

SR-71 Disintegrates Around Pilot During Flight Test (in 1966) - frisco
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/sr-71_break-up.htm

======
ryanwaggoner
Amazing story.

Read the story carefully. Note the incredible details of what that aircraft
could do. Now read this line again:

 _By far, the most memorable flight occurred on Jan. 25, 1966._

This was more than four _decades_ ago. Can you imagine what they're doing
today? In some ways, it makes me angry, because I suspect that the military
solved some engineering challenges decades ago that scientists are still
wrestling with today.

~~~
rudyfink
If you like that sentiment, you will probably like Burt Rutan's talk at Ted (
[http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/burt_rutan_sees_the_futur...](http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/burt_rutan_sees_the_future_of_space.html)
). The theme is a lack of progress in aerospace and how to resolve it.

~~~
pchristensen
Seconded. That's one of my favorite TED talks.

------
jwilliams
The SR-71 was an amazing piece of engineering.

The panels actually didn't line up - as they expanded when it got warm. So
basically at take off the aerodynamics of the plane were shot - you had to fly
for a bit for it to hit normal performance (it also meant it literally leaked
until it got hot enough and sealed).

~~~
g2petter
Which is why they took off with a minimum of fuel, flew around to heat up, and
then refueled in mid-air.

------
comatose_kid
From the SR-71 wikipedia entry:

"A defensive feature of the aircraft was its high speed and operating
altitude, whereby, if a surface-to-air missile launch were detected, standard
evasive action was simply to accelerate."

~~~
pieterbreed
There is a rumor going around in the South African Air Force that the South
Africans with the help of the Israeli Air Force (who had big ties in the bad
old days) figured out a way to shoot the SR71s down. It had to do with a
technique called storm-climbing (which was novelized by Wilbur Smith in 'Eagle
in the Sky') where a normal fighter aircraft would go full-tilt with maximum
weight in a downward trajectory, flatten out the dive, dump excess weight, and
start climbing vertically. This way the pilots would get to an altitude where
the missiles could get a successful lock, which in this case was far higher
than the 'normal' ceiling for these aircraft. From this height they could then
fire off the missiles. I'm not at all sure if they ever attempted it, but I'm
pretty sure they didn't succeed. Still in interesting thing to hear :)

~~~
Rod
That _storm-climbing_ maneuver sounds really cool!!! Do you have more detailed
info on that? Other than Wilbur Smith's novel, that is.

It reminds me of that classical optimal control problem in the 1960s: the U.S.
Air Force wanted to find the fastest climb for its F-4 Phantoms (so they could
reach their operational ceiling ASAP to intercept Soviet bombers). The optimal
path was counter-intuitive: first climb, then dive, reach supersonic, climb
again. Sounds crazy, but they could reduce the climbing time dramatically that
way!

~~~
nuclear_eclipse
I've actually noticed that behavior myself when screwing around in X-Plane
with the F-4E; I take off at low-speed, high AOA to gain a few thousand feet,
and then drop the nose at full afterburner to use both the engines and gravity
to go transsonic, at which point the F-4 can accelerate faster, and maintain a
higher angle of climb without losing velocity, due to the "lower" drag at
supersonic speeds.

I had figured it was perhaps a weird characteristic of the simulation's
breakdown of airframe components, but if that's how things worked in the real
F-4's, that just gives me that much more respect for the physics simulation in
X-Plane. No wonder it's FAA certified :)

~~~
Rod
The seminal paper in which these findings were published:

 _BRYSON, A.E. and DENHAM, W.F., "A steepest-ascent method for solving optimum
programming problems," Trans. ASME. J. Appl. Mechanics, June 1962, pp.
247-257._

I can't find a PDF copy anywhere. It sucks. If you want to read a non-
technical paper on it, try this one:
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=00506395>

------
cdr
This has been posted regularly to Digg, Reddit, etc for years. Guess it's HN's
turn - though I'm surprised it hasn't come up already.

~~~
brandnewlow
_ahem_

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=133282>

~~~
hussong
Thanks for digging, I knew I had seen this before. Amazing story anyway.

------
jbyers
... in 1966.

Perhaps there should be an HN rule about dating articles not from this year in
their titles? That said, this is a great story.

~~~
paulgb
I've noticed a number of people following the convention of putting the year
in parenthesis at the end of a dated article. It would be great if everyone
followed this. (Edit: just noticed this article follows the convention; I
assume that the title was edited after your comment)

------
chadgeidel
Also take a look at "Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years of Lockheed"
by Ben Rich (manager at Lockheed after Kelly Johnson). Despite the title, he
also talks extensively about the U2 and SR-71 projects - Amazing pieces of
engineering all.

[http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-
Lockheed/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-
Lockheed/dp/0316743003)

------
mugwunk
I always thought it would be safer to stick the pilot in the center of the
plane, using periscopes or (now) video to fly. But I guess you're more likely
to be thrown free of a disintegrating plane if you're in the usual pilot
position.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Like the pilot said, though, it was only incredible luck that left him alive.
I doubt that your odds are significantly improved or decreased by where you're
sitting if your supersonic airplane falls apart around you.

------
fnazeeri
Awesome! I loved the SR-71 as a kid and have been wondering what the
replacement (Aurora) can do. I'm sure my son (now 3) will be fascinated!

------
froo
Simply awe inspiring. Bookmarked for sure.

I've recently started assembling an SR-71 kit (with an f-117 to go) because
I've always wanted the models sitting on my bookshelf.

