>ywn get to fly a kino plane at 25+ km in complete safety and isolation for hours a day
Why live?
>ywn get to fly a kino plane at 25+ km in complete safety and isolation for hours a day
>ywn get to fly a kino plane at 25+ km in complete safety and isolation for hours a day
Why live?
>safety
One third of these birds crashed or exploded in midair
Good morning sir
?
It’s true
sir do not redeem the crash, sir do not bloody bich fuck you sir do not redeeeem
Why are you so retarded?
For an aircraft that changed of size at cruise speed it's normal malfunctions, but framing it as "exploded in midair" is indian tier.
Tell me how many pilots died.
One pilot died out of twelve accidents. And yes, they literally exploded
1 pilot for 32 airframes +30 years? that's far better than the F-15 retard.
>you see a 1950 engine failed
ok retard, 1 pilot dead in the "catastrophic track record".
Redeem the black bird sir
One third of airframes being lost is not “safe” in any sense of the word. It may be more safe than some of the more horrendous aviation engineering disasters we’ve produced but “complete safety”? No.
It's about the pilot retard. And the SR-71 probably isn't the most repairable airframe...
I think it was an Oxcart rather than the SR-71 but I'd like to see any other aircraft have a pilot survive having his aircraft breakup in mid air during supersonic flight. 30% loss rate is pretty standard for 50s-70s aircraft. About the same as the EE Lightning, F-104, Super Sabre and the AV-8A/GR3 Harrier. The Thud lost over 50% of its serial production over Vietnam.
The Sea Harrier had a 25% loss rate from accidents and collisions in the Falklands war but some of the accidents were super unlucky like the nose wheel steering on a sea harrier unlocking when the carrier was doing a hard over turn in a 40 knot storm in causing the harrier to slide off the deck and the pilot to eject.
It was an sr-71 famously named “ichi ban” iirc.
And I’m not disputing that some much crappier airframes (and many much better airframes) were put out by the US during that period but I just pointed out it wasn’t a “safe” airframe in any sense except relative to absolute disasterous flying coffins.
I think you are right since the Oxcart was single seater and I just remembered that the flight engineer died in the breakup but the test pilot survived.
I love those old school test pilot stories like Marion Carl getting into a flat spin in an 1950s ASW aircraft. The spin started at 10k feet, he started bailing out at 4,000 ft, left the aircraft at 2,000ft and his parachute opened as his feet hit the water but he survived. He died trying to wrestle a shotgun out of the hands of a home intruder when he was 82 years old. They don't make 'em like they used to.
Eric Brown has a bunch of similar stories about WW2 test flying.
oh yeah I forgot the part where the aircraft had an early ejection seat that failed to fire.
Those planes flew a lot more than the SR-71, though.
None of those had to fly for hours over hundred of SAM batteries without assistance...
The only thing it was actually “safe” from was AA measures… in every other aspect it was a dangerous airframe flown very very carefully
Sure, but that doesn't factor into the inherent safety of the plane.
You can’t compare without comparing flight hours. 30% attrition with sub - 20000 cum flight hours is much worse than 30% with a million cum flight hours
Only 10% of f-15s were lost to accidents.
near 15% and +70 pilots killed...
That doesn't matter. The F-15 has hundreds of thousands of hours of flight hours under its belt, and actually might be over a million total by now. The SR-71 had, all told, only 11,000 flight hours for the entire program history, all flights. And it lost a third of the fleet doing that. The fact that so few pilots died is just a by-product of the overwhelming attention the USAF paid to the plane in terms of specialists and support staff that would be assigned to a small number of planes.
>The fact that so few pilots died is just a by-product of the overwhelming attention the USAF paid to the plane in terms of specialists and support staff that would be assigned to a small number of planes.
And that means that commercial airliners are flying coffins because there're too many to keep close attention to each airframe.
Don't talk about stuff you don't know much about.
You never worked on aircraft and haven't a clue about the differences between high performance airframes and airlifters in design and use which drive different crash rates.
You bootlipped cretins should not permit yourselves opinions when you have zero experience. Reading is not experience, it's feeding your fantasies. Acceptable safety vs. performance is vastly different when hauling civilians slowly vs. high G combat or high speeds and altitudes.
The price of high performance was reduced reliability and still is. In other news commuting in Top Fuel dragsters would be expensive and messy.
Flight hours unless in identical mission sets aren't comparable either. Harriers always had high loss rates because they're primitive but the RAF wanted VTOL because NATO. (A good idea on their part. I went TDY to Gütersloh and saw how they could evacuate the base immediately given the warning order and drive their lorries packed with support equipment out the gate while the jets were airborne on their first sorties later to land off-base on the road net.)
Check your autism buddy.
>Flight hours unless in identical mission sets aren't comparable either
I never claimed they were. I’m just saying the idea of taking 30% attrition and saying it’s the same in these two crafts is retarded beyond parody
thirdy show us plane that more safe than this?
Bonus points made by Indian
>Bonus points made by Indian
looks like this scared him off lol
I responded here btw. You are so retarded it’s just baffling
you responded after I pointed that you are in fact 60 IQ Indian lol
thirdy shill doesn't even know how chan works
I pointed out that I responded not for your benefit, but for the benefit of actual non-brainlet reading this thread.
What is wrong with your brain? Your posts are insane
You didn't pointed out anything RajanIQ64, you just respond to my post with a link to other post and phase "I responded here btw", let me also make it clear for you dear ESL, "btw" stands for "by the way" and in your case will mean that you are saying: "Hey look here I responded already" - but the issue is you responded after, so you can't just make assumption that I didn't saw your response (coz there was none).
God that thirdies r so tiresome
>Verification not required.
I literally didn’t think for one second about you when I posted. You’re way too retarded to actually address. You’re free to think what you want though 🙂
I genuinely don’t know why you’re so mad though
>I literally didn’t think for one second about you when I posted.
If you didn't think about me, why you even posted:
>I responded here btw. You are so retarded it’s just baffling
Checkmate Ranjash
See
Why are you so mad though? It’s just a relatively unsafe airframe no big deal
What's there to see?
>I pointed out that I responded not for your benefit
My point:
If you didn't think about me, why you even posted:
>I responded here btw. You are so retarded it’s just baffling
Still stands and at this point you just shitting yourself (quickly go outside to the dedicated street)
Seems you just don’t get it. Why are you so angry about this relatively unsafe airframe though? I’m very curious
Nvm this is getting boring. Bye
See
P.S. Still IQ<60 tho
B-2 has had way more cumulative flight hours than the sr-71 with only two major accidents and zero deaths
Your grasp of English is Indian tier.
Leave.
Mindbroken
Worth it.
I didn’t dispute that!
Worth it to be able to cook breakfast on the windshield.
Uninterceptable at least up to the 80s. Even the F-15 (or 14? idr) tested under ideal conditions failed.
Its just not FAIR
>HE DIDNT POST THE OXCART
I SHIGGY
you can always settle for the B-21