Live data from Hacker News

Blackbird SR-71 Flight Manual (2010)

sr-71.org

91–100 of 156 posts

Re: Blackbird SR-71 Flight Manual (2010)

#91

In 1990/91 I was stationed at a base that once was a home for the SR-71. By the time I got there, though, they'd been retired. Some of the spoken-word mythology that was shared with me by some of the AF elders: * Each flight cost about $1M * The SR-71 was so loud and created such massive sound waves, the crew chiefs had to be really far away from the ship when talking to the pilots inside so that their internal organ…

I wonder how the pilots managed to consult this manual while wearing big bulky astronaut gloves.

There's so much raw data in the manual, I can't imagine they were expected to memorise it all. Though I'm sure you need to have a very good memory to qualify as an SR-71 pilot.

Re: Blackbird SR-71 Flight Manual (2010)

#93
post #31

Posting this here hoping that someone with more knowledge can enlighten me about this. After going down a bit of the rabbit hole, I see that the SR-71's first flight was in 1964. It has held the record for fastest air-breathing manned aircraft[0] since 1976. What is the reason that given all of the technological advances that record hasn't been broken? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_airspeed_record

No one has answered why; only answers have been "no marketable product".

There are several technical reasons why, none of which have been been subject to any technological advances in half a century.

1) There's a buffer factor where burning fuel adds a thousand degrees (or whatever) to temp of the air in the engine and steel / titanium / classified will melt several hundreds of degrees above that. Most all jet engines can only work with subsonic airflow. Supersonic aircraft use exotic inlet designs that are inefficient but can convert fast air into very hot compressed air. Somewhere around mach 2 to mach 4 the inlet air temp plus the heat of burning fuel will melt any metal turbine blade. You can pay a lot of money to get a couple mach numbers but fundamentally cheap steel gets you mach 2 and price is no object aerospace material tops out in the mid mach 3 range. True lab experimental materials might survive mach 4 temps, maybe. You just can't get a usable thrust to weight ratio inlet design that works above mach 4 or so.

2) Second aerodynamic problem is if you define "fly" as a lift to drag ratio better than a lawn dart, optimizing wing sweep etc for mach 3+ means its a truly awful performer below 5000 feet or so. Its hard to make an aircraft that actually "flies" above mach 4. Space shuttle L/D ratio was around or below 1:1. Essentially things flying thru the air above mach 4 don't fly in the sense of wings producing lift, they're ballistic trajectory like a missile or bullet, don't bother slapping wings on them.

None of the above can be solved with faster computer cycles. Titanium still melts at the same temp, etc.

Re: Blackbird SR-71 Flight Manual (2010)

#94
post #18

I once got around two thirds through a certificate for flying ultralight planes. It sort of stopped making sense to me when we were practicing emergency landings over forest and I was told to aim for trees with thinner trunks. This is sitting inside a cramped metal can with the engine in your lap and propeller in your face. There are so many ways to die in that situation that focusing on the diameter of tree trunks w…

Landing on top of a dense forest is surprisingly survivable. It is actually more so than landing on top of suburbia

There is a testimony of a small girl who survived the entire dislocation of her plane while at 5000m over the amazon forest.

She had no bone hurt and a dozen people survived. Minus the injuries due to spending 10 days without disinfectant in the jungle.

Re: Blackbird SR-71 Flight Manual (2010)

#95
post #6

The maintenance manual is a fun read too. A lot of the repair procedures end with PTF. That means “Pound to Fit” (with a hammer or mallet). The panels flexed so much that they would come back a different shape than they were manufactured and had to be hammered into place.

Why were instruments (instruments? or panels?) so flexible? Was ut to sustain altitude, pressure, G and speed?

Re: Blackbird SR-71 Flight Manual (2010)

#96
post #89
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would think you'd want a good clump of green tree canopy to hopefully take the impact "slowly" and stop the plane without the sudden smashing associated with crashing. Such as: http://www.fox5ny.com/news/plane-stuck-in-tree-idaho

Perhaps the smaller trees would be more likely to bend/snap, absorbing more energy

1. Scout out some good softwood.

Re: Blackbird SR-71 Flight Manual (2010)

#97
post #6

The maintenance manual is a fun read too. A lot of the repair procedures end with PTF. That means “Pound to Fit” (with a hammer or mallet). The panels flexed so much that they would come back a different shape than they were manufactured and had to be hammered into place.

Why were instruments (instruments? or panels?) so flexible? Was ut to sustain altitude, pressure, G and speed?

If I recall correctly the plane was built to stretch at high speeds, so the panels were designed to be loose, and the plane would leak a lot of fuel until it reached optimal speeds.

Re: Blackbird SR-71 Flight Manual (2010)

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking of humour, I can't tell what I find funnier: the fact that someone didn't see how these checklist items could possibly be construed as humorous, or your clinically precise explanation of the concept of humour itself, complete with a mechanistic explanation and example. Together, they're a beautiful example of the tone of HN.

Everyone says they're funny because they're unexpected, but simple direction and plain language is exactly what I'd expect from an aviation checklist, so I have no idea.

It's not just they're unexpected. They're both expected and unexpected. You also expect a manual to have details. It's the sudden ending that is both fitting and not fitting that creates the humour shock.

Re: Blackbird SR-71 Flight Manual (2010)

#99
post #11

There's a video walking you through the SR-71's cockpit which I found really interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj9UwKQKE3A

13m04s: "Some guys were getting bank angles up around 60 degrees of bank at mach 3 and it just, uh, that's not good. Come very very close to losing the airplane." [He then proceeds to talk about a lamp.]

Re: Blackbird SR-71 Flight Manual (2010)

#100
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why were instruments (instruments? or panels?) so flexible? Was ut to sustain altitude, pressure, G and speed?

If I recall correctly the plane was built to stretch at high speeds, so the panels were designed to be loose, and the plane would leak a lot of fuel until it reached optimal speeds.

Q: How do you know there's fuel in the Blackbird?

A: It's leaking.

Post reply on HN