Had | Goose followed procedure, he should have survived the | ejection. | Overtonwindow wrote: | Considerably related: if you enjoyed this article, you need to | see Top Gun Maverick for its SR | aliswe wrote: | SR? | forbiddenlake wrote: | The article is about the SR-71 Blackbird. The new Top Gun | features a plane based on the unreleased SR-72. | royalewithchees wrote: | "Pete Mitchell explains how he survived his SR disintegration | at a speed of Mach 10.4." | munchler wrote: | Good story. I think this line was the most surprising to me: | | > The SR-71 had a turning radius of about 100 mi. at that speed | and altitude | s1artibartfast wrote: | Keep in mind it is traveling at 2,200 MPH so it both has an | immense amount of inertia, and also travels through that turn | faster than it might sound. | | At speed, that is about 4 minutes to make a 90 degree turn, | traveling an arc length of 160 miles. | kurthr wrote: | "On the planned test profile, we entered a programmed 35-deg. | bank turn to the right. An immediate unstart occurred on the | right engine, forcing the aircraft to roll further right and | start to pitch up. I jammed the control stick as far left and | forward as it would go. No response. I instantly knew we were in | for a wild ride." ... at Mach 3.2 and 78k ft. | eismcc wrote: | "unstart" - while a terrifying euphemism - is there is reason | "stall", or similar, is not used? | chiph wrote: | Because "inlet fart", while descriptive of what happens, | wasn't socially acceptable. | corrral wrote: | Looks like it's a technical term for a particular type of | supersonic behavior: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unstart | eismcc wrote: | The semantics is start/unstart are definitely more | interesting in this context and seem less dramatic in the | context of wind tunnel tests | hinkley wrote: | In movies you see military folks with a very dry sense of | humor. Doubly so for Airforce/Navy pilots, and then test | pilots just bury the needle. | | Having worked with a few different veterans over the years | (army, Intelligence, and submarine) I don't have anything in | my small but diverse sample size that disagrees with that | mythos. | | Golden Era NASA was mostly pilots and quite a few of them | test pilots. "Houston, we have a problem" is iconic but as | far as I can tell, not exceptional. | yesenadam wrote: | I read Chuck Yeager's autobiography when I was a kid. I | remember from that that when a fellow test pilot fatally | crashed, they'd say he "bought the farm". | eismcc wrote: | I do wonder if the words should be further away from each | other phonetically though - start ... unstart seem close | enough to be confused if the radio is noisy | jaywalk wrote: | Nobody is going to be talking about an unstart over the | radio in an emergency situation. It took 2-3 seconds | between the unstart and the aircraft disintegrating. | marktangotango wrote: | > Houston, we have a problem | | A lot of people comment on this, but it succinctly relays | the severity, in that the the pilot is alive, and the radio | works. | sigstoat wrote: | > "unstart" - while a terrifying euphemism - is there is | reason "stall", or similar, is not used? | | "stall" has a specific meaning, and it isn't what happened. | kurthr wrote: | The supersonic shockwave-cone would enter the engine intake, | which leads to an un-start. The weird cones that stick out | the front of the engines can be manipulated to slow down the | incoming air and keep it below supersonic at the intakes, | which is normally done automatically with little analog | computers that apparently failed somewhat regularly and in | this case spectacularly during a banking turn. | Wistar wrote: | In the course of helping an acquaintance do research for a | book, I listened to hours of interviews with an 80 year old | aerodynamics specialist who worked for Boeing for decades. | It was fascinating stuff. One of his specialties was the | design of the inlets for jet engines and, through the | conversation, I learned that the inlet is the entire | aerodynamic approach to the actual engine intake, starting | before the air even encounters any of the structure of the | aircraft. Turns out that certain designs cause turbulence | out in front of the aircraft and all of that path to the | intake must be taken into account. | | He referred to the SR-71 inlet design and called the | potentially catastrophic disruption of the air an "inlet | unstart." | Merad wrote: | An unstart is a specific phenomenon where supersonic flow of | air into the engine gets disrupted. It's very different from | a compressor stall where the airflow _inside_ the engine is | disrupted. Wikipedia has a pretty decent explanation: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unstart | Flatcircle wrote: | wait so did his copilot survive? | dgritsko wrote: | No, unfortunately he did not survive: | | > After helping me with the chute, Mitchell said he'd check on | Jim. He climbed into his helicopter, flew a short distance away | and returned about 10 min. later with devastating news: Jim was | dead. Apparently, he had suffered a broken neck during the | aircraft's disintegration and was killed instantly. Mitchell | said his ranch foreman would soon arrive to watch over Jim's | body until the authorities arrived. | FredPret wrote: | For more like this, read Skunk Works, by Ben Rich, former | director of the same. Brilliant book | anonAndOn wrote: | This story is missing one important detail. It may have seemed | superfluous at the time, but we now know it's not. Did Jim have a | son? | 1shooner wrote: | >"The next day, our flight profile was duplicated on the SR-71 | flight simulator at Beale AFB, Calif. The outcome was identical. | Steps were immediately taken to prevent a recurrence of our | accident." | | When he says 'flight profile', is he referring to the full flight | plan/mission (i.e. it could have been simulated beforehand and | prevented the crash), or does he mean the specific circumstances | that arose during the flight (the malfunction)? | hinkley wrote: | Educated guess they mean the moments leading up to the | accident. FTA this was an incident during a test flight. If | they lost the plane during a normal mission then they'd need | repro steps, but in this case the flight was itself an | experiment, so the distinction between the two is pretty fine. | | > On Jan. 25, 1966 Lockheed test pilots Bill Weaver and Jim | Zwayer were flying SR-71 Blackbird #952 at Mach 3.2, at 78,800 | feet when a serious engine unstart and the subsequent | "instantaneous loss of engine thrust" occurred. | | A bit later he says: | | > "On the planned test profile, we entered a programmed 35-deg. | bank turn to the right. An immediate unstart occurred on the | right engine, forcing the aircraft to roll further right and | start to pitch up. I jammed the control stick as far left and | forward as it would go. No response. I instantly knew we were | in for a wild ride." | sbehere wrote: | Here's another awesome copy-pasta about the SR-71: The speed | check story | | https://www.thesr71blackbird.com/Aircraft/Stories/sr-71-blac... | TimTheTinker wrote: | I think that's an excerpt from Brian Shul's 1994 book _Sled | Driver: Flying the World 's Fastest Jet_. | stevenjgarner wrote: | Brian Shul is such an inspiring speaker and photographer | about both the SR-71 and other things "Over the Rainbow" - | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wigZsFypdyI | mckirk wrote: | That's what I immediately thought of as well; for some reason | the people telling SR-71 stories seem to be great story | tellers, and despite having read the Speed Check Story probably | a dozen times by now, it's hard to resist when it pops up | again. | fmajid wrote: | My favorite SR-71 story is how the CIA set up shell companies | to buy Soviet titanium for it because US production was | insufficient. | | https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/crazy-story-how- | russi... | KennyBlanken wrote: | More specifically, we could mine it and refine it, but | Russian titanium metallurgy was far superior. | shagie wrote: | Another story - Buzzing the tower at Sacramento as told by | Pilot Maury Rosenberg - https://youtu.be/xTJYNq4GQAE | stevenjgarner wrote: | Yes here is the original LA Speed Check Story, told by Brian | Shul: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wigZsFypdyI&t=3350s | abraae wrote: | That guy sure can tell a story. | loeg wrote: | This particular copy-pasta of the story is dated to 2022, but the | story is much older (I mean, obviously it happened in the 60s, | but I think the word-for-word copy is more recent). The story was | published online at least as early as 2007: | https://web.archive.org/web/20071201072335/http://www.916-st... | | Previously discussed: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=133282 (2008) | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=519337 (2009) | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4652643 (2012) | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21500153 (2019) | epc wrote: | The Aviation Week article is dated 8 August 2005: | https://aviationweek.com/sr-71-disintegrates-around-pilot-du... | (subscription req'd). | jacobsievers wrote: | In 2009, 3 Quarks Daily credited this excerpt to an article in | Aviation Week & Space Technology. What date exactly, I couldn't | determine. See | https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/03/sr71-disintegr... | ThinkingGuy wrote: | Also recommended: an interview with a former SR-71 pilot on the | Omega Tau podcast: | | https://omegataupodcast.net/91-flying-the-sr-71/ | pupppet wrote: | Having already read this account I chortled to myself after | watching Tom Gun's Maverick... | | Deleted after people crying spoiler but an event within the first | 10 mins seems like a bit of a stretch. | enlightens wrote: | Or! https://www.vulture.com/2022/05/theory-top-gun-maverick- | is-m... | geocrasher wrote: | I watched this movie just a couple of nights ago, and I have | to admit that this looks very plausible. At the same time, | this very SR-71 breakup story may be the inspiration for the | Darkstar breakup, considering that Lockheed Martin was | involved in the production. | racnid wrote: | I hate the "it was all a dream" take. You see it for | literally every movie and it's a completely lazy way to | analyze a film. I like this idea better; that maybe, just | maybe, they took inspiration from a real life event where | the pilot did survive. There's numerous stories from the | 50's and 60's of pilots landing in farmers fields having | ejected from their disintegrated aircraft. | omnicognate wrote: | Hey, some of us haven't watched it yet! | JackFr wrote: | Spoiler alert! | ceejayoz wrote: | It's not _entirely_ impossible. | | We've used escape capsules instead of ejection seats at times; | the B-58 had a nifty one. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_crew_capsule | jquery wrote: | Spoiler alert... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-06 23:00 UTC)