Talk:Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird

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)

Factual errors needing correction in future

1. The SR-71 was based off the YF-12 interceptor, not the A-12. The SR-71 has the same weapons bays and nose bay, while the A-12 has a large central bay. The YF-12 and SR-71 are so similar that a damaged SR-71 was repaired by cutting a YF-12 in half and joining them. This is not possible with the A-12.

2. The SR-71 was not retired for political reasons, it was retired after a CIA report found that it was causing extremely excessive attrition of ground crews, who were pulled from other squadrons in large numbers. The additional training was so excessive that enlisted personnel only had 18 months remaining on their contracts by the time training was complete, requiring several times the number of crews for a given amount of contracts. It also was an extreme burden to maintain, causing nearly all enlisted personnel to refuse to reenlist. The turbines also had a terrible TBO of only a few hundred hours.

3. The engines reached maximum temperature at Mach 2.4, requiring gradual reduction of turbine rpms to maintain temperature as intake temperature increased above mach 2.4. The article says the overheating is caused by fuel flow, but it is not. The manual clearly shows maximum fuel flow available to Mach 3.2 as long as rpms are not exceeded. 2600:1008:B062:697C:E0:241C:CEE6:ED14 (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm interested in trying to correct anything (usually engine) if I am able. I'm stuck with para 3 though as I cannot find in the manual where it says max fuel is used up to M3.2. What page says this? Thanks. Pieter1963 (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Correction of Factual Error about Acquisition of Titanium

Arg. For the umpteenth time, I see a very misinformed quote about the rarity of titanium ORE as the reason Lockheed needed to get titanium METAL from the Soviet Union. OMG, people, what do you think is used as the white base for all of the paint on your house, after lead oxide was banned? Titanium Dioxide is super common, found everywhere, and is dirt cheap to produce. 95% of all titanium is found naturally as titanium dioxide. Rutile, mentioned in the now deleted quote, is just one of many, many minerals that contain commercial quantities of titanium dioxide.

It was the labor and expense of reducing the titanium metal out of the oxide that made it so much less available in the U.S. This stuff required guvmint support and subsidies, and the Soviet Union was just willing to pump far more money into that support than the U.S. guvmint during the 1950s and 1960s. Titanium dioxide can't be reacted with carbon, unlike iron oxide ore, because that will just get you titanium carbide. Heck, look up the Wikipedia entry for Titanium. It explains all that.

So, factually incorrect quote deleted. Real facts inserted, including a quote from somebody at Lockheed who worked on the project.

And, please, self-styled editors of Wikipedia, leave in the beginning comment about "a commonly repeated misconception", because I really do see that EVERYWHERE, and it drives me nuts every time I see it. Yea, I even saw it here on Wikipedia, that's how commonly repeated this misconception is. And that's why I made the correction, and why you need to leave that comment in. DarthRad (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, titanium oxide is common and therefore titanium atoms are common. However, when we say titanium we mean the extracted titanium in reasonably pure metallic form, not titanium atoms in some chemical compound form. We make the same grammatical distinction with many other oxides. The reasonably pure metallic form is what all the so-called erroneous references mean. However, if you want to make it clear, we can restore the original text but replace the single word "titanium" with the phrase "metallic titanium", "titanium in metallic form" or similar. Some of your info about the USSR being the major refiner is useful but much of it belongs in the titanium article, not here. As per WP:BRD, I am going to revert your change. At the end of the discussion we will make the article agree with the result of the discussion.  Stepho  talk  11:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you even bother to READ my correction? Did you bother to compare my correction with the original version?

The original version I deleted SPECIFICALLY included a quote that stated a lack of rutile ore as the reason for Lockheed to go to the Soviet Union.

Lockheed NEVER NEEDED RUTILE. It needed titanium METAL. I included a factual quote from somebody that actually WORKED AT LOCKHEED. With the reference. The other quote is from somebody who wasn't involved with the production of the SR-71, just talking out of the end of his butthole.

And the reason for the shortage of titanium metal was that it was just very expensive to produce from the very commonly available titanium dioxide.

So, the old version that you INSIST (like so many absurd and infuriating self-styled editors of wikipedia) on reverting to is just totally, 100% FALSE.

What, do you like to fuck up other people's research and time spent to correct a factual error on Wikipedia just to satisfy your own ego?

I am reverting YOU. You have NO idea what you are doing. You are just committing VANDALISM

DarthRad (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Or we could have a civilised discussion instead of assuming everyone else is a self-styled, egotistical idiot. Also read WP:BRD, which says that we restore the original version (even if it has some wrong points), have a discussion and then change the article according to the discussion. Note that I have not rejected your points outright, I am saying that it needs more work. Happy to discuss this.  Stepho  talk  11:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

User:DarthRad received a two-day timeout earlier this morning. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for wielding your Power as Supreme Being Wikipedia Editor by blocking me from Wikipedia for several days. I hope that really gave you the sense of importance and ego boost that you needed. Do you feel a lot better and more important now?

Who gave you that appointment anyways? Do I get to vote you out at the next wikipedia editor elections or is this a lifetime/hereditary appointment of some sort?

What exactly do you know about the SR-71 or military history of any kind? What are YOUR credentials for just willy nilly deleting a perfectly referenced and authentic correction to an egregiously FALSE section of this wikipedia entry?

Military history happens to be my personal hobby, I have a gazillion books on various aspects, and about 70% of the current M26 Pershing wikipedia page is the result of extensive edits I made to correct similar EGREGIOUSLY FALSE statements others had put in. Yeah, that one took forever to slug through similar self-styled "wikipedia editors" who refused to even bother to READ what I wrote and check the references and just willy nilly reverted my edits.

I am going to re-insert my edit, for the simple fact that my edit about this difference between Lockheed needing titanium METAL as opposed to the titanium ore Rutile was EXTENSIVELY RESEARCHED, and has the backing of several references, the key one of which was from somebody who had actually worked at Lockheed instead of a "Colonel Rich Graham, SR-71 pilot". And, it is an important difference because I so often see this mistake repeated, over and over and over again all over the internet.

Let me explain this to you once again on a more grade school level - Lockheed is an aircraft company and is in the business of turning titanium METAL into aircraft. It is NOT in the business of turning titanium dioxide ORE (of which rutile is just one of many much more common types) into titanium METAL. I explain why this process of turning titanium dioxide into titanium METAL is so expensive and why a country like the Soviet Union was willing to spend far more state money subsidizing its production than the USA was. And that, bottom line, is why the Soviet Union had lots more titanium METAL compared to the USA.

You clearly did not even bother to READ my edit, nor even bothered to click on any of the several references I put in, which much better document the history of titanium METAL and its development in the Cold War in the Soviet Union vs. the USA. DarthRad (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@DarthRad: Admittedly, I'm not too knowledgeable about titanium, but that is not the point. You do need to catch up on WP:RS and WP:CIVIL or you might get blocked again soon. Please understand that no one here doubts your personal expertise, but it's about WP:V. And no threats from me, just a kind warning – I'm just a vanilla editor being around a few years. --Zac67 (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you know why wikipedia has a reputation for inaccuracy?

Because it's SO HARD TO GET EVEN A SIMPLE FACTUAL ERROR CORRECTED.

The worst part is when these self important and self-appointed "editors" just VANDALIZE a perfectly well written and SCIENTIFICALLY OBVIOUS correction and revert it with absolutely no justification, without having even read the edit or clicked on the references and read those references.

This is why people stop writing for wikipedia.

This is why wikipedia continues to contain STUPID FACTUAL ERRORS.

There just aren't enough people out there who have both the knowledge to spot an error, and the determination to slug through all these Vandals pretending to be Editors.

The difference between a shortage of titanium METAL versus the massively plentiful titanium dioxide from which it is produced should be patently obvious to anybody who took Science in high school and actually knows what is in common house paint and sunblocks.

I can only imagine that this self-styled "wikipedia editor" Stepho simply didn't bother to read my edit and check the references in the edit, which is what he/she/they should have done if he/she/they were behaving like A Real Editor instead of behaving like a Vandal, reverting a perfectly referenced edit just because he/she/they has the power to be an All Powerful Wikipedia Gatekeeper Editor.

[Note bene: Google the definition of "editor". Then Google the definition of "vandalism"] DarthRad (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on a number of principles. High on the list is that it is a community effort. Which means we discuss things civilly. Part of this is WP:BRD. Somebody makes a bold edit but others disagree with part of it. So we revert to the original (regardless of whether it is right or wrong), discuss it, then correct the article according to the consensus reached in the discussion. The revert isn't saying that everything in the edit was wrong - only that there was some points of disagreement. It may not even mean that any point was factually wrong but possibly that some points are not relevant. In any case, the key point here is that we discuss and then correct the article after the discussion. We are not INSISTING that the previous version is correct, we are just setting a start point for the discussion knowing full well that it will probably be corrected at the end. This is standard procedure for reconciling differences and correcting errors in an amicable manner. Coming in saying that you are an expert, that everybody else are self-styled vandals and that everybody else knows nothing does not help your cause and your incivility is the reason you got a 2 day ban.

I can't speak for others but I have maintained an interest in the SR-71, the U-2 and the mechanics and history of aviation in general for 40+ years. I have a modest aviation library of about 100 books. Been to many aviation museums around the world and was taught how to do a barrel roll in a Boeing 777 in Cathay Pacific's 6-axis flight simulator (the one that they train real pilots in). Not claiming to be an expert, but still considerably more knowledgeable than the average person. I'm assuming your knowledge is similar or even better.

Now, let's discuss the actual points:

1. When we say titanium in normal discussion (ie, not as chemists) then it is taken for granted that we are talking about the metal and that we are not talking about the atoms bound up in compounds such as TiO
   ₂. Therefore the parts about titanium not really being so rare and its extraction process are not needed. However, we recognise that you have a point that some people might not understand that we are not talking about titanium in all its compound forms. So, we can replace "titanium" with "metallic titanium", "purified titanium" or some similar term.
2. We agree that the part about rutile ore is irrelevant (ie, Lockheed did not use rutile ore in any form). According to https://rruff.geo.arizona.edu/doclib/hom/rutile.pdf, the US did have large bodies of rutile ore - but they did not process it at the time. We agree that we can delete any mention of rutile ore.
3. It is important to say that at the time the USSR was the only major producer of refined metallic titanium at the time. We do not need to go into the refining process - that belongs in the titanium article.
4. SR-71 pilots had a reputation for being intelligent and knowledgeable (not just stick jockeys) and generally their quotes are accurate. Graham's quote is mostly accurate but he got mixed up between the rutile ore and the extracted product. I think we can drop his quote.
5. The Ben Rich quote is a perfectly fine quote to replace the Graham quote. Naturally, I have that book. The reference tag needs a little formatting via the {{cite book}} template but that's a small detail.

Happy to discuss any of these points and any more that I have forgotten.  Stepho  talk  23:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Excellent proposal, Stepho-wrs – approve all the above. --Zac67 (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)