61–70 of 156 posts
I always preferred the SR-77 Blackbird, myself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I must admit that I picked up on the "SR-1" typo. If this was my local daily rag article, I could forgive, but for a technical publication that is supposed to give us accurate, meaningful data, that immediately sows some distrust that the rest of the information in the article may be suspect. Grammatical errors I can forgive to a certain extent, but getting the designation of the aircraft wrong that is the feature of…
I actually didn't even notice that until you put it in quotes just now.
>The 1980s saw an increase in threats capable to countering the SR-71, including improved enemy air defenses and the introduction of the MiG-31, which was armed with the R-33 air-to-air missile could intercept the Blackbird.
This just breaks my mental parsing, since there are so many ways to fix this:
1. ..MiG, which, being armed with the R-33 missile, could intercept the Blackbird;
2. ..MiG, which was armed with the R-33 missile, and could intercept the Blackbird;
3. ..MiG, which was armed with the R-33 air-to-air missile, and therefore could intercept the Blackbird.
(and so on)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The U-2 was developed in 18 months with COTS goods and requires a finesse to fly that I think would be tough to replicate with computers. 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.
The U-2 is basically a F-104 with glider wings. The landing gear situation is something only crazy cold war people would approve of. It's a testament to the engineering that what was by all rights a quick hack job has managed to stand the test of time.
"just imagine the objections people would have raised to this feature, more parts, it looks funny"
"we wanted to throw a clambshell on it for shits and giggles but the powers that be decided that being able to back up a 2% grade was enough"
"both sets of wheels steer so it's one of the nicest planes to land in a near-hurricane cross wind because it can just crab sideways though the sky and keep the wheels lines up perfectly with the runway"
My favorite story about the SR-71 being badass: http://oppositelock.kinja.com/favorite-sr-71-story-107912704...
That ones great, but I always like the question of how slow it could fly: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-sr-71-blackbirds-most-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"tough to replicate with computers" I was under the impression that computers can fly planes which are impossible for humans to fly (e.g. the F-117, or any fighter with forward-swept wings). Since the U-2 is much closer to a "conventional" aircraft, and can be stick-flown by a human, wouldn't it be a walk in the park for a compute to fly it?
Flappy wings, tough to land. Computers don't fly the F-117, they help humans fly it. The difference between the two is significant.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A good one (although some may dislike it): 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 Mirag…
America, f\ \ k yeah! ... Sarcasm aside, wouldn't this be a severe case of violation of sovereignity? I find it hard to believe such a stupid act could have been performed without making news or retaliations. (By stupid act I mean entering unpermitted airspace, the pilot's actions are irrelevant)
So when a French commander calls up an American commander about some crap their lads pulled flying by in an SR-71 the other day, they're able to sort it out like adults, maybe the American commander relays that he will give his lads whatever the military equivalent of a stern talking to is and they'll both have a laugh, maybe make arrangements for a beer and it doesn't escalate into anything for the masses to waste their limited attention bandwidth on.
Now it's entirely possible I don't live in such a world, but to believe otherwise would simply leave me scared shitless in a corner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A good one (although some may dislike it): 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 Mirag…
America, f\ \ k yeah! ... Sarcasm aside, wouldn't this be a severe case of violation of sovereignity? I find it hard to believe such a stupid act could have been performed without making news or retaliations. (By stupid act I mean entering unpermitted airspace, the pilot's actions are irrelevant)
Everyone largely agreed it wasn't in anyone's best interest to talk about it publicly though.
I always preferred the SR-77 Blackbird, myself.
"Blackbird" was the moniker for the SR-71. I've never heard of the SR-77. Either you have information on a super secret skunk works project, or else I suspect you might be taking the mickey out of the editors of the article for their SR-1 typo?