Talk:Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird

to remove the nonsense

Please remove this popular nonsense:SR-71 pilot Brian Shul states in his book The Untouchables that he flew in excess of Mach 3.5 on 15 April 1986 over Libya to evade a missile. On April 15, 1986 over Libya, the SR-71 did not Dodge the s-200 missile, but flew around the area where the S-200 complex was located. And Speed was 3.15 Mach, not 3.5.[1]. boastful stories of retired pilots have no place in the encyclopedia, as well as fantastic stories of fishermen and hunters. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelmen220 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The text clearly says "states in his book" which is a kind of quoting – removal reverted. --Zac67 (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that with the declassification of the SR-71 Flight Manual we find that despite Brian Shul's assurances, the SR-71 can't fly in excess of Mach 3.5, now the speed limitations are in black & white in the manual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Simpson54 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

"he states in his book" is equivalent to "he claims". That claim is a fact to read in his book, regardless of whether the claim itself is true. --Zac67 (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Maximum Speed

There is a problem with the maximum speed listed.

It is quoted as Mach 3.2 with 3.3 when a specific metric is met.

The problem is Mach 3.2 = 2455mph or 2133.5 knots but the maximum speeds listed do not match the calculated speed when you converts Mach to mph or knots.

I tend to believe the Mach number to be accurate (probably faster still, we may never know?) but can somebody investigate and edit the maximum speed numbers so they are consistent in their accuracy?

Thanks 115.64.74.126 (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You can't use the speed of sound at standard conditions (sea level, 15°C). The speed of sound and subsequently the Mach number vary with temperature. Between 12,000 and 24,000 m the speed of sound is roughly 295 m/s or 660 mph. --Zac67 (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

To show the difference, {{convert}} has a Mach facility that accepts height as a parameter.

Height	Markup	Displayed
0 ft	{{convert|3.2|Mach|altitude_ft=0|mph knot}}	Mach 3.2 (2,440 mph; 2,120 kn)
40000 ft	{{convert|3.2|Mach|altitude_ft=40000|mph knot}}	Mach 3.2 (2,110 mph; 1,840 kn)
85000 ft	{{convert|3.2|Mach|altitude_ft=85000|mph knot}}	Mach 3.2 (2,140 mph; 1,860 kn)
100000 ft	{{convert|3.2|Mach|altitude_ft=100000|mph knot}}	Mach 3.2 (2,160 mph; 1,880 kn)
0 ft	{{convert|3.3|Mach|altitude_ft=0|mph knot}}	Mach 3.3 (2,510 mph; 2,180 kn)
40000 ft	{{convert|3.3|Mach|altitude_ft=40000|mph knot}}	Mach 3.3 (2,180 mph; 1,890 kn)
85000 ft	{{convert|3.3|Mach|altitude_ft=85000|mph knot}}	Mach 3.3 (2,210 mph; 1,920 kn)
100000 ft	{{convert|3.3|Mach|altitude_ft=100000|mph knot}}	Mach 3.3 (2,230 mph; 1,940 kn)

The height parameter makes an estimate of the temperature and pressure at that altitude.  Stepho  talk  22:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Mach only depends on temperature. In practice the top speed was set by the skin temperature (from memory), which would have varied at a given mph depending on both the density and the temperature of the air. Mach only depends on one of those things. That is they could fly at higher mach at higher altitudes, even at the same atmospheric temperature, because the density was lower. https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/aerodynamic-heating-calculator-advanced.84537/ has an interesting discussion Greglocock (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

In Popular Culture?

How about an "in popular culture" section? X-men, etc. Theanthrope (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

No! See WP:TRIVIA.  Stepho  talk  01:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

We have a special place for that sort of information: Aircraft in fiction § Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird. However, it doesn't currently list the X-men, and probably won't. BilCat (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Red warning stripes

ref "unsourced OR" revert:

it's ok to change sourced information if it's obviously incorrect. In this case the source uses incorrect terminology. Actually red stripes alone are not even an adequate warning. They will be ignored if there are no red words with the stripes, probably "NO STEP" in this case or words explaining why the stripes are there. As an example this Hawkeye has 2 separate stripes with applicable words, one to warn of whirling propeller blades and one to warn of location of disintegrating starter turbine.

Note red danger stripes for propeller and starter

To illustrate the distinction between warning and prevention see this Crusader

F-8J Crusader on display at the Air Zoo

The red stripes only warn not to get sucked in. Prevention requires a wire mesh screen to be in place. Pieter1963 (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Accounting for my edit on the Baltic Express

Five years ago, Ninjalectual (talk · contribs) tagged the second paragraph of the European flights section with {{clarify}}, apparently due to unsatisfactory phrasing and link rot. In repairing the dead link, I encountered information which prompted a rewrite of the second paragraph, and the inclusion of a map and a quite relevant image. The clarification prompted two new sections, one on the route and the geography of the Baltic sea, and the other on Soviet intercepts. It was also natural to either mention or include links to the Cold War relations of Sweden/USA/USSR, scrambling, the nature of intercepting foreign military aircraft and simulated shoot-downs, as well as adding a source (ref name=rbth2012) from the MiG-25 article, and also a new one I found (ref name=AGCViggen).

I included the map of the Baltic sea in order to illustrate the Baltic express route. However, it has some problems. It's a modern map, which means that it doesn't show the Soviet union. It doesn't show airspace borders. It doesn't highlight the key corridors (DDR/Malmö & Gotland/Öland). And it doesn't show the Baltic express route. Despite all this, I would argue that the map still provides clarifying information to the reader about the Baltic operations mentioned in this section. (Some more locations for a custom map: "Codan", Finow-Eberswalde, Stockholm (and possibly other capitals), Ä,R,N,V,P,H,T)

Lastly, I added a photo with dual significance to the final paragraph. Not only is the photographed event mentioned in the text, but the nested operational photo that's displayed at the event is reportedly the only time an SR-71 has been photographed during an intercept. (It's a commons file. And the original copyright for both appears to have belonged to the Swedish government. So the nesting shouldn't be a problem.) BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Interesting contribution – however, the picture in front on the Air Medal photo is clearly a painting. Might the photo be the one in the back? --Zac67 (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't catch that. Just assumed that one of the reinforcing fighters had taken a photo, and that they displayed it for the occasion. Yes, the intercept photo that the sources mention might be the one displayed on the screen in the back. The caption should be changed. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)