Log in

View Full Version : Re: The King of Speed: SR-71 Blackbird


Paul Elliot
January 11th 07, 11:00 PM
Larry Dighera wrote:
> Submitted by: "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" >
>
>
> Written by Brian Schul - former sled (SR-71 Blackbird) driver
>
> There were a lot of things we couldn't do in an SR-71, but we were the
> fastest guys on the block and loved reminding our fellow aviators of
> this fact. People often asked us if, because of this fact, it was fun
> to fly the jet. Fun would not be the first word I would use to
> describe flying this plane. Intense, maybe. Even cerebral. But there
> was one day in our Sled experience when we would have to say that it
> was pure fun to be the fastest guys out there, at least for a moment.
>
> It occurred when Walt and I were flying our final training sortie. We
> needed 100 hours in the jet to complete our training and attain
> Mission Ready status. Somewhere over Colorado we had passed the
> century mark. We had made the turn in Arizona and the jet was
> performing flawlessly. My gauges were wired in the front seat and we
> were starting to feel pretty good about ourselves, not only because
> we would soon be flying real missions but because we had gained a
> great deal of confidence in the plane in the past ten months. Ripping
> across the barren deserts 80,000 feet below us, I could already see
> the coast of California from the Arizona border. I was, finally, after
> many humbling months of simulators and study, ahead of the jet.
>
> I was beginning to feel a bit sorry for Walter in the back seat. There
> he was, with no really good view of the incredible sights before us,
> tasked with monitoring four different radios. This was good practice
> for him for when we began flying real missions, when a priority
> transmission from headquarters could be vital. It had been difficult,
> too, for me to relinquish control of the radios, as during my entire
> flying career I had controlled my own transmissions. But it was part
> of the division of duties in this plane and I had adjusted to it. I
> still insisted on talking on the radio while we were on the ground,
> however. Walt was so good at many things, but he couldn't match my
> expertise at sounding smooth on the radios, a skill that had been
> honed sharply with years in fighter squadrons where the slightest
> radio miscue was grounds for beheading. He understood that and allowed
> me that luxury.
>
> Just to get a sense of what Walt had to contend with, I pulled the
> radio toggle switches and monitored the frequencies along with him.
> The predominant radio chatter was from Los Angeles Center, far below
> us, controlling daily traffic in their sector. While they had us on
> their scope (albeit briefly), we were in uncontrolled airspace and
> normally would not talk to them unless we needed to descend into their
> airspace.
>
> We listened as the shaky voice of a lone Cessna pilot asked Center for
> a readout of his ground speed. Center replied: "November Charlie 175,
> I'm showing you at ninety knots on the ground."
>
> Now the thing to understand about Center controllers, was that whether
> they were talking to a rookie pilot in a Cessna, or to Air Force One,
> they always spoke in the exact same, calm, deep, professional, tone
> that made one feel important. I referred to it as the " Houston Center
> voice." I have always felt that after years of seeing documentaries on
> this country's space program and listening to the calm and distinct
> voice of the Houston controllers, that all other controllers since
> then wanted to sound like that, and that they basically did.
> And it didn't matter what sector of the country we would be flying in,
> it always seemed like the same guy was talking. Over the years that
> tone of voice had become somewhat of a comforting sound to pilots
> everywhere. Conversely, over the years, pilots always wanted to ensure
> that, when transmitting, they sounded like Chuck Yeager, or at least
> like John Wayne. Better to die than sound bad on the radios.
>
> Just moments after the Cessna's inquiry, a Twin Beech piped up on
> frequency, in a rather superior tone, asking for his ground speed. "I
> have you at one hundred and twenty-five knots of ground speed." Boy, I
> thought, the Beechcraft really must think he is dazzling his Cessna
> brethren. Then out of the blue, a navy F-18 pilot out of NAS Lemoore
> came up on frequency. You knew right away it was a Navy jock because
> he sounded very cool on the radios. "Center, Dusty 52 ground speed
> check". Before Center could reply, I'm thinking to myself, hey, Dusty
> 52 has a ground speed indicator in that million-dollar cockpit, so why
> is he asking Center for a readout? Then I got it, ol' Dusty here is
> making sure that every bug smasher from Mount Whitney to the Mojave
> knows what true speed is. He's the fastest dude in the valley today,
> and he just wants everyone to know how much fun he is having in his
> new Hornet. And the reply, always with that same, calm, voice, with
> more distinct alliteration than emotion: "Dusty 52, Center, we have
> you at 620 on the ground."
>
> And I thought to myself, is this a ripe situation, or what? As my hand
> instinctively reached for the mic button, I had to remind myself that
> Walt was in control of the radios. Still, I thought, it must be done -
> in mere seconds we'll be out of the sector and the opportunity will be
> lost. That Hornet must die, and die now. I thought about all of our
> Sim training and how important it was that we developed well as a crew
> and knew that to jump in on the radios now would destroy the integrity
> of all that we had worked toward becoming. I was torn.
>
> Somewhere, 13 miles above Arizona, there was a pilot screaming inside
> his space helmet. Then, I heard it. The click of the mic button from
> the back seat. That was the very moment that I knew Walter and I had
> become a crew. Very professionally, and with no emotion, Walter spoke:
> "Los Angeles Center, Aspen 20, can you give us a ground speed check?"
> There was no hesitation, and the replay came as if was an everyday
> request. "Aspen 20, I show you at one thousand eight hundred and
> forty-two knots, across the ground."
>
> I think it was the forty-two knots that I liked the best, so accurate
> and proud was Center to deliver that information without hesitation,
> and you just knew he was smiling. But the precise point at which I
> knew that Walt and I were going to be really good friends for a long
> time was when he keyed the mic once again to say, in his most
> fighter-pilot-like voice: "Ah, Center, much thanks, we're showing
> closer to nineteen hundred on the money."
>
> For a moment Walter was a god. And we finally heard a little crack in
> the armor of the Houston Center voice, when L.A.came back with, "Roger
> that Aspen, Your equipment is probably more accurate than ours. You
> boys have a good one."
>
> It all had lasted for just moments, but in that short, memorable
> sprint across the southwest, the Navy had been flamed, all mortal
> airplanes on freq were forced to bow before the King of Speed, and
> more importantly, Walter and I had crossed the threshold of being a
> crew. A fine day's work. We never heard another transmission on that
> frequency all the way to the coast.
>
> For just one day, it truly was fun being the fastest guys out there.
>
>
>
> ================================================== ================
> [ This is an excerpt from one of author Brian Schul's books:
>
> Sled Driver : Flying the World's Fastest Jet.
>
> Brian Schul, is a retired U. S. Air Force fighter pilot who was
> severely burned in the crash of an AT-28 working on a clandestine
> mission in Laos. He not only survived, but came back on flight status
> to fly again and serve as an A-10 and SR-71 pilot.
>
> While this excerpt is from a published work, and submitted by other
> than its author, I would prefer to see original works, submitted by
> their authors, appear in rec.aviation.piloting, as is implicit in the
> charter for this newsgroup.
>
> Larry Dighera, Moderator ]


Nice story Larry!
Thanks!

Mxsmanic
January 12th 07, 07:43 PM
I've read Brian Shul's book, and all of it is excellent. And the
quoted passage is one of my favorite parts.

It reminds me a little of that old novelty song (from the 1950s?)
about the Little Nash Rambler.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Larry Dighera
January 12th 07, 08:52 PM
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:00:56 -0800, Paul Elliot
> wrote in
>:

>Nice story Larry!
>Thanks!

I happy to hear you liked the story, but I cannot take credit. We
have Marty Moleski to thank for submitting that story, as well as his
efforts in reviving the rec.aviation.stories newsgroup.

Randy Aldous
January 12th 07, 09:02 PM
Paul Elliot wrote:
[excellent SR-71 story snipped]

Someone (Montblack...?) must have pointed Joe Soucheray (Garage Logic
radio show, KSTP AM St Paul, MN
http://www.am1500.com/garagelogic.htm) to the story, as he just read it
on the air this afternoon.

Randy

Montblack
January 13th 07, 03:09 AM
("Randy Aldous" wrote)
> Someone (Montblack...?) must have pointed Joe Soucheray (Garage Logic
> radio show, KSTP AM St Paul, MN
> http://www.am1500.com/garagelogic.htm) to the story, as he just read it on
> the air this afternoon.


Not me.

Though, I did send him the Gwynn vs. Ripken baseball question, by e-mail, a
few days ago. I knew he would be intrigued by the numbers ...and that his
head would explode. <g>


Montblack

Montblack
January 13th 07, 06:16 AM
("Richard Riley" wrote)
> I hate coming in in the middle...
>
> What's the Gwynn vs Ripken question???


I have a pretty good e-mail history with GLJoe, and knew if I worded this
the right way he would run with it - thus supplying him with ..."a topic."

That's a little 'inside baseball' that Logicians will get. <g>


Wednesday
January 10, 2007


Joe and Pat,

Today's Sports section in the Star-Tribune

I can understand the RBI difference:
Gwynn ....1,138
Ripken ...1,695

I can understand the Runs difference:
Gwynn ....1,383
Ripken ...1,647

What I can't understand is the Hits difference:
Gwynn (Avg .338) ....3,141
Ripken (Avg .276) .....3,183

Cal Ripken Jr. getting 42 more hits might be explained by him playing in
2,632 straight games, and also, starting his career one year before Tony
Gwynn, so both stats (combined) might have helped Ripken overcome that .062
point difference in Batting Average.

Still, a lifetime .338 hitter vs. a lifetime .276 hitter, and the .276 guy
has MORE hits? I don't get it.

I guess it's a numbers thing.

Good show.


Montblack

Jack
January 13th 07, 06:35 AM
Montblack wrote:

> I can understand the RBI difference:
> Gwynn ....1,138
> Ripken ...1,695
>
> I can understand the Runs difference:
> Gwynn ....1,383
> Ripken ...1,647
>
> What I can't understand is the Hits difference:
> Gwynn (Avg .338) ....3,141
> Ripken (Avg .276) .....3,183
>
> Cal Ripken Jr. getting 42 more hits might be explained by him playing in
> 2,632 straight games, and also, starting his career one year before Tony
> Gwynn, so both stats (combined) might have helped Ripken overcome that .062
> point difference in Batting Average.
>
> Still, a lifetime .338 hitter vs. a lifetime .276 hitter, and the .276 guy
> has MORE hits? I don't get it.


At-bats were how much greater for Ripken?


Jack

Montblack
January 13th 07, 07:16 AM
("Jack" wrote)
>> Still, a lifetime .338 hitter vs. a lifetime .276 hitter, and the .276
>> guy has MORE hits? I don't get it.

> At-bats were how much greater for Ripken?


Tony ... 9,288
Cal ...11,551 (Ripken played in a lot more games, I guess)

2,263 more at-bats.

As Joe suggested, 'That he ONLY has 42 more hits, tells you just how good a
hitter Gwynn was.'


Montblack

Tony
January 13th 07, 10:25 AM
For those of you who would worry that this thread is moving away from
aviation, remember they both hit fly balls.

On Jan 13, 2:16 am, "Montblack"
> wrote:
> ("Jack" wrote)
>
> >> Still, a lifetime .338 hitter vs. a lifetime .276 hitter, and the .276
> >> guy has MORE hits? I don't get it.
> > At-bats were how much greater for Ripken?Tony ... 9,288
> Cal ...11,551 (Ripken played in a lot more games, I guess)
>
> 2,263 more at-bats.
>
> As Joe suggested, 'That he ONLY has 42 more hits, tells you just how good a
> hitter Gwynn was.'
>
> Montblack

Jose
January 13th 07, 03:38 PM
> For those of you who would worry that this thread is moving away from
> aviation, remember they both hit fly balls.

Yes, but are the balls actually "flying" or are they just "riding"?

<g,d> Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Ron Wanttaja
January 13th 07, 03:44 PM
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:38:04 -0500, Jose > wrote:

>> For those of you who would worry that this thread is moving away from
>> aviation, remember they both hit fly balls.
>
>Yes, but are the balls actually "flying" or are they just "riding"?

And are they actually *flying*, or is it just a simulation running somewhere?

Ron Wanttaja

Montblack
January 13th 07, 08:18 PM
("Ron Wanttaja" wrote)
>>> For those of you who would worry that this thread is moving away from
>>> aviation, remember they both hit fly balls.

>>Yes, but are the balls actually "flying" or are they just "riding"?

> And are they actually *flying*, or is it just a simulation running
> somewhere?


And Tony Gwynn is heading to Cooperstown, despite his total rejection of
anything relating to treadmills.


Montback-back-way-back ...Touch 'em all Kirby Puckett!
My niece was born Nov 4, 1987 ...."Kirby"

Allan9
January 13th 07, 09:24 PM
The guy must have wanted to pass me up
'cause he kept on tooting his horn
Al


"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> I've read Brian Shul's book, and all of it is excellent. And the
> quoted passage is one of my favorite parts.
>
> It reminds me a little of that old novelty song (from the 1950s?)
> about the Little Nash Rambler.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Kev
January 14th 07, 12:43 AM
Paul Elliot wrote:
> > There were a lot of things we couldn't do in an SR-71, but we were the
> > fastest guys on the block and loved reminding our fellow aviators of
> > this fact. People often asked us if, because of this fact, it was fun
> > to fly the jet. Fun would not be the first word I would use to
> > describe flying this plane. Intense, maybe. Even cerebral. [..]

One of my jobs in the distant past, was to help task where an SR-71
went each day. We used it for purposes that are still not yet released
to the public. I used to wonder if the pilots got bored if we sent
them to the same place. I can see now, probably not ;-)

Kev

Danny Deger
January 14th 07, 02:49 AM
You've never been lost until you've been lost at Mach 3.

Danny Deger

Mxsmanic
January 14th 07, 12:07 PM
Kev writes:

> One of my jobs in the distant past, was to help task where an SR-71
> went each day. We used it for purposes that are still not yet released
> to the public. I used to wonder if the pilots got bored if we sent
> them to the same place. I can see now, probably not ;-)

At their altitude, they could barely see anything below, anyway. My
guess is that they simply enjoyed the flying experience and really
didn't care if they were going to the same place or not.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Kev
January 14th 07, 03:16 PM
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Kev writes:
>
> > One of my jobs in the distant past, was to help task where an SR-71
> > went each day. We used it for purposes that are still not yet released
> > to the public. I used to wonder if the pilots got bored if we sent
> > them to the same place. I can see now, probably not ;-)
>
> At their altitude, they could barely see anything below, anyway. My
> guess is that they simply enjoyed the flying experience and really
> didn't care if they were going to the same place or not.

That's like saying the astronauts in the ISS or shuttle are too high to
see anything :-)

Remember, it was often used for photos, which means they flew on severe
clear days for that task.

And before the star-sensing navigation in the SR-71, they used a huge
visual drift sight to make sure they were on track. It was a periscope
centered at the top of the instrument panel, that showed the ground.

Kev

Mxsmanic
January 14th 07, 04:39 PM
Kev writes:

> That's like saying the astronauts in the ISS or shuttle are too high to
> see anything :-)

They aren't too high to see anything, but a lot of the planet looks
the same as you go higher and higher, and often there are clouds as
well.

> Remember, it was often used for photos, which means they flew on severe
> clear days for that task.

If they could. But cameras see things a lot better than people do.

> And before the star-sensing navigation in the SR-71, they used a huge
> visual drift sight to make sure they were on track. It was a periscope
> centered at the top of the instrument panel, that showed the ground.

I didn't know that the SR-71s had ever flown without their ANS stuff,
although I recall reading about the periscope.

Anyway, my point was that SR-71 pilots probably flew the aircraft just
for the sake of flying the aircraft, and not for the view.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Newps
January 14th 07, 05:17 PM
Mxsmanic wrote:

> Anyway, my point was that SR-71 pilots probably flew the aircraft just
> for the sake of flying the aircraft, and not for the view.


And usual you would be wrong. Read any book on the subject.

george
January 14th 07, 09:53 PM
Danny Deger wrote:

> You've never been lost until you've been lost at Mach 3.
>
mixed mania gets lost at 0 knots.

Mxsmanic
January 14th 07, 10:28 PM
Newps writes:

> And usual you would be wrong. Read any book on the subject.

I already have read several, and Brian Shul in particular is pretty
clear.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ken S. Tucker
January 15th 07, 01:52 PM
Mxsmanic wrote:
> I've read Brian Shul's book, and all of it is excellent. And the
> quoted passage is one of my favorite parts.
>
> It reminds me a little of that old novelty song (from the 1950s?)
> about the Little Nash Rambler.

"Beep-Beep"
http://www.geocities.com/nashmetro_1961/beep.html

You'll like this one,
http://www.lincoln-club.org/hot-rod-lincoln2.html

Ken

Tankfixer
January 15th 07, 09:08 PM
In article >,
mumbled
> You've never been lost until you've been lost at Mach 3.

Does one get found quicker ?

Blanche
January 26th 07, 04:49 PM
Mxsmanic > wrote:
>I've read Brian Shul's book, and all of it is excellent. And the
>quoted passage is one of my favorite parts.
>
>It reminds me a little of that old novelty song (from the 1950s?)
>about the Little Nash Rambler.

meep meep....meep meep...the car went meep meep meep...

Google