Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blackbird SR-71 Flight Manual (2010)

sr-71.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 156 posts

Re: Blackbird SR-71 Flight Manual (2010)

#101

Post by serf »

dylan604 wrote: post #73
Hydraulix989 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, you have no control over the lift surfaces in this scenario. This would be the equivalent of your steering wheel suddenly not turning the wheels.

Except, even if my steering does go out, I can typically hit the brakes and come to a stop. Airplanes do not have that as on option.

the SR-71 , at that point in failure, would still have the opportunity to 'hit the brakes' like you would in your car.

Both vehicles can still veer wildly out of control even under deceleration, sometimes being exaggerated by the event -- so the plane manual recommends ejection rather than other remediating maneuvers because it's understood that further maneuvers may put the plane into such an attitude that ejection is impossible or futile.

So, that said, the SR-71 can still hit the brakes at the point by which their primary control surfaces fail; it's probably just a mighty bad idea to try to do so. There's a few instances in a car that might be a bad idea, too.

Imagine the steering wheel falls off in heavy moderate speed traffic -- in many cases it'd be safer to let the car drift across the road crowning and slow itself on roadside barriers than it would be to slam the brakes and take the full force of the traffic behind you colliding with your vehicle.

Screw it. Where's my automotive ejection seat?

Re: Blackbird SR-71 Flight Manual (2010)

#102

Post by serf »

NortySpock wrote: post #66
erickhill wrote: post #64

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…

Point 3 goes against normal behavior of hot metals, which emit infrared or visible light as they get hotter. It's called black-body radiation, and it's why iron and steel glow in a blacksmith forge. The "moving parts" may be due to heat waves moving through the air (see also: mirage at a distance)

>Point 3 goes against normal behavior of hot metals, which emit infrared or visible light as they get hotter.

You're right. People refer to it as 'transparent' because it begins to glow the same color as the jet plume under afterburner use.

https://gizmodo.com/this-is-an-image-of-the-very-last-test-o...

Re: Blackbird SR-71 Flight Manual (2010)

#103

Post by ncmncm »

NortySpock wrote: post #66
erickhill wrote: post #64

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…

Point 3 goes against normal behavior of hot metals, which emit infrared or visible light as they get hotter. It's called black-body radiation, and it's why iron and steel glow in a blacksmith forge. The "moving parts" may be due to heat waves moving through the air (see also: mirage at a distance)

Differential heating could give the illusion of transparency; really it would just be the metal glowing brighter where something hotter is on the other side.

Re: Blackbird SR-71 Flight Manual (2010)

#104

Post by danaliv »

ColinWright wrote: post #4

A comment[0] by ehnus[1] from last time this was submitted[2] said: > My favorite section is emergency procedures which contains gems like this: > "If both the A and B hydraulic systems fail as indicated by illumination of the A HYD and B HYD warning lights and confirmed by loss of A and B hydraulic pressure and deteriorating control effectiveness: > 1. Eject" ======== [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1338777…

I flew an L-39 with inoperative ejection rockets. The bailout procedure was:

1. Roll inverted.

2. Trim full nose down. (Down = skyward at this point.)

3. Blow canopy.

4. Fall out.

Re: Blackbird SR-71 Flight Manual (2010)

#105

Post by iamtheworstdev »

alex_suzuki wrote: post #45
zackbloom wrote: post #17

Skunkworks [1] is a really great book by the designer of the propulsion system (and subsequently the first stealth airplane). I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to know how many drill bits you burn through trying to build a titanium airplane. 1- https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/skunk-works_ben-r-rich_leo-jan...

I‘d like to second that recommendation. The book certainly won‘t win any literature prizes, but it does tell a fascinating story and gives a glimpse into the „wild west“ engineering culture that created the Blackbird.

If it's the plane equivalent of "Blind Man's Bluff" then I'm in.

Re: Blackbird SR-71 Flight Manual (2010)

#106

Post by walrus01 »

village-idiot wrote: post #69
gavindean90 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically, satellites took over They are cheaper to operate and less vulnerable to defensive countermeasures and other failure conditions. From a Los Angeles Times article from '89 [0]: > "The Air Force decision to retire the Blackbirds in 1990 is based on several factors. In congressional testimony, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Larry D. Welch identified the increased survivability of reconnaissance satellites, SR-7…

They took over, but there’s still an argument for spy planes; satellites arrive on their own schedule in predictable orbits. This makes it very hard to get timely photographs, and it makes them easier to defend against. A spy plane could get in and out of a trouble spot within an hour, all before the enemy can hide the nukes or whatever. A modern spy plane however would have to be faster than the SR-71, which I don’t…

Based on the totally amateur knowledge level of someone that once spent a few hours researching stealth satellites (MISTY, etc), there's obviously a demand within the NRO for satellites that can be launched into a known orbit, with published two line elements, and then go stealthy and change their orbit into something which cannot be predicted by enemy nation-state ground forces.

I don't believe anything worthwhile about current capabilities has been declassified, it's all conjecture by people looking at the X-37 and similar systems.

Re: Blackbird SR-71 Flight Manual (2010)

#107

Post by souprock »

jcims wrote: post #87
yutyut wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Must be nice to have that luxury. The same emergency in the AH-1Z basically says "good luck." Granted, a hydraulic failure of two redundant and independent systems is astronomically unlikely (and the outcome will almost certainly be fatal).

Well in that particular case it’s probably still a better option than ejecting.

Because it is a helicopter? Ejection seats have been done for those. Explosive bolts release the blades, and then everything proceeds as normal. Here is one such helicopter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50

Re: Blackbird SR-71 Flight Manual (2010)

#108

Post by js2 »

alexis_fr wrote: post #94
dmitrygr wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wonder if you mean Juliane Koepcke, but she was 17 at the time and the lone survivor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliane_Koepcke

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/authorinterviews/9...

Re: Blackbird SR-71 Flight Manual (2010)

#109

Post by stevetursi »

ColinWright wrote: post #4

A comment[0] by ehnus[1] from last time this was submitted[2] said: > My favorite section is emergency procedures which contains gems like this: > "If both the A and B hydraulic systems fail as indicated by illumination of the A HYD and B HYD warning lights and confirmed by loss of A and B hydraulic pressure and deteriorating control effectiveness: > 1. Eject" ======== [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1338777…

This is almost as good:

WARNING Do not pull the secondary ejection T-handle with the canopy still in place.

https://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/1/1-199.php

Re: Blackbird SR-71 Flight Manual (2010)

#110

Post by ddingus »

danaliv wrote: post #104
ColinWright wrote: post #4

A comment[0] by ehnus[1] from last time this was submitted[2] said: > My favorite section is emergency procedures which contains gems like this: > "If both the A and B hydraulic systems fail as indicated by illumination of the A HYD and B HYD warning lights and confirmed by loss of A and B hydraulic pressure and deteriorating control effectiveness: > 1. Eject" ======== [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1338777…

I flew an L-39 with inoperative ejection rockets. The bailout procedure was: 1. Roll inverted. 2. Trim full nose down. (Down = skyward at this point.) 3. Blow canopy. 4. Fall out.

Every contingency planned for. Love it.
Post reply on HN