The slowest SR-71 Blackbird fly-by

Stalls can also occur at higher speed in high g maneuvers, so mushiness isn’t the only indicator of approaching a stall. But it’s pretty reliable in straight and level flight.

Also, would it be possible to fly level at such a speed in an SR71? And isn't there a HUD and vertical speed warner?

On the other hand their expectation of being grounded sounds pretty accurate :)

Oh well I never flew anything better than a Cessna 172 so don't take my word for it.

Those aircraft also use a digital flight control system that commands G instead of direct deflection of the surfaces. Therefore the aircraft feels the same at the speeds in which it is capable of delivering the G it is asked to deliver. The same back stick pressure delivers the same G. This is much different than a mechanical system in which you get more G if you are faster.

The F-16 is one such aircraft. It feels very similar at 250 knots and 650 knots.

Of course an experienced pilot immediately recognizes when the aircraft hits the G-limit due to speed. For example, at 200 knots it can't pull 5 Gs. But that only occurs when you are pulling on the stick and not in straight and level flight.

The angle of attack of being slow (just being more leaned back in the jet) is more subtle and and doesn't usually present itself until you are already really slow. The automatic flaperons and leading edge flaps, which give the wing more camber automatically, are partially a reason for this.

Point is, the slowness maybe not be as obvious as you think.

The coffin corner is where an aircraft is flying as slow as it possibly can, but that slow speed is also very close to its maximum mach speed. So the aircraft is both in severe danger of stalling and losing lift because the speed is too low, and in severe danger of getting supersonic airflow over the wings and losing lift because the speed is too high. This occurs at high altitudes where the air is thinner and the stall speed increases.

The problem with the coffin corner is that you need to maintain the exact air speed very accurately. If you let it increase or decrease by just a couple of knots, then one of the two failures happens, and you can pitch down, which will further increase your speed above supersonic, potentially making the pilot lose control or causing damage to the airframe.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aerodynamics)

It always sounded so fake to me. Even if someone proved it did happen.

That's not because I don't think pointy planes are cool! I went to a school with an F-104 lawn ornament.

"in mere hours we'd be out of the sector" rofl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AyHH9G9et0

Most probably, the SR-71 would've been safe even if the missiles had been fired, but the goal was never to take it down, just to make them shift the overflight pattern to no longer be in Swedish airspace.

> They could hear ATC but not other aircraft, because civilian aircraft are on VHF frequencies, military on UHF, and anybody above 60,000 feet (like the SR-71's) were on a separate, center-wide UHF frequency so they wouldn't have to switch frequencies constantly. So the SR-71 and F-18 pilots couldn't have heard those other aircraft requesting groundspeed, or heard each other for that matter.

The SR-71 had at least 5 radios, according to the flight manual [1].

• COMNAV-50 UHF. It had two of these, one in the front cockpit and one in the aft cockpit.

• AN/ARC-186(V). This one covers the civilian aircraft frequencies (and a bit more such as the 2 meter ham band).

• 618-T HF. This covered AM and SSB on 2-30 MHz in 1 KHz increments.

• AN/ARC-190(V). Another HF radio, covering 2-30 MHz in 100 Hz increments.

It was a spy plane. Listening in on other aircraft and ATC would help it carry out its mission, so of course it is going to have plenty of radios.

[1] https://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/

What's sort of weird is the ATC says they were a controller in the 90's. Could things have changed between the when the story happened and this person was an ATC Controller?

"Speed Classified" might have been different in the early days of the 71's program. Same with the flight ceilings.

To me, the only thing that hasn't been refuted yet is the speed measurement. Specifically the part where it's a multiple of 1842 (or 1942 as was told in the story).

1. "Stay ahead of the aircraft."

i.e. anticipate and manage administrative (or tactical) minutiae to put yourself in the best possible position when the tempo increases.

2. "Aviate, aviate, aviate...then navigate and communicate" (already mentioned).

This is commonly used during a crew brief prior to a flight, particularly when discussing emergency procedures. Focus on the most critical thing (EP immediate action items, keeping the bird aloft, not hitting lead or the ground) and when that's done, use your remaining bandwidth to complete the 'nice-to-have' items (e.g. keeping the flight on course, a MAYDAY call, or an advisory call to the flight/controller). I like to really emphasize the aviate portion during my briefs. Junior pilots have a tendency to try and do all three things simultaneously which can compound an already bad situation.

"Waveoff's are free."

If you see a landing going bad, don't hesitate to use a mulligan.

*Free as in you won't be judged for choosing to 'go-around' but will be held accountable if you push a bad situation that you could have prevented through better judgement.

Get-there-itis: Wanting to accomplish something (e.g. get to a cool destination or hit a time on target) so badly that you will accept unnecessary risk in order to achieve whatever you're trying to do. Many aviation (and life) mishaps are the indirect result of get-there-itis; most notably, accepting poor weather or an aircraft with maintenance issues.

This is kind of fun and I could go on...

Don't worry about what you don't have, worry about capitalizing on what you do have. And don't waste what you have.

sounds like he was at the knife's edge of the stall speed.