By "true" top speed I mean the absolute fastest horizontal airspeed the aircraft can achieve if damage to the engines is disregarded (similar to how the MiG-25 apparently can reach mach 3.2 but may damage its engines beyond repair). Catastrophic structural failure (of anything beyond the engines) is not permissible in this scenario.

In "The Untouchables" Brian Shul claims that he reached mach 3.5 while evading a missile. This is also stated in the Wikipedia article on the SR-71 with a citation to the same book.

Are there any other sources than his own book that can confirm or reject this claim? Can it be argued for or against this top speed claim on technical merit or physical limitations?

On Wikipedia it is also stated "Maximum flight speed was limited by the temperature of the air entering the engine compressor, which was not certified for temperatures above 800 °F (430 °C).[57]"

However, it is not clear how much abuse beyond this the compressor could take. It is possible to give some estimate or educated guess based on the materials used?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I suspect you won't get a definitive answer to this. The information is almost certainly classified. $\endgroup$ – user31680 Jul 22 '18 at 4:01
  • $\begingroup$ I also suspect that, but the question is written such that it is possible to answer it with arguments regarding what would physically be possible based on what is known about the SR-71. Perhaps you can argue based on the construction of the materials? The limitations in the variable geometry of the intake? Something else? If there was some simple source available that officially states "this is the actual top speed", obviously Wikipedia and others would have since long started to cite it. $\endgroup$ – AlphaCentauri Jul 22 '18 at 4:22
  • $\begingroup$ This is actually a good question, but it's beyond my knowledge of the plane to calculate. So, not an answer, but an estimate based on similar overspeeds for other aircraft would place the zero safety margin point for horizontal speed somewhere between Mach 3.4 and 3.55. Something a bit above that could be possible if you count momentary airspeed in a dive (before the air gets dense and slows it down again). $\endgroup$ – Therac Jul 22 '18 at 9:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I suspect the „fastest speed the aircraft can achieve“ in your scenario will be achieved diving towards the ground at full thrust. This is certainly faster than anyone ever cared to test, and I strongly suspect that any available engine performance tables for the aircraft would not cover a speed range fast enough to accurately model this... also, I don’t know whether structural failure is permissible in your scenario, but I‘m sure that it quickly becomes a limiting factor in a full thrust dive. $\endgroup$ – Cpt Reynolds Jul 22 '18 at 14:47
  • $\begingroup$ @CptReynolds Very good point. I edited the post to make it horizontal airspeed. Destruction of engines is permissible, not catastrophic structural failure. $\endgroup$ – AlphaCentauri Jul 23 '18 at 2:33

Based on the SR-71A operational envelope, the top Mach number was Mach 3.3 when authorized by the commander and Mach 3.2 otherwise. The top airspeed was 400 kts equivalent airspeed when supersonic and 450 kts equivalent airspeed when subsonic.enter image description here

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The graph says Vmo (Vh) 450 KEAS, not 400 KEAS. $\endgroup$ – Jan Hudec Jul 22 '18 at 16:14
  • $\begingroup$ @JanHudec Thanks! Posted too quickly. Corrected with subsonic/supersonic values. $\endgroup$ – Cpt Reynolds Jul 22 '18 at 16:33
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Mind that this is max allowed operational speed, not the max speed the aircraft is capable of surviving. There will be some safety margin there, making a max emergency speed of 3.5 believable. $\endgroup$ – jwenting Jul 23 '18 at 4:58
  • $\begingroup$ @jwenting So it's to PIC discretion if he wanted to take his chances with the missile or out running it $\endgroup$ – jean Jul 23 '18 at 20:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @jean of course. In emergencies, stated limits and procedures go out the window and pilot judgment takes over. Better to burn out an engine or cause some excess structural stress on the airframe than have the aircraft and crew blown out of the sky over hostile territory. $\endgroup$ – jwenting Jul 24 '18 at 4:50

The USAF never did release just how fast an SR-71 CAN fly, preferring to state that it DID fly at certain speeds on certain dates and set certain records.

Shul made references to the jet attaining Mach 3.5+ during flights he flew in his books. I believe him. There are also credible rumors that a Blackbird was capable of Mach 4 in ideal atmosphereic conditions. If USAF or CIA Sled Drivers did attain that high of a speed on certain occasions, they’re not confirming it.

Most Blackbird pilots were pretty coy about a top speed. Shul liked to say that the muzzle velocity of a high powered rifle bullet was about 3000 ft/s. A Sled comfortably cruised at 3,300 ft/s and the Pilot still had a couple of inches of throttle left in case he REALLY needed to haul ass!

  • $\begingroup$ So your answer is?... $\endgroup$ – FallenUser Jul 22 '18 at 16:36

The SR-71 Pilot's Operating Handbook has been declassified and is available online. The operating limitations section states that Mach 3.17 is the recommended maximum cruise speed for normal operations. Speeds of up to Mach 3.3 could be authorised by the commander as long as the maximum CIT (compressor inlet temperature) of 427 degrees C was not exceeded. So while it might be possible to exceed the maximum Mach, doing so probably carried with it the risk of Bad Things(TM) happening.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Welcome to Aviation SE! $\endgroup$ – FallenUser Jul 23 '18 at 2:05

The "true" top speed of the Lockeed SR-71 Blackbird is 3,540 km/h or 2199.65402m/ph.

The result of this search came from a very simple Google Search

It is also backed up:

The speed of the new aircraft was to exceed 2,000 mph. Other planes of the era could, in theory, approximate that speed but only in short, after-burner-driven bursts. This new plane needed to maintain a record-setting speed for hours at a time. At such velocity, friction with the atmosphere generates temperatures that would melt the conventional airframe. - Lockheed Martin - News - History - Blackbird


At sustained speeds of more than Mach 3.2, the plane was faster than the Soviet Union's fastest interceptor, the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25, which also could not reach the SR-71's altitude.[24] During its service life, no SR-71 was shot down. - Wikipedia Organization - Lockheed Martin SR 71 Blackbird


The SR-71 Blackbird cruises above Mach 3 (three times the speed of sound). - SR71 US (not a real organization)

The Lockheed Martin SR 71 Blackbird is known as the fastest air breathing manned aircraft since 1976

So basically, ""The Untouchables" Brian Shul"'s claim was correct

  • $\begingroup$ This is not the true top speed, it is the maximum sustainable speed. The context of the question should make it clear that we're not talking about sustained top speeds but absolute top speed in terms of what it can sustain in short bursts, with or without damage to its engines. I've revised the question to make this more clear. Furthermore, how does any of what you said confirm Brian Shul's claim? You quote figures for mach 3.2, he claims mach 3.5, what is the relevance of what you've quoted? $\endgroup$ – AlphaCentauri Jul 22 '18 at 2:19
  • $\begingroup$ @AlphaCentauri "You quote figures for mach 3.2" It did not say that the top speed was mach 3.2 but "at sustained speeds of more" than mach 3.2". $\endgroup$ – FallenUser Jul 22 '18 at 2:42
  • $\begingroup$ I don’t think the Wikipedia entry helps much, as any top speed value for an aircraft where the speed „type“ (indicated airspeed, true airspeed, converted Mach number, with the latter being totally pointless ...) isn’t given, doesn’t really make sense, unfortunately. $\endgroup$ – Cpt Reynolds Jul 22 '18 at 14:51
  • $\begingroup$ Downvoted for ridiculous abuse of significant figures in unit conversion. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures $\endgroup$ – Russell Borogove Jul 25 '18 at 17:04

protected by kevin Jul 23 '18 at 2:21

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.