[HN Gopher] SR-71 Blackbird Speed Check Story ___________________________________________________________________ SR-71 Blackbird Speed Check Story Author : wallflower Score : 160 points Date : 2023-05-23 09:23 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (www.thesr71blackbird.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.thesr71blackbird.com) | gcanyon wrote: | To me the "slowest speed" story is better: | https://www.thesr71blackbird.com/Aircraft/Stories/sr-71-blac... | NKosmatos wrote: | I've read/seen both of these stories many times and everytime I | come across them, I re-read them :-) Can't get enough of SR-71 | stories. | austinl wrote: | I'd recommend reading Skunk Works by Ben R. Rich for more on the | engineering of the Blackbird and other special aviation projects. | | I knew the Blackbird was fast, but didn't quite realize how fast | until reading this book. The SR-72 would cruise at Mach 3, or | three times the speed of sound. It would do this at 80,000 feet, | over twice the traditional cruising altitude of a 747. Even at | this height, where the temperature is -60degF, friction would | cause the fuselage to heat to 600degF. This would melt | traditional aircraft, so the plane was built with titanium | (ironically supplied by the Soviet Union). The Blackbird used to | overfly North Korea five days a week in just ten minutes. | nehal3m wrote: | According to this [0] article it leaks fuel sitting on the | runway because: | | "The fuel system of the SR-71 could not be sealed permanently | because there simply were no sealants that were flexible and | durable enough to deal with those kind of temperatures and | shrinking-expansion cycles." | | I think that says enough about how bonkers fast that thing is. | | [0] https://nodum.org/was-sr-71-blackbird-leaking-fuel/ | SkyMarshal wrote: | Yeah, heat expansion made it airtight at Mach 3, but sitting | on a runway with its parts contracted back to normal | dimensions, it had leaks. | GartzenDeHaes wrote: | Not just on the runway. The hangers had big drains in them to | catch the fuel and anyone unfortunate enough to have to work | under the plane would get soaked. "Hey, I think the plane is | leaking" -- me. | carabiner wrote: | I've got a lil titanium bowl for camping. Feels like alien | material, it's so light and feels like you could snap it, but | then it's incredibly strong. I used it in the oven last night | to make TikTok feta pasta. No worries on being oven safe as its | melting temp is 3,000degF. | canadianfella wrote: | [dead] | jacquesm wrote: | Try working it with regular tools and you'll be even more | amazed. It's incredible stuff. | peteradio wrote: | I'm not sure how to take this comment. Is it unworkable or | surprisingly workable? | jacquesm wrote: | Very much unworkable. I got a chunk of titanium tubing at | some point of my more metal oriented years and tried to | do something useful with it, it ate up my tools pretty | quickly. Typical standing time for a regular HSS bit was | < 1 hole. Carbide did a bit better, but still that too | went much faster than usual. | VBprogrammer wrote: | It's quite well known for being difficult to machine | generally. | nickff wrote: | Titanium is very hard to work with; for instance the | carbide coatings on many drill-bits can cause it to | degrade over time. Tooling for production of the | blackbirds was a challenge in and of itself, as little | was known about working with titanium at the time. | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | The more you cut titanium the harder it gets. It can eat | even carbide drill / mill tools. Welding it is a | nightmare. | carabiner wrote: | Yeah I used to work in aerospace (defense) and was shown a | large part, about 3 feet wide, with very complex geometry | that was machined from a huge solid chunk of titanium. They | said that one part was worth $1 million, on a vehicle that | cost total $80m or so. I'm guessing a lot of it was due to | difficulty in fabrication. | simlevesque wrote: | > No worries on being oven safe as its melting temp is | 3,000degF. | | Two things: | | - Your bowl is most likely not pure titanium and is probably | made of an alloy. | | - Over 1,200F titanium produces titanium dioxide and may give | you titanium dioxide poisoning. | carabiner wrote: | It's grade 1 unalloyed titanium from Snow Peak: | https://www.snowpeak.com/blogs/explore/ultralight- | everything with the lowest oxygen content. Your hazard | warnings are noted though, and I definitely will keep it at | lower temps. | | I've also got their titanium flask. I had it engraved from | a random guy on youtube who had experience engraving on Ti, | because everyone else I contacted (mostly jewelry shops) | could only anodize it. | petsfed wrote: | If there was a way to bend this particular exchange into | the style of the article, I would. Its definitely in the | same spirit. | AlbertCory wrote: | My oven only goes to 500F. Some go to 550F. Even Ooni's are | 1000F at most. | | What does yours do? | simlevesque wrote: | Well most oven won't burn any of your cookware no matter | the material. | | I just wanted to emphasize that there are danger below | 3,000F. | antod wrote: | Our wedding rings are titanium. The engineering geek in me | loves it for nerdy reasons, and the metal allergies in my | wife love it for other reasons. | alsodumb wrote: | My materials science professor always used ring as an | example in intro to matse classes of what not to do with | titanium. | | His point was that if you ever get into an accident and the | first responders have to cut your ring for whatever reason | (MRI machine, etc.), literally none of their tools would be | able to do that on a titanium ring. None of the tools in | hospital would work either. It may not always be feasible | to pull it out the usual way. | | Take it as you will. | debatem1 wrote: | Unfortunately, this is an urban legend. While titanium is | amazing stuff a normal ring cutter can go through it. | vegasbrianc wrote: | Can also recommend this book. Good read. | SkyMarshal wrote: | /second that book, one of the best on US aviation history and | engineering. | | Also iirc, ironically the technique for shaping the F-117 to | reflect away radar came from a Soviet journal article on | shaping nosecones to minimize their interference on radar | emanating from them. | Loughla wrote: | What blows my mind is that this aircraft was originally shown, | formally, in 1964. | | 1.9.6.4. | | They had this level of engineering in 1964. | | Just imagine what shit goes on behind closed doors today. It | really does sort of stagger you. | game_the0ry wrote: | Given how bloated and wasteful our government is today, and | how much the dept of defense blew on the F-35, I would be | staggered if anything useful happens behind closed doors, | besides corruption. | | I think we were able to accomplish a lot more in the past. | Mistletoe wrote: | Powerpoint was created in 1987 and it was all downhill from | there according to the military. | | https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/04/why- | the... | bragr wrote: | >Given how bloated and wasteful our government is today, | and how much the dept of defense blew on the F-35 | | You are listening to the fighter plane mafia too much. F-35 | is a capable platform with a reasonable but large price tag | for those capabilities. If you want to have a discussion of | those capabilities, and whether those are needed, that's | fine, but "big price tag == corruption" isn't a self | supporting argument. | game_the0ry wrote: | > "big price tag == corruption" | | The DoD has failed 5 audits in a row. Take that however | you want. | nradov wrote: | The DoD has had screwed up accounting systems for decades | because Congress never appropriated funding to fix them. | When the audits started a few years ago there was no | expectation that they would pass. The goal is to identify | the problems so that they can gradually be fixed without | disrupting ongoing operations. | m348e912 wrote: | >>F-35 is a capable platform with a reasonable but large | price tag for those capabilities. | | We might have a different understanding of what | reasonable actually means. I am curious if you are | willing to share your understanding of how much has been | spent to-date on the the F-35 program and your thoughts | on how that price tag may be considered reasonable for | what was delivered. I'm not being combative, I am | genuinely curious. | __MatrixMan__ wrote: | The majority of the engineers where I live work for, or | have worked for, defense contractors. I've shut down a | defense contractor recruiter once a week or more for the | last several months. It's insanity. | | I've been a fly on the wall for so many conversations | about the stuff they're accustomed to spending money | on... Fighter plane mafia aside, I have no trouble | believing that that money is going nowhere useful. | oatmeal1 wrote: | F-35 is an awful, awful, awful deal. It's an iteration on | the F-22 that is expected to cost 1.7 trillion dollars in | total. An absolutely unimaginable sum of money. | | https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105943 | ranger207 wrote: | It's $1.7 trillion in 2023 dollars (I think) total costs | across the entirety of the program until 2070 (not sure | if the number is "starting today" or "from the start of | the program in ~1993") for ~2000 planes for the US and | ~1000 for allies (although I don't think the $1.7 | trillion includes allies). But the question isn't "how | much does the F-35 cost", it's "how much more/less does | the F-35 cost compared to whatever else would fulfill its | place". Would that be modernized F-15s and F-16s? Would | those be able to fulfill the requirements set by the Air | Force and indirectly by Congress? Or would there be | another program instead that might cost even more than | $1.7 trillion across ~50 years (or 80 if counting from | the start of the program)? | | Also, the F-35 isn't an iteration on the F-22. It's an | entirely new airplane. It's a bit worse in aerodynamics | but has far better sensors and electronics, reducing the | importance of aerodynamics in the first place. In a | dogfight the F-22 is better; in a realistic engagement | involving multiple platforms and missions being performed | at once with air, sea, and land targets and allies, the | F-35 is better. | | The F-35 program was absolutely mismanaged in its early | years and it's a crime that nothing was done about that. | There's parts of the program that are mismanaged today | (see [0] for examples of what the Air Force is trying to | do to avoid those problems with their next fighter). But | the program now isn't substantially worse than what other | fighters went through, and despite all the program's | failings the product itself is fantastic | | [0] https://www.thedrive.com/the-war- | zone/avoiding-f-35-acquisit... | dragonwriter wrote: | > F-35 is an awful, awful, awful deal. It's an iteration | on the F-22 | | No, its not. While the program was initiated after the | program that built the F-22 its a complement with a | different set of niches, not an iteration on the -22. | Loosely, the F-22 was the successor to the Air Force's | F-15s, and the F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C, was the successor | to...every other contemporary fighter and fixed wing | attack aircraft in the US Air Force, Navy, and Marine | Corps inventory. | AlbertCory wrote: | I've seen the video of Brian telling this story. | | This is a master class in story-telling. It's the polar opposite | of "keep it simple, get to the point, etc. etc." | | He's got you in the palm of his hand, and he's going to keep you | there as long as he wants to. | [deleted] | alberth wrote: | Two things: | | 1. The HN link should be to the actual video of the retired pilot | telling the story firsthand. That's below | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AyHH9G9et0 | | 2. Most former SR-71 pilots consider the story not true, but it's | a fun story to hear nonetheless. | | https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/xis19w/reddits_be... | moron4hire wrote: | The story mentions: | | "There he was, with no really good view of the incredible | sights before us, tasked with monitoring four different radios. | This was good practice for him for when we began flying real | missions, when a priority transmission from headquarters could | be vital." | | Just because military aircraft don't use the same frequencies | as commercial aircraft doesn't mean this SR-71 crew on a | training mission wasn't listening in on commercial air traffic | frequencies. | JackFr wrote: | First the Flaming Hot Cheetos Inventor and now the SR-71 | Speed Check? | | What's next? Am I gonna find out that every TED talk is | basically BS? | LegitShady wrote: | Ted Talks peaked in 2013, with "2070 Paradigm Shift", one | of the best speeches ever in the history of the planet | earth. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmicRDpS5Gk | | Imitated by many, never surpassed. Ted Talks were all | downhill after this one. | emmelaich wrote: | That was fantastic. | | In the same vein sorta, Reggie Watts: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdHK_r9RXTc | | Especially the first 9 minutes. | jaggederest wrote: | > Am I gonna find out that every TED talk is basically BS? | | Uh, hi, I have bad news for you about the quality and | consistency of TED talks... | moron4hire wrote: | That's kinda the joke | michaelteter wrote: | I never tire of that story. | | Growing up in an aviation family, I have heard endless cool | stories (but few so cool). | | One of my favorites was when my grandfather was flying when the | F15 was in early flight development. The skies were much less | busy, and there was a bit less formality. | | Ground knew who was where, so it asked my grandfather, "would you | like to see something interesting?" GD agreed, and moments later | an F15 pulled up alongside him, pointed at an upward angle and | maintaining what was a slow flight speed for it. The two pilots | were close enough to exchange waves, and moments later the F15 | rocketed away. | | Most likely that day, the F15 was the fastest thing in the air | for several hundred miles. | ftxbro wrote: | they should just put this one on automatic rotation on the hacker | news front page like the promoted ycombinator startup ads | camel_gopher wrote: | Farmer: "Slow?" ATC: "Yes" | | Playboy: "Fast?" ATC: "No" | | Stick Jockey: "Fast right?" ATC: "Not bad" | | Sled Driver: "Oh hai" ATC: "Yup goes to 11" | mholt wrote: | Great story. | | Brian Shul died just a few days ago. :( | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Shul | mackeyja92 wrote: | Oh man, this sucks. Learning about it from your comment. I | always wanted to go see one of his speeches. I remember seeing | them on YouTube and they were great. His story is truly | inspirational. His books are incredible as well. I was gifted | signed copies of Sled Driver and The Untouchables and I | honestly treasure them. Guess I'll just have to read them again | today. | hinkley wrote: | The SR-71's actual top speed was classified, and the 'official' | top speed was faster than anything else in production. | | At several points growing up someone would come up with a new | plane that encroached on the SR-71's speed record. Then a couple | weeks later there would be an announcement about the SR-71 | setting a new top speed. | | I suspect someone in Intelligence had to decide that being | officially the fastest was important, but exactly how fast being | a secret made the plane and pilot a little bit safer. So they had | to nudge the fiction a little bit closer to the truth any time | there was a pretender. Or, manufacturing improvements nudged the | maximum safe speed up over time, and they only bothered updating | the public about this when a dick measuring contest was held in | their honor. Or maybe both. | Waterluvian wrote: | It's like the lawyer attitude during a deposition: provide as | little info as necessary. Classified by default. | chipsa wrote: | That said, we both know the shape of the SR-71, and the | Compressor Inlet Temperature limit. The shape determines the | smallest Mach angle that the entire plane fits inside, which | gives a value for the maximum speed. The CIT limit gives a | value for the maximum speed, which is roughly the same as the | Mach angle value, at approximately Mach 3.3. To go faster, the | plane would have to be skinnier, or the wing tips would poke | beyond the Mach cone, and the entire tip would generate it's | own set of shockwaves, which would most likely result in a | sharp increase in temperature for the part outside the cone | (which can be read as: the wing tips melt off). | 542458 wrote: | This might be a dumb question, but isn't that the maximum | _sustained_ speed for the plane, and higher speeds would be | possible for short bursts? (as in, before the wing tips get | hot enough to melt off) | VBprogrammer wrote: | It's just nuts to think about people on Concorde sipping | champagne at Mach 2.04. I wonder if that's something which | will be possible again in my lifetime. | sneak wrote: | It's likely there will be Starship-based passenger | transport from point to point on Earth within 10-15 years. | | The biggest hurdle will be getting countries to allow an | ICBM filled with humans to approach their mainland. | dumpsterlid wrote: | [dead] | JustLurking2022 wrote: | Highly doubt. The Concorde's problem was economics not | science and a rocket based solution is even less | economical - even a reusable one. | kiratp wrote: | Concorde was profitable. Accidents + 9/11 pullback killed | it. The major factor against supersonic is actually the | fact that sonic booms are not allowed over the | continental United states. Companies like Boom Supersonic | are focussed on eliminating those. | | https://simpleflying.com/did-british-airways-make-a- | profit-f... | | > If British Airways and Air France were looking for more | profit, these issues would have to be addressed. And that | was the plan. British and French aerospace divisions were | looking to create a brand new supersonic aircraft before | plans to take the Concorde out of service in 2000 were | realized. | | > Of course, that never happened. With a plethora of odds | stacked against it, the 2000 crash in France, 9/11 | affecting interest, and Airbus scrapping Concorde part | replacements, the Concorde was shelved before its time. | thereisnospork wrote: | For normal people sure, but for VIPs and especially | military it will happen. | | Imagine being able to drop Seal Team Six into Taipei, the | Red Square, or literally any other piece of earth with a | ~50ft clearing on ~30 minutes notice? That's a capability | which is very hard to put a price on. | vkou wrote: | I'd like to not imagine a boots-on-the-ground shooting | war, where you are launching _a craft that is | indistinguishable from an ICBM_ at a nuclear power 's | capital. | | I'd like anyone at the DOD who _is_ imagining it to | either be fired or shot, before they drag the rest of us | into their geno-suicidal fantasies. | moron4hire wrote: | * * * | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | My aunt once rode the concord from Paris back home to NYC | as an indulgence. She ended up sitting next to Jacque | Cousteau of all people and had a fantastic time. It's one | of her favorite stories. | | I'd check into Reaction Engines, and the concept of | precooled jet engines in general. The math says they should | be capable of efficient cruising at speeds up to mach 5. | The question is if anyone can make the engineering | practical and affordable. But in terms of pure possibility, | there's wide open possibilities. | dclowd9901 wrote: | Isn't the temperature on the body surface the big factor | here? The sr-71 would heat up tremendously and it barely | had any air pressure to contend with. | rationalist wrote: | It's a great story that I loved reading, but I'm skeptical by | nature: | | Has there ever been any other recorded witness to this story? | Obviously there was at least 3 other pilots and an air traffic | controller, but I imagine there were more people on frequency at | the time. | | Additionally, can ATC equipment even depict that speed? For | example, modern U.S. ATC equipment will not indicate the altitude | of anything above FL600. | | I remember there being a reddit comment that had quite a few | upvotes debunking the story, but I can't remember what their | reasons were. | joezydeco wrote: | I found this on Reddit which matches up. It's another SR-71 | pilot that says the military aircraft wouldn't even be on the | same radio frequency. But military does transit commercial | space from time to time so you never know. | | https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/xis19w/reddits_be... | | But, then again, doing Mach 2.8 in Class A airspace is kind of | unrealistic. And noisy. | nicoburns wrote: | > But, then again, doing Mach 2.8 in Class A airspace is kind | of unrealistic. | | My understanding is that the SR-71 flies so high (up to | 90,000 feet) that they can go as fast as they like because | there's nothing else up that high. | suzzer99 wrote: | I wonder how loud a sonic boom from that high is at ground | level. | khuey wrote: | https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS | -01... suggests that the SR-71 produces a relatively | small sonic boom at high altitude. | bumby wrote: | I was visiting with a friend in the desert when Virgin | Galactic made it's initial flight into space. I don't | know how high they were when they passed overhead, but it | certainly audible and rattled the garage door. | | Edit: after a quick search, the VSS Unity is released | from the carrier at 50k feet. But now I can't recall if | the boom was on the ascent or on the way back. | kkylin wrote: | What I very vaguely remember, from an airshow at Edwards | AFB commeorating the 50th anniversary of Chuck Yeager's | 1947 flight in the X-1, is that it is clearly audible, | but not so window-shakingly loud as when an F-16 went | supersonic below 10,000 feet (which they weren't supposed | to) where I live. (The latter happened several years ago | during Thunderbirds practice.) | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | https://theaviationgeekclub.com/did-you-know-the- | sr-71-black... | | Some of these incidents are probably false or | exaggerated, but it does seem it produced enough of a | boom to route away from cities. | lmm wrote: | There's a story of an SR-71 nosing around the | Florida/Bahamas/Cuba area only to get a call from ATC | asking them to divert due to traffic. At our altitude? So | the pressure-suited pilots adjust course for a bunch of | French tourists in their jackets and sundresses go past, | because the one other plane that flew that high was | Concorde. | dboreham wrote: | Military aviation uses non-military frequencies to | communicate with ATC, which they do except when operating in | closed airspace. E.g. ATC is notified by the pilot of each | aircraft entering the sidewinder low level training route in | southern CA. | aidenn0 wrote: | I assume they were in Class E (TFA says "uncontrolled | airspace" which E is technically _not_ , but a reasonable | assumption) above Class A. | rationalist wrote: | It was a different thread that I remember. Someone posted the | story as a submission, and one of the top-level comments was | debunking it. My Google-fu used to be extremely good, back | when Google was a good search engine, otherwise I would have | found it by now and posted the link. | | I like the effect that the story has had, but I dislike the | idea that it might have been an exaggeration. | | The author of Sled Driver made a lot of appearances/talks, | but I don't know how much he was paid for them. | | - | | The author states he doesn't normally monitor the frequencies | as that was the other person's job, but the one time he does | monitor, this happens? | | Either things like this happen all of the time, in which case | there would be plenty of people sharing their version of | these kinds of stories, or the pilot got _extremely_ lucky in | his timing. | timerol wrote: | Later in that thread someone mentions that the SR-71 has 4 | radios (like the story mentioned) 2 UHF, 1 VHF, and 1 HF. So | despite not being on the same frequency for most | communications, they were definitely capable of monitoring | and transmitting on civilian frequencies. A bored radio | operator on yet another training flight could easily be | listening into civilian radio traffic. | _whiteCaps_ wrote: | Not an SR-71, but a couple of weeks ago I was listening to | a pilot/amateur radio operator making contacts on the 20m | band while he flew from Texas to Nevada. I'm assuming their | radios are a bit more flexible on what frequencies they can | transmit on. | | Edit -- Found him: https://www.qrz.com/db/K4RNN | mcphage wrote: | For me this is one of those things that's such a fun story, it | hardly matter if it's actually true. | GCA10 wrote: | Oh, it does matter. I've made a living at times from non- | fiction storytelling, and if you don't get in the habit of | sticking to the facts, it's shamefully easy to slide ever | closer to George Santos territory. | | But there's a compromise that will keep us both happy. | Nothing wrong with having this go into the "legends" category | -- where it's harmless fun to keep them circulating. Just as | long as we know that this isn't quite how everything works. | alistairSH wrote: | I always assume stories like these are "fish tales" - | there's a nugget of truth in there somewhere, but with each | retelling, the story gets more exaggerated. | jacquesm wrote: | As a US friend of mine puts it: "Never let the truth get | in the way of a good story". | unionemployee wrote: | Ugh. Aviation before, say, 1990 was amazing. Still necessary to | do things like ground speed checks, non-radar approaches, VOR to | VOR, etc. Real pilot sh*t. And lots of the equipment going back | decades was still flying. An amazing time to be a pilot. Now | everything is so optimized and dumbed down. I was born too late. | anonymousiam wrote: | RIP Brian Shul. | dang wrote: | Related. Others? | | _The Ground Speed Check - Tales from the Blackbird_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36030304 - May 2023 (1 | comment) | | _SR-71 Blackbird 's ground speed check story_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25733807 - Jan 2021 (12 | comments) | | _SR-71 Blackbird 'Speed Check'_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18101839 - Sept 2018 (1 | comment) | | _SR-71 Blackbird Pilot Trolls Arrogant Fighter Pilot with Ground | Speed Check_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10902209 - | Jan 2016 (3 comments) | jabl wrote: | Perhaps this is on occasion of | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36028041 | dang wrote: | Thanks! Macroexpanded: | | _SR-71 pilot, photographer and storyteller Brian Shul dies | at 75_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36028041 - May | 2023 (47 comments) | teachrdan wrote: | My favorite version of this story, from u/buryat: | | SR-71 speed check | | One time we were going fast | | a small plane got on the radio and said "how fast am i going" | | the tower said "you are going fast" | | and then a bigger plane got on the radio and said "haha i think | i am going faster how fast am i going" | | and the tower said "you are going a little faster" | | and then a jet fighter was going really fast and talked like a | really cool guy and said "hey there, I sound like a cool guy, | tell me how fast I'm going" | | and the tower said "you are going very fast" but he sounded | totally normal | | And then I wanted to say something but that was against the | rules, and then the other guy in my plane said "hey tower, are | we going fast" | | and the tower said "yes you are going like a million fast" and | then the guy in my plane said "I think it's a million and one | fast" and then the tower said "lol yeah ur plane is good" | | and then I said "did we just become best friends" | | and the other guy said "yes" | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29373436 | idlewords wrote: | Have you thought of making an evergreen page for frequently | reposted stories like this? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-05-24 23:00 UTC)