# SR-71 engine-out landing at EAFB? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 7, 2011, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593 "2011-06-07T04:02:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593/1 "2011-06-07T04:02:55Z")
My uncle asked me about this email he received: > [@](#): > > I have a friend whose dad was a controller at Edwards in the '70s. He says a Blackbird had a total power loss (both engines) at altitude and made a dead-stick landing at Edwards. At the time of the power loss they were just north of the Canadian border. True? Who knows… This reminds me of a story my dad told me once: An F-104 lost its engine at high speed and high altitude, and made an engine-out landing hundreds of miles later. So a couple of FOAF stories. Did either of them actually happen? I’ve never looked into the glide ratio of an SR-71. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593/2 "2011-06-07T04:26:21Z")
I can’t find anything on the glide ratio of an SR-71 Blackbird probably because it is classified. I will try to do the math later if no one has any better info but the story seems plausible on the surface. An SR-71 cruises at 80,000 feet at 3.2 mach. I don’t think its glide ratio is very good but then again, neither is the space shuttle’s and it goes all the way across the continental U.S. in a glide (the space shuttle is much faster and higher but the distance is much greater). At that altitude, going that fast, it would cover a lot of ground quickly in a glide. The SR-71 can’t restart its engines in flight either which matches up with the story. Even a regular airliner can glide for over 100 miles in a glide from cruise altitude in the 30K+ range. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593/3 "2011-06-07T05:58:52Z")
[Here is a claim of an SR-71 making a dead-stick landing in Colorado.](http://www.barthworks.com/aviation/sr71buckley.htm) [According to this page](http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/bodo.html) there were a total of five emergency SR-71 landings in Bodo Norway, but no details on the nature of the emergencies. [I never saw this before](http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/) – it purports to be the SR-71’s flight manual. There is no emergency procedure for a dead stick landing, though there is for a single engine landing. ---
**Author:** ![Deereman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Deereman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deereman)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593/4 "2011-06-07T08:09:11Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > The SR-71 can’t restart its engines in flight either which matches up with the story. The SR-71 had a tank of TEB (TriEthylBorane) to allow for a certain number of restarts. Not arguing the idea of a double engine loss, just saying that they could restart if necessary/possible. Oh, and an online cite :[http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/29176/](http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/29176/) ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593/5 "2011-06-07T11:37:15Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > My uncle asked me about this email he received: > > > [@](#): > > > > I have a friend whose dad was a controller at Edwards in the '70s. He says a Blackbird had a total power loss (both engines) at altitude and made a dead-stick landing at Edwards. At the time of the power loss they were just north of the Canadian border. It’s around 960 miles from Edwards to the closest part of Canada. If the SR-71 was 20 miles high (it was probably more like 17) when the engines quit, that implies an average glide ratio of 48:1. Googling produces little that’s specific about the SR-71’s best glide performance, but 48:1 seems far beyond what’s possible - that’s into the territory of high-performance sailplanes. You can find several comments to the effect that the SR-71 was much worse than the U2, which is reckoned to glide at 28:1. Indeed, 20:1 would be astonishing for a plane shaped like that with two fat engine nacelles. I’m guessing 10:1 is more like it. And note that there are suitable landing places a lot closer than Edwards: Beale AFB (north of Sacramento), where SR-71s are based, is something like 300 miles closer to Canada. Fairchild AFB (near Spokane WA), with a 14,000’, runway would have been less than 300 miles. So I gotta say this story sounds like a serious stretch. ---
**Author:** ![kombatminipig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b5ac83/32.png) [@kombatminipig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kombatminipig)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593/6 "2011-06-07T12:26:48Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > It’s around 960 miles from Edwards to the closest part of Canada. If the SR-71 was 20 miles high (it was probably more like 17) when the engines quit, that implies an average glide ratio of 48:1. > > Googling produces little that’s specific about the SR-71’s best glide performance, but 48:1 seems far beyond what’s possible - that’s into the territory of high-performance sailplanes. You can find several comments to the effect that the SR-71 was much worse than the U2, which is reckoned to glide at 28:1. Indeed, 20:1 would be astonishing for a plane shaped like that with two fat engine nacelles. I’m guessing 10:1 is more like it. > > And note that there are suitable landing places a lot closer than Edwards: Beale AFB (north of Sacramento), where SR-71s are based, is something like 300 miles closer to Canada. Fairchild AFB (near Spokane WA), with a 14,000’, runway would have been less than 300 miles. > > So I gotta say this story sounds like a serious stretch. I’m shooting from the hip here, but did you factor in the velocity at time of engine failure when calculating glide ratio? ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593/7 "2011-06-07T13:37:38Z")
> [@kombatminipig](#): > > did you factor in the velocity at time of engine failure when calculating glide ratio? No, and it’s a good point. Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest the SR-71 at 1800 mph has about as much kinetic energy (due to speed) as potential energy (due to height). If this could be efficiently traded for distance, the plane could go something like twice as far as I’d suggested. Of course that still means it would arrive at the ground hundreds of miles short of Edwards AFB. Ideally, the pilot would pull up, to convert speed to altitude and get down to best glide speed (which is definitely subsonic). But the plane is already at or near its max altitude, so that isn’t possible. If the pilot uses his speed to maintain altitude (his best practical option), energy will rapidly be lost to the high aerodynamic drag associated with high-speed flight. I expect the plane is subsonic in under a minute, and thus hasn’t gained much distance from its kinetic energy. ---
**Author:** ![kombatminipig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b5ac83/32.png) [@kombatminipig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kombatminipig)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593/8 "2011-06-07T14:43:04Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > No, and it’s a good point. Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest the SR-71 at 1800 mph has about as much kinetic energy (due to speed) as potential energy (due to height). If this could be efficiently traded for distance, the plane could go something like twice as far as I’d suggested. Of course that still means it would arrive at the ground hundreds of miles short of Edwards AFB. > > Ideally, the pilot would pull up, to convert speed to altitude and get down to best glide speed (which is definitely subsonic). But the plane is already at or near its max altitude, so that isn’t possible. If the pilot uses his speed to maintain altitude (his best practical option), energy will rapidly be lost to the high aerodynamic drag associated with high-speed flight. I expect the plane is subsonic in under a minute, and thus hasn’t gained much distance from its kinetic energy. According to wiki the plane’s cruising speed was mach 3.2, or 2 435 mph, so you’re being rather conservative. Can’t say whether your estimate is right or wrong, besides that. ---
**Author:** ![inkling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f17d59/32.png) [@inkling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inkling)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593/9 "2011-06-07T14:48:44Z")
As the story is presented in the OP, I have no reason to doubt Xema’s points. But what if it were _first_ loss of power just north of the Canadian border, followed by a successful restart and _another_ loss of power just south of the Bay area. A second restart fails and they opt to dead-stick into Edwards because it is at that point the best/easiest destination - not to mention there is a whole ton of unoccupied desert out there if the pilot has to eject - the crash site could be fairly easily controlled and the chances of hurting anyone on the ground are very slim. So as written, the story in the OP seems implausible to me (although I am not any kind of authority on the matter). Insert some assumed / made-up details and it begins to look plausible, though. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593/10 "2011-06-07T15:06:41Z")
I do not know about Edwards, but something sorta similar happened at Eglin AFB circa 1990ish. Think the guy lost at least one engine “somewhere south of Eglin”, and put it on the ground on the runway there. I was present, and saw the plane land. They fixed whatever the problem was pretty quick, because the plane blasted off again the next morning. I’ve done “max climb” takeoffs in most fighters of that era, but nothing else holds a candle to the Blackbird. Very impressive airplane. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593/11 "2011-06-07T18:59:44Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > This reminds me of a story my dad told me once: An F-104 lost its engine at high speed and high altitude, and made an engine-out landing hundreds of miles later. The F-104, with its stubby wings, is not noted for its ability to glide any distance whatsoever. Nor is it noted for its engine-out landing ability, made very difficult without its blown-air system. I call shenanigans on that one. ---
**Author:** ![UncleRojelio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unclerojelio/32/3160_2.png) [@UncleRojelio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleRojelio)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593/12 "2011-06-07T19:33:19Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Very impressive airplane. Non sequitur alert: I finally got around to watching the _Firefly_ series. In the episode where the crew is out to steal the Lassiter gun, in one of the wide shots, amid other aircraft traversing the sky is the unmistakable silhouette of a Blackbird in a slow rolling turn. Made me giggle. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593/13 "2011-06-07T20:06:45Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > The F-104, with its stubby wings, is not noted for its ability to glide any distance whatsoever. Nor is it noted for its engine-out landing ability, made very difficult without its blown-air system. I call shenanigans on that one. There are several cites for successful deadstick f-104 landings. [The second prototype did one](http://www.military.cz/usa/air/post_war/f104/f104hist_en.htm). [Here’s another claim of one during a mission for the Pakistan Air Force](http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=266842&postcount=16). [According to this page](http://www.landspeed.com/classroom/class763history.html), Scott Crossfield did dead stick landings more than 70 times in an F-104 as a means of practicing for X-15 landings. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593/14 "2011-06-07T20:09:48Z")
I never said it was impossible, but gliding for a few hundred miles and then landing it? Only on a lakebed with 500 miles worth of error, and even then it would be dicey. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593/15 "2011-06-07T21:33:30Z")
This [thread](http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/87650/) at [airliners.net](http://airliners.net) discusses the glide ratio of an F-104. Very few data points in the thread (but there is [this link to a page](http://airplanedriver.net/study/f104.htm) discussing a normal flight profile for an F-104). A post in the thread mentions a clean glide ratio of 5.0 and a flaps/gear down ratio of 3.5. Given the repeated folk wisdom that the F-104 has the glide ratio of a brick, those numbers seem rather high. Hell of an airplane for the early 60s with the burner going though. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593/16 "2011-06-07T21:41:36Z")
This [website](http://www.landspeed.com/inactionflyingstarfighter.html) mentions a lengthy quote from Colonel Don Kutyna, of his time flying F-104s at the ARPS (Aerospace Research Pilots School). The cited quote concerns his time flying low lift over drag profiles during lifting body research. > [@](#): > > In a different category, the low L/D missions in the F-104 simulating lifting bodies were perhaps the hairiest we flew in the school. During my stay, it seemed like every time we got a new Commandant at ARPS he was greeted be an F-104 accident - the majority of which were low L/D related. > > The parameters of the mission were very critical, and the 104 in the dirty L/D configuration with everything hanging out and the engine pulled back had a glide ratio of about 2.2 to 1. Compare this to a T-33 at about 14 to 1, a civil jet transport near 17 to 1, or an average glider at 35 to 1 and you get some feel for the rate of decent of a dirty 104. Even the aptly named “Thud” had a better glide ratio at 7 to 1! The dirty 104’s 2.2 to 1 didn’t give you much tolerance in pulling out for a flare and touchdown. What the manuever consisted of was basically a 30 degree dive bomb run with a pull-out which left your gear down on the runway at your bottom out altitude. It was interesting to take an experienced pilot on his initial demonstration of the L/D mission, pull the throttle back, hang out all the garbage, hold295 knots, and then go into a 30° dive with a pullout commencing at 1400 feet above the ground. The non-fighter pilots who didn’t know any better often sat blandly through it, but the guy who had routinely hurled his body at the ground on the range - but at 500 knots with a relatively clean bird - and who recognized the criticality of the maneuver, would often start to fidget in his seat the closer he got to the ground. He was going to “guts you out”, but I guess he would sort of wonder if that numb-nut IP in the back seat really knew what the heck he was doing. It was a very critical and demanding maneuver, but the experience we gained in practicing it and the related research in the NASA lifting bodies will soon begin to pay off as the Space Shuttle with its smiliar landing approach becomes operational. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593/17 "2011-06-07T21:42:10Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Scott Crossfield did dead stick landings more than 70 times in an F-104 as a means of practicing for X-15 landings. I really don’t think that speaks to either the great gliding ability or easy of dead stick landings for the F-104 🙂 I used to drive around in a Ford Pinto with bad brakes so I could get used to the danger of Shuttle rides… ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593/18 "2011-06-07T23:14:54Z")
The F-104 could have been 20 miles. One-time comment made when I was a kid. ---
**Author:** ![mac\_bolan00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b3f665/32.png) [@mac\_bolan00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mac_bolan00)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2011, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593/19 "2011-06-08T01:29:44Z")
it’s onboard computer should tell the pilot the nearest level, obstruction-free highway where it can dead-stick. just watch out for that schoolbus. ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2011, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593/20 "2011-06-08T12:56:35Z")
I did a little digging, sadly my main reference book on the Blackbirds is missing (probably in a storage box somewhere.) A few things. The tank of TEB’s primary purpose is to light the afterburners, rather than to provide an engine restart capability. Although it does this too. The SR-71 [flight manual](http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/3/3-30.php) has this to say about double engine outs. > [@](#): > > Ditching, landing with both engines inoperative, or other forced landing should not be attempted. Ejection is the best course of action. The A12/SR-71 series planes don’t have an APU. If they lose both engines they lose hydraulic pressure. The manual [goes on the say](http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/3/3-48.php): > [@](#): > > With both engines out, the hydraulic pumps will provide sufficient flow for satisfactory control surface rates at engine windmilling speeds above 3000rpm. Control capability is progressively reduced as speed decreases, becoming marginal at approximately 1500rpm. Even more grim, the manual notes that electrical power below 3500rpm is compromised, with the generators eventually tripping off, and as their power is needed to drive pumps needed for engine restart it becomes progressively less likely that an engine can be restarted as the speed drops. Battery power runs the critical avionics. Given the above information it would appear essentially impossible to nurse an SR-71 with a double engine out as the OP describes. In particular there is considered to be no chance that the aircraft can be landed. It would be feasible to glide it to a safe altitude and speed over a suitably uninhabited area before ejecting. Which is pretty much what the manual states. Under “double engine flameout procedure” is says > [@](#): > > When altitude is critical or flight control is marginal: Eject. The SR-71 61-7969 suffered a double generator failure. The crew ejected safely and the aircraft was lost. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sr-71-engine-out-landing-at-eafb/584593.md?page=2)