Former SR-71 Engineer Talks NASA’s Blackbird Revival Program

By Howard Altman , Tyler Rogoway

Published Oct 2, 2026 5:03 PM EDT

When it comes to the future of Tail 844, the SR-71 Blackbird that mysteriously disappeared from NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center, few people have more insights than Tim Conners . When he worked at NASA in the 1990s, Conners was the lead propulsion engineer for the agency’s Blackbird program. He worked extensively on 844 and has an intimate knowledge of what made the iconic aircraft tick. Now, he brings an insider perspective on NASA’s secretive work to get the Blackbird back in the air and speculates on what it would take to do so, as well as the famed jet’s possible flight test role for the agency after 27 years of dormancy.

Late last month, we wrote about how satellite imagery taken over Armstrong showed that Tail 844 had been missing since at least May. The revelation was first made by Steve Trimble , Aviation Week ‘s defense editor and friend of TWZ. It came after NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman cryptically teased plans for a new high- and fast-flying X-plane with a silhouette of an aircraft that immediately drew comparisons to the Blackbird. Trimble reported just this week that NASA had been talking to ex-SR-71 program personnel about coming back to work on the aircraft. This confluence of events has led to rampant speculation about whether NASA was planning to resurrect the Blackbird and for what purpose ?

In an exclusive interview with TWZ , Conners, now technical director for advanced weapons systems at Tiberius Aerospace, gave us his take on NASA’s Blackbird revelations and insights into what NASA is working on and how far along they are in the process.

Some of the questions and answers have been slightly edited for clarity.

Q: Tell me about your background with the SR-71 program. How did it begin? How long did it last? And what did you do?

A: So that basically fell in my lap when I was an engineer at NASA’s Dryden [ Flight Research Center ] back in the early ’90s when NASA took delivery of three of the airframes when the Air Force was retiring the fleet. So NASA got two A models and a trainer. Obviously, tail number 844, which is NASA’s designation, is the one that’s getting all of the attention right now. But those came to Dryden in the early ’90s.

By luck of the draw, I was in the propulsion group. We were short-staffed for a number of reasons, and they needed an engineer on Blackbird. And I had been with NASA for about three or four years at that point, and I got tapped to prepare the NASA side of the mission for the upcoming research flights. So I had a few years to get familiar. That was a part-time job, by the way. I also owned the F-15 fleet at NASA as a propulsion engineer, and that was occupying a lot of my time, but it did give me an adequate amount of time to get familiar with the way that the airplane operated, at least from the propulsion standpoint. And then we began doing research missions in ’96. I left NASA in ’98, but I was able to support the program through two years of flight testing and all the years of preparation for those two years.

Q: Tell me more about your role with the Blackbirds.

A: I was lead propulsion engineer on the NASA side. So what NASA would do is they would assign disciplinary leads across from their industry and government counterparts. So Dryden’s disciplinary leads, their job was basically to make sure that any experimental packages were integrated safely with the airframe, and that we could execute the proposed test missions safely and successfully. I owned propulsion and I also owned performance. So if you recall the Lockheed Linear Aerospike rocket engine activity, that package weighed 20,000 to 25,000 pounds and was mounted externally on the back of the SR-71. That was a drag issue, obviously. So part of my role was to make sure that we could actually accelerate through the transonic drag rise with that package and get out to the target test conditions.

SR-71 tail number 844 during its service with NASA. This picture was taken on October 31, 1997, during a flight in support of the NASA/Rocketdyne/Lockheed Martin Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment (LASRE). NASA

Q: There is a tremendous amount of interest in seeing the Blackbird fly again. The biggest question seems to be why? What kinds of experiments or research would an SR-71 provide that couldn’t be done more effectively with a modern aircraft, rocket or unmanned vehicle? Can you walk us through some of the reasons NASA would like to see it in the skies again?

A: Yeah, that’s a question that everybody’s been asking. Why? I’m speculating, although I do have a good feel for where this is going. So bear with me.

They probably are not going to do this for — or trying to do this — for aerodynamic reasons. You can do CFD [ computational fluid dynamics ]-based modeling in this speed regime all day long and very accurately in this day and age. It does not take a lot of time or money to do that. What you cannot do is an accurate representation of a new type of engine integrated into a high-speed airframe. You can do the conceptual modeling of it. Of course, it’s difficult to get the final installed answer, especially if it involves an engine that operates at long duration. That is where I think they’re going with this. I believe that they’re developing basically a high-speed engine test bed. That would make the most sense to me.

Q: That’s something you couldn’t do with a more modern aircraft or rocket or unmanned vehicle?

A: That’s a good question. But you know, probably two-thirds of that battle is just developing the airframe. It does depend on the size of the engine that you’re after.

Obviously, if this were a Williams engine or that size class, you could get by with probably a bespoke drone to do your testing. That wouldn’t be that expensive. If your goal is to test something that’s man-rated or very large, like a J58-size engine , what better way to do it than use an airframe that’s already proven to fly at that speed?

SR-71 Blackbird. (Courtesy photo via USAF)

Q: Were you asked to join a team at NASA tasked with getting a jet back in the air? Who else was asked, and what kind of team were they building?

A: I did not receive an offer. There was a tongue-in-cheek text that I got earlier in the year that said, ‘Hey, Conners, how would you like to help get the Blackbirds flying again?’ And that was from somebody who was positioned with inside information. That is where I first heard of this. This was back in spring, but nobody formally reached out to me.

I believe that the only one that’s been tagged so far, as far as a retiree, was Mike Relja. Mike was a crew chief on the Blackbird, and that makes sense that they would potentially want to pull on him. But there was no formal offer, and I tell you what: If somebody approached me to work it, I don’t think I could turn them down.

Q: Do you know where the idea for this project came from and who is in charge?

A: I don’t have an answer. I’d love to know as well.

Q: What can you tell me about this effort? What are the latest developments in this project that you know of?

A: So what I’m hearing is that they’re looking at doing power-on testing fairly soon. That’s pretty big. So of course that’s not engine power on. That’s external power applied to the airframe, seeing which systems still live, which ones don’t, and then moving from there. So that would be an expected first step.

It’s an encouraging step. That means NASA would have gotten beyond cracking open all the bays, inspecting the interior, making sure that the thing at least passes visual inspection for airworthiness from that standpoint.

Q: Have they actually gotten any systems working?

A: No, they’ve done the visual inspection, actually, putting electrons on the airframe. [To get systems working] would be the next step, but it is forthcoming, from what I understand.

(NASA) Courtesy Photo

Q: What is the timeline?

A: That’s supposed to happen within the next couple weeks.

Q: Really? Where is this work taking place?

A: That I do not know for sure. Although I assume it’s happening at [NASA’s] Armstrong [Flight Research Center].

Q: So what is going to happen?

A: That’s a good question. Let me tell you about what I heard more recently, and then you can begin to connect the dots. JP-7. People ask about the fuel. I think it’s pretty well known that NASA had a huge amount of JP-7 stockpiled that they received from the Air Force back in the early ’90s. So much that it was in a dedicated tank, like one of the giant jet fuel tanks at Edwards Air Force Base. You know, the tanks up on the ridge.

From what I understand, that supply unfortunately was discarded about 20 years ago, and JP-7 is a unique fuel. Obviously, low volatility. When I poked at what might be the way forward there, it didn’t sound like that was a showstopper. I got the impression that there’s been dialogue underway with refineries for a replacement or a surrogate that would work. So I went from being deflated, hearing that the fuel was gone, to being encouraged that potentially there was a surrogate workaround.

A statically mounted Pratt & Whitney J58 engine with full afterburner on disposing the last of the SR-71 JP-7 fuel prior to the program’s termination. (NASA)

But that led to the question regarding the engines themselves, so the feedback there was more discouraging in that it looks like the engines are indeed unserviceable. I don’t believe that is based on an actual attempt to run them. It is based on inspection. Probably no surprise. They’ve sat idle, you know, for 27 years. That is what led to questions going back and forth regarding how the airframe would be powered. And that’s what led into where, if you connect the dots, that’s where the airframe would be used as an engine test bed.

So different engines, they would have to be high-Mach bypass systems. We can speculate on which engine company might be developing those systems, but yeah, I don’t want to give it too much away because I don’t want us to lose the inside information that we got.

Q: Are they working on a completely different engine to power Blackbird?

A: I don’t know that for sure. I think if the J58s are not an option for powering the Blackbird, you either button it back up and walk away from it, or you go bring in engines that are already under development that we’re not privy to at this point in time. But there’s no other option. So what are we going to use? It’s not like we can slap in F100 s or F110 s. They’re not going to cut it.

Q: Obviously, restoring an aircraft sitting out in the elements for years into one able to withstand the rigors of Mach 3 flight is one hell of an undertaking. In your mind, what are the biggest hurdles to this endeavor?

A: Number one would be the engines for sure. Number two would be anything that’s made of elastomerics . Plastics, Wiring. Covering connectors. All that stuff degrades and oxidizes with time. You can imagine what frayed wiring and broken wiring insulation – what kind of havoc that would create. What Blackbird has going for it is that all those casings and connectors were built for the rigor of sustained Mach 3.2 flight for an hour, an hour plus, so they are not going to deteriorate quickly. The question is: Have they deteriorated in 27 years? So, if the answer is not a significant amount, then we’ve probably addressed one of the biggest questions – other than the engines – regarding reviving the airplane.

Q: Do you think NASA is going to attempt to just fly tail 844 largely in its original configuration, or will they deeply modify it or build something new based on it?

A: Completely unknown. They definitely have the ability to modify the airframe, right? They did it before in the ’90s to carry the Linear Aerospike package. That was a huge undertaking on the airframe itself. They did it successfully. Armstrong still has a pretty deep bench in that area, so if they wanted to take on modifying the titanium structure, I think they could do it.

View of the Linear Aerospike SR Experiment (LASRE) pod on NASA SR-71, tail number 844. (Photo by Heritage Space/Heritage Images via Getty Images) NASA

But it’s a good question. Again, that would probably point to aerodynamic studies, and if it were me and my dollar as a taxpayer, I would lean on computational studies to get those answers. That’s what I tend to do in my day job is forego testing in lieu of computational when it involves external aero, but it’s when you do the integrated propulsion in this speed regime, that’s really when you need test data from the actual operating conditions.

Q: As opposed to digital modeling?

A: Yes. For instance, say the aerodynamic databases for Blackbird are gone, which they might be. I know there are simple aerodynamic models that still exist, but like a true high-fidelity model that would go into a piloted simulator, that could probably be regenerated fairly quickly. Probably on the order of months computationally in this day and age. So I think simulation capability could be stood up in fairly short order. That of course will be foundational for the pilot training task.

Q: We’ll talk more about pilot training later, but first I want to ask about modernization. If NASA were to inject modernized features into the SR-71, what would you like to see? And what makes the most sense in terms of material science, avionics, propulsion and so on?

A: I’m not a materials expert. I think it would be really interesting to see how the airframe could be optimized using adaptive flight control capabilities. So, if the flight control system could be digitized, I think that would lead to some very interesting in-flight experiments. I doubt that that would be. I could be wrong, but if the goal is to get the airframe back up as a propulsion test bed, you don’t need to cut out the hydromechanical flight control system and replace it with a digital one.

A left-side view of an SR-71 aircraft from the 9th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing landing. The aircraft is silhouetted against the sunset. (U.S. Air Force) U.S. AIR FORCE

That all said, what I would like to see is what we talked about a few minutes ago, and that’s basically modern high-speed engine technology. So what could be done? The J58s were low operating pressure ratio systems. What could be done with a modern, digitally controlled, multistream, high-Mach engine, I think, would be truly trailblazing.

One of the reasons why there’s interest in this speed regime, it was neglected for a number of years. The focus was on hypersonics. If you proposed anything going back, say, 15 years in the Mach 3.5 speed regime, it was ignored. The glitz and glamor was on hypersonics. Hypersonics is great tactically for certain scenarios, but the weaknesses of hypersonics are now becoming apparent.

And as far as countermeasures, hypersonics still has a place. Don’t get me wrong, but every system cannot be hypersonic from an affordability standpoint. So, now you’ve seen it over the last, say, five years. A lot of systems are coming back on the scene that operate in the Mach 2 to Mach 4 regime, and there’s a reason they’re all fitting in there, right? You stay below the speed limit that requires more exotic metallics. You stay in the titanium regime. You can fly, of course, up to [Mach] 3.5 with brief excursions up to about [Mach] 4, so that is tactically relevant against a lot of military targets and defensive systems. So here it is. You know we now have a potential flying test bed that can carry engines in the J58 size class.

Q: How much could a project like this cost, and is it really economically feasible? How long do you think it could take?

A: I’ve been thinking that over, and I think it depends on who does it. I don’t want to disparage my former government brethren. I had great respect for the folks at NASA when I worked with them, but one of the reasons why I left the agency is because it was becoming so risk-averse. That was adding bloat to everything. And what we used to do quickly, we no longer could do quickly or cheaply at what was Dryden Flight Research Center, so that is what concerns me.

If NASA could operate with the agility that it had, if Dryden/Armstrong could operate with the agility it had 30 years ago, they could do this work in probably a few years. I would say again, it would depend on what exactly they need to do to the airframe. If it’s to resurrect the airframe and bolt in new engines using existing interface hardpoints, that would go much, much more quickly than doing extensive airframe modifications.

Q: Given that 844 has been sitting idle since 1999, what would be the very first thing you would want to inspect or test before even considering putting it back in the air?

A: Exactly what I’m hearing the rumor is that they’re doing this. What is the condition of all the components in the airplane that are flowing electrons? Because if the entire airframe is shorted out, you know how it is.

If you have a car where you’ve hooked up the battery cables backwards – I had a car once where somebody jumped in and did that. It ruined the car because I was chasing shorts constantly, constantly breaking down in the months that followed because the wiring was compromised, melted, bubbled all over the vehicle. And then it would get wet. You get shorts. That, I believe, is what one of the objectives of power-on testing is. To make sure continuity still exists, reliable continuity throughout the airframe. So that’s exactly the first step.

I would say the second would be hydraulics. That vehicle is hydromechanical. So what is the state of the actuators and whatnot?

Q: And you said that work is taking place now?

A: It’s certainly being inspected. That was one of the reasons why they pulled it off of the display pad at Armstrong. But that work has been going on for a couple of months, and it certainly seems that there was at least reason to be encouraged and to go forward with this next step. Otherwise, they would have just towed it back to the parking spot.

The SR-71 Blackbird, Tail 844, when it was on display at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center (Google Earth)

Q: And the next step is testing the systems?

Q: We touched on this a little before, but how realistic is it to get an SR-71’s J58 engines operational again after nearly three decades of inactivity? What would worry you most about those engines? How many are left?

A: Well, that’s a good point. As far as [engines] that are readily available, there are several that are at the [ Air Force Flight Test (AFFT) Museum at Edwards AFB]. I believe they’ve been stored outside. But if you consider all the museums around the world with Blackbirds on display, almost all of them have installed J58s, and there’s usually one sitting alongside the airframe on display, so there are plenty of engines. Whether or not they’re serviceable, that of course is the question.

But probably the biggest problem with an engine – well, there are several with a gas turbine that sits unmoved for decades – it’s going to be that you’re going to flatten the bearings. Probably not visible to the eye, but rotating turbo machinery doesn’t like flats on the bearings. So for obvious vibration reasons, you got that. And you’ve got the seals. Seals are going to crack. Trapped fuel is going to turn to gunk and clog up lines. That engine was all hydromechanical, of course, or no digital controls on that because of the heat involved. So fuel hydraulics played a big role in that engine.

There is likely a lot of goo in those lines. I believe that’s why they’ve essentially been written off as unserviceable. I was discouraged because one of the questions I asked that I didn’t get an answer to was: Did anybody try to run the engines or pull them apart? But I don’t even know if the instructions exist to unstack a J58 at this point. I’m sure it could be figured out with the right people, but you know how it is. Pulling something apart is a lot easier than putting it back together.

Q: So there’s no manual for that anymore?

A: I don’t know if there’s a manual specific to that. Like I told Steve [Trimble] at Aviation Week , there certainly are operating manuals. You’ve probably seen the pilot’s manual for the SR-71A. It’s a beauty. There are a lot of copies online. You can get PDFs of those. They are very well-written, huge manuals. I know prints exist for the airplane. Those were in the keeping of the Edwards Museum. I believe those have been handed back over to NASA. So, it’s not like there’s a complete dearth of information.

SR-71 Blackbird 844 basks in the evening moonlight at Edwards Air Force Base, California. (Air Force photo by Todd Schannuth) Todd Schannuth

When I was at NASA, I was the person who received everything that Pratt & Whitney had left on the J58s when the Air Force decommissioned the program, and that information was in two or three smallish boxes and consisted of hard copy code printout or printout of numerical data, along with some magnetic reels of code. It was not much. And I was told at the time the only reason I received that information was somebody missed it when the Air Force gave the destruct notice. It was under somebody’s desk, so it was not much in the way of knowledge transfer, unfortunately.

Q: What did you do with all that?

A: I left it behind in 1998 when I left NASA.

Q: What happened to it?

A: I have no idea. Hopefully, somebody scanned it. But again, that was J58 info, right? So if they’re going with a new engine, they’ll have the full digital models for those new systems. And I do believe that recreating the aerodynamic database, including inlet performance, that kind of data can all be regenerated fairly quickly with computational tools.

Q: We touched on this a little bit before, but how difficult would it be to reproduce the JP-7 fuel that powered the Blackbird? It would need designated tankers too, correct?

A: So that was one of the questions I asked is whether or not that formulation exists still. The answer I got back was that essentially a refinery should be able to recreate a suitable surrogate. If you think about it, JP-7 was unique in that it had a very low volatility characteristic.

What I’ve learned about Jet A from some of the ramjet work that I’ve been doing is that it has a ridiculously low volatility too, of course, by design. So I don’t know that JP-7 is that far apart from the chemical characteristics of a Jet A-class fuel, JP-8-type fuel. JP-8 was a significant change from JP-4, so the Air Force was using JP-4 in their fleet, and then moved to JP-8 to be consistent in the ’90s with the Navy with their formulations. That’s a lower volatility fuel, and at NASA we had to recharacterize the flight performance of all of our jets with JP-8, but it worked fine.

We were concerned about operability – that we were going to have flameouts and engine relight and flight relay problems. Those did not materialize, so I don’t want to oversimplify it, but I am thinking that you might be able to take an existing Jet A and with the right additives knock down the volatility to a level that’s safe for flying in the Blackbird.

Airman 1st Class James Douds, a fuels specialist with the 386th Expeditionary Logistics Readiness Squadron, offloading JP-8 jet fuel. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Jonathan Hehnly) Senior Master Sgt. Jonathan Hehnly

Q: What would need to happen to have aerial refueling jets be able to handle fuel for the Blackbird?

A: There were dedicated JP-7 tankers for the Blackbird. I don’t know if they can take an existing system and flush it. It would depend on the formulation, right? JP-7 was notorious for its unseemly characteristics. It was toxic.

I had a shirt that got dripped on when I was standing under the wing of the Blackbird once, and I had to throw it out. I could not get the stink out of that shirt from the JP-7. It was a weird fuel. So if you can get one that’s more aligned with the fuels used in the service, then I don’t believe that’s going to be a showstopper as far as tanker support, but you do know tanker support is going to be required for that airplane.

Q: You said the JP-7 fuel stank. What did it smell like?

A: I just remember it turning my stomach. Like I kept smelling something as the day went on, and I reached over and saw a stain on my shoulder. I don’t recall what happened the rest of the day, but I just remember being repulsed by the odor and then not being able to get it out when I washed the shirt.

Q: Beyond the fuel, the SR-71 depended on a huge ecosystem of specialized equipment, fluids, personnel and procedures. Which parts of that infrastructure would be hardest to recreate today?

A: That was something that Mike Relja pointed out when he talked to Steve Trimble. That’s a good one. You probably heard that the J58s were started with a start cart that was basically a bank of Buick 12-cylinder engines, all next to each other. It’s a beautiful-sounding system, but very unique. But what is starting, you know, other than you’re either doing a power takeoff via shaft, or you’re using compressed air. It depends on what the engine demands. So I think the start cart development would be fairly straightforward.

But there is a lot of specialized equipment, like Mike pointed out, the wings when they’re split up, they are held in place by a specific scaffolding. The way the engines were craned out of the wing required special equipment. Pulling the inlet spike off that required a special cradle. Those are not insurmountable, but you don’t want to wait till the last minute to realize you need unique equipment. So it’s all got to be taken into consideration.

This engine starter cart was developed specifically for the SR-71 family of aircraft. It used two Buick V-8 racing car engines, linked together through a common gear box, to deliver power to the starter drive shaft of the aircraft engine. More than 600 hp from the two V-8 engines was required to “spool up” the J58 to about 3,200 rpm for starting. (U.S. Air Force photo)

Q: Could existing SR-71s in museums realistically be used as sources of spare parts for 844, or would cannibalizing those aircraft create more problems than it solves? Were those airframes left structurally intact?

A: I believe that was the agreement with the Blackbirds. If a museum were to put one on display, there was a certain expectation regarding care and maintenance. Not so much maintenance, but care and preservation. If you think about it, many of them are under roof in climate-controlled facilities. I know several of them that are preserved like that, including one here in Tucson. That, of course, is the best place for preserving anything with elastomerics and plastic. So I think it’s encouraging that so many of them have been so well cared for. Again, it’s going to come down to which components, regardless of whether or not they’re indoor or outdoor, which components are going to fail first, and I believe that’s the exercise NASA is looking at.

Then you’ve got to start beating down, chasing supply chain sources for some of this, and you know the nightmare that’s out there with supply chain and aerospace. So it’s not going to be an easy task. I don’t want to act like it is. I don’t think it’s insurmountable though.

Q: So these aircraft can be used as sources of spare parts?

A: Sure, absolutely.

Q: Is anyone with a Blackbird already contributing parts?

A: I know that the Edwards Air Museum is contributing what they can as far as spares and prints. I don’t know who else, although I believe the second NASA SR-71A went to the Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum in Oregon. I would expect them to be in the loop.

( TWZ reached out to the Evergreen to find out what, if anything, it is contributing to this effort. )

An extremely well preserved Blackbird on display inside at the North American Aerospace Museum in Oregon (formally the Evergreen Airventure Museum). (NAAM) Stephanie Tassone

Q: How difficult will it be for modern test pilots to fly tail 844, or whatever aircraft is created from this project? What would actually be the hardest part of training a pilot to fly the aircraft today? Do you think they will convert it into an unmanned configuration?

A: Well, that would be a difficult airplane to convert to unmanned, unless it went with a digital backbone, and like I said, I think that would be an enormous undertaking. It’s not unheard of. NASA, along with McDonnell Douglas, converted a couple of F-15s to all-digital backbones before the F-15E program began. It can be done. It’s just expensive. It’s not easy.

But the piloting task starts with a good simulator , right? The piloting task is absolutely a big deal. I saw it firsthand at Dryden. That said, it took a couple years, probably two. I would say that’s about right for the Dryden pilots, who are pretty good at what they do, to learn to fly the Blackbird safely, and that was with the use of the two-seat trainer, which we’re not going to have this time.

So I think the key to this happening is getting a digital sim together very quickly, and it wouldn’t surprise me if NASA has begun this process already. Getting that together, plus getting the former pilots who are still with us in the seat to make sure that it aligns with what they recall as far as the unique features of the airplane.

I have 100 hours of stick time on the Air Force Blackbird simulator. I’m not a pilot, but I used to pre-fly the maneuvers for the pilots and NASA on the high-drag missions, so I’m familiar with the way the airplane flies up and away, and it is a bear to fly. It is not easy. So training is not insurmountable. Like I said, it takes a good, high-fidelity sim. NASA is expert at building those kinds of simulators, modular simulators quickly. In this day and age, we should be able to put a high-fidelity sim together fairly quickly for training.

If you recall, the cockpit is an analog nightmare on a Blackbird. Breakers everywhere. Dials everywhere. I doubt that somebody suggested that we go with an all-digital cockpit. That would be so much work to do. But if we go for it with just a pure analog cockpit that we used previously, that’s going to require a lot of familiarity. I do believe that the training systems might still exist for that. It would just be for that airplane. It would just be getting them all cobbled back together.

Q: What made the Blackbird so difficult to fly?

A: It’s a low-G airframe, so you got to baby it. It’s easy to get an angle of attack out of range. And then with those chined surfaces , it’s easy to get a pitch-up with the airplane. That’s how I always managed to wreck it in the sim. I would let alpha get away from me.

Q: Do you know if any of the pilots have been recalled for this effort to get this thing flying again?

A: No, I don’t know.

Q: It has been close to 70 years since the A-12 Oxcart first flew. There had to have been other high-speed aircraft that at least came and went in the classified test environment. Considering all the work in hypersonics today, it isn’t hard to believe new platforms exist. Why would the SR-71 still have relevance here, and why not use one of those aircraft instead, if they exist? If they do, is it because the SR-71 is declassified?

A: Yeah, that could very well be what we’re looking at here. I’ve had friends ask that question this week. We were talking about the SR-72 . Where is that at? I don’t know. I know people who went to work on it years ago. I’ve never heard anything since. So it could be that that’s so deep black that there’s no way that platform could be used as a test asset. So I think it’s precisely what you said. The Blackbird’s no longer classified, and that it’s possible that the engines that might be used in Blackbird wouldn’t be classified either.

A rendering of the proposed SR-72. Lockheed Martin

Q: Would any of those engines be applicable for this SR-71 reboot?

Q: Do you know if they exist anywhere?

A: No. But from what was leaked or hinted at regarding the size of the vehicle, it would seem that whatever was the power plant for that aircraft, it would be about the right size.

Q: What do you think generally about the renaissance of sorts in high-speed aerospace capabilities in recent years?

A: I worked on HAWC [ Hypersonic Airbreathing Weapon Concept ] at Raytheon, which became HACM [ Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile ]. One of the systems that I helped design was the inlet isolator used on HACM, which is not operational yet, but it will be. But it’s an air breather by Raytheon. That gave me a lot of exposure to the level of exquisite technology that’s required to field a system like that.

It is expensive. It’s difficult. Supply chain is a challenge. There’s a reason why they cost what they do per unit. So you see the push to develop lower-cost hypersonic systems like Castelion’s Blackbeard [ lower-cost hypersonic missile ]. It’s not an air breather. So I think it’s an easier problem than what we dealt with at Raytheon with an air breather. But nevertheless, it’s impressive that they’ve gotten a price point down to what they’ve gotten, so you see that happening in hypersonics.

You’re kind of stuck in the same block of speed, but the price is dropping. And then meanwhile, you’ve got this massive group of munitions that are setting up camp in a Mach 2 to Mach 4 speed regime for reasons I mentioned. Those are running much cheaper per shot and per effect, which is why that’s happening. So that you give up something on survivability by pulling down into that speed range, but the price point allows you to volley at such a level that you overwhelm the defensive systems.

To date, this is the only picture the US Air Force has released showing an actual air-breathing hypersonic cruise missile test article related to the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) program and/or the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s preceding Hypersonic Airbreathing Weapon Concept (HAWC) effort. (USAF)

Q: If an SR-71 took to the skies again, would it not be one of the highest-profile aviation moments in a generation? It would certainly capture the imagination of many young and old. What do you think about the social aspect of all this?

A: I have yet to find anybody who isn’t excited by the prospect. Certainly, everybody within aviation thinks it’s cool. Some of my family who don’t know much about airplanes – they all think it’s cool. Everybody thinks it’s just super. That said, everybody also wonders why we’re doing it. But what’s funny is everybody still says, ‘Let’s do it anyway because it’s such an iconic airplane, beautiful airplane, an inspiration.’ Hopefully, there would be a good reason to spend the money. But I think even if it’s a bad reason, everybody wants it to take to the skies again.

Q: If you were a betting man, Tim, what would you say are the odds of this thing flying again?

A: I would give it a 25% chance.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Comments couldn’t be loaded. Please refresh the page.

作者：霍华德·奥特曼、泰勒·罗戈威

发布于美国东部时间2026年10月2日下午5:03

谈到844号尾号的SR-71“黑鸟”侦察机——这架飞机曾神秘地从NASA阿姆斯特朗飞行研究中心消失——的未来，很少有人比蒂姆·康纳斯更有见解。上世纪90年代，康纳斯在NASA工作，担任“黑鸟”项目的首席推进工程师。他曾深度参与844号飞机的研发，对这架标志性飞机的运作原理了如指掌。如今，他以内部人士的视角，解读了NASA为让“黑鸟”重返蓝天所做的秘密工作，并推测了实现这一目标所需的条件，以及这架著名的喷气式飞机在沉寂27年后可能为NASA执行的飞行测试任务。

上个月底，我们报道了卫星图像显示，阿姆斯特朗航天中心上空的844号尾翼飞机至少从5月份起就下落不明。这一消息最初由《航空周刊》国防编辑、TWZ的好友史蒂夫·特林布尔披露。此前，美国宇航局局长贾里德·艾萨克曼曾神秘地暗示，美国正在研发一种新型高空高速X型飞机，并发布了一张飞机轮廓图，该轮廓图立即让人联想到“黑鸟”侦察机。就在本周，特林布尔报道称，美国宇航局一直在与SR-71项目的前人员洽谈，希望他们能重返该项目。这一系列事件引发了人们的广泛猜测：美国宇航局是否计划重启“黑鸟”项目？其目的又是什么？

在接受 TWZ 的独家采访时，现任 Tiberius Aerospace 先进武器系统技术总监的 Conners 向我们讲述了他对 NASA 黑鸟计划的看法，以及他对 NASA 正在进行的工作和进展情况的见解。

为了更清晰地表达，部分问答内容略有修改。

问：请您谈谈您在SR-71项目中的经历。这个项目是如何开始的？持续了多久？您具体负责哪些工作？

答：这事儿基本上是90年代初我在美国宇航局德莱顿飞行研究中心当工程师的时候发生的。当时美国空军退役了这批飞机，NASA接收了三架。NASA得到了两架A型和一架教练机。显然，现在最受关注的是尾号为844的那架，也就是NASA的编号。但这些飞机都是90年代初送到德莱顿的。

纯属偶然，我被分到了推进系统组。由于种种原因，我们人手短缺，而黑鸟侦察机项目又需要一名工程师。那时我已经为NASA工作了三四年，被选中负责为即将到来的科研飞行任务准备NASA方面的工作。所以我有几年的时间来熟悉情况。顺便说一句，那是一份兼职工作。我还在NASA担任F-15机队的推进系统工程师，这项工作占据了我大量的时间，但也让我有足够的时间熟悉飞机的运行方式，至少从推进系统的角度来看是这样。然后我们在1996年开始执行科研任务。我于1998年离开了NASA，但在那两年的飞行测试以及之前所有的准备工作中，我都为该项目提供了支持。

问：请详细介绍一下您在黑鸟队中的角色。

答：我当时是NASA的首席推进工程师。NASA的做法是，他们会从工业界和政府部门的同行中指派各领域的负责人。德莱顿飞行研究中心的负责人，他们的职责主要是确保所有实验组件都能安全地集成到机身中，并确保我们能够安全顺利地执行预定的测试任务。我负责推进系统和性能方面的工作。如果你还记得洛克希德公司的线性气动尖锥火箭发动机项目，那个组件重达20000到25000磅，安装在SR-71的尾部外部。显然，这会带来很大的阻力。所以我的部分职责就是确保我们能够克服跨音速阻力上升的影响，并最终达到预期的测试条件。

这张照片拍摄于1997年10月31日，当时SR-71的尾号为844，正处于NASA服役期间，该机正在执行NASA/Rocketdyne/Lockheed Martin线性气动尖锥SR-71实验（LASRE）的支持飞行任务中。

问：人们对黑鸟侦察机重返蓝天表现出极大的兴趣。最大的疑问似乎是：为什么？SR-71 能进行哪些现代飞机、火箭或无人飞行器无法更有效地完成的实验或研究？您能否为我们介绍一下 NASA 希望它重返蓝天的一些原因？

A：是啊，大家都在问这个问题。为什么呢？我只是猜测，虽然我确实有点感觉事情会如何发展。所以请听我慢慢道来。

他们可能并非出于空气动力学原因而进行这项工作，或者说并非试图出于空气动力学原因而进行这项工作。如今，在这种速度范围内，你可以随时进行基于计算流体动力学 (CFD) 的建模，而且精度很高。这并不需要花费太多时间和金钱。但你无法精确地模拟一种新型发动机集成到高速机身中的情况。你可以进行概念建模。当然，要获得最终的安装结果非常困难，尤其是在发动机需要长时间运行的情况下。我认为他们正在朝着这个方向努力。我相信他们基本上是在开发一个高速发动机试验平台。这对我来说是最合理的解释。

问：这是用更现代的飞机、火箭或无人驾驶飞行器做不到的事情吗？

答：问得好。不过你知道，这场战役大概三分之二的难点在于机身的研发。这确实取决于你想要的发动机尺寸。

显然，如果是威廉姆斯发动机或者同等尺寸的发动机，你或许可以用定制的无人机进行测试，成本不会太高。但如果你的目标是测试载人飞行或体积庞大的部件，比如J58尺寸的发动机，那么还有什么比使用已经证明能够以该速度飞行的机身更好的方法呢？

SR-71“黑鸟”侦察机。（图片由美国空军提供）

问：你是否被邀请加入美国宇航局的一个团队，负责让一架喷气式飞机重新升空？还有哪些人被邀请了？他们组建的是什么样的团队？

答：我没有收到任何邀请。今年早些时候，我收到一条略带玩笑意味的短信，内容是：“嘿，康纳斯，你想不想帮忙让黑鸟队重振雄风？”发短信的人似乎掌握了一些内部消息。我就是从那里第一次听说这件事的。那是春天的事了，但没有人正式联系过我。

就目前来看，据我所知，唯一被列入候选名单的退休人员是迈克·雷利亚。迈克曾是黑鸟侦察机的机组长，所以他们想招他出来也合情合理。不过目前还没有正式的聘用通知，说实话，如果有人来找我，我想我肯定不会拒绝。

问：您知道这个项目的想法源自哪里以及谁负责吗？

A：我没有答案。我也很想知道。

问：您能告诉我一些关于这项工作的信息吗？您了解到的项目最新进展是什么？

A：我听到的消息是，他们打算很快进行通电测试。这意义重大。当然，这并非指启动发动机。而是给机身施加外部电源，看看哪些系统还能正常工作，哪些系统已经失效，然后再根据情况采取下一步行动。所以，这应该是预期的第一步。

这是一个令人鼓舞的进展。这意味着NASA已经完成了打开所有舱室、检查内部结构、确保该装置至少通过目视适航检查等工作。

问：他们真的已经让任何系统运行起来了吗？

答：不，他们实际上已经完成了目视检查，用电子探针检测了机身。[让系统正常运行]是下一步，但据我了解，这方面很快就会有进展。

（美国国家航空航天局）供图

问：时间表是什么？

A：这应该会在接下来的几周内发生。

问：真的吗？这项工作在哪里进行？

答：我不能确定。不过我猜想这件事发生在（NASA的）阿姆斯特朗飞行研究中心。

问：那么接下来会发生什么？

答：问得好。让我先说说我最近听到的一些消息，这样你就能明白是怎么回事了。关于JP-7，人们经常问起这种燃料。我想大家都知道，NASA在90年代初从空军那里接收了大量的JP-7燃料。数量之多，甚至存放在一个专门的储罐里，比如爱德华兹空军基地那种巨大的喷气燃料储罐。你知道的，就是山脊上的那些储罐。

据我了解，很遗憾，这种燃料大约在20年前就停产了，而且JP-7是一种特殊的燃料，挥发性很低。当我询问可能的替代方案时，听起来这并非无法解决。我感觉他们一直在与炼油厂商讨寻找替代品或合适的替代燃料。所以，我一开始听到这种燃料已经停产的消息时感到很沮丧，但后来又因为可能存在替代燃料而感到鼓舞。

在SR-71项目终止前，一台静态安装的普惠J58发动机开启加力燃烧室，正在消耗掉剩余的JP-7燃料。（NASA）

但这引出了关于发动机本身的问题，而得到的反馈更令人沮丧，因为发动机似乎确实无法使用了。我认为这并非基于实际运行测试，而是基于检查结果。这或许并不令人意外，毕竟它们已经闲置了27年。这引发了关于机身动力来源的反复讨论。而这最终引出了另一个问题：如果把所有线索串联起来，就会发现这架飞机将被用作发动机试验平台。

所以不同的发动机，它们必须是高马赫数旁通系统。我们可以猜测是哪家发动机公司在开发这些系统，但是，我不想透露太多，因为我不想让我们失去我们获得的内部信息。

问：他们是否正在研发一种完全不同的引擎来驱动黑鸟？

答：我也不确定。我觉得如果J58发动机不能用于黑鸟侦察机，要么就只能放弃这个项目，要么就得引进一些我们目前还不知道的、正在研发中的发动机。除此之外别无他法。那我们到底要用什么发动机呢？总不能随便装个F100或者F110吧，它们肯定不行。

问：显然，要把一架在户外风吹日晒多年、破败不堪的飞机修复成能够承受3马赫飞行严苛考验的飞机，绝对是一项艰巨的任务。您认为这项任务最大的障碍是什么？

答：首先肯定是发动机。其次是所有由弹性体材料制成的部件，比如塑料、电线、连接器外壳等等。所有这些部件都会随着时间推移而老化氧化。你可以想象一下，电线磨损、绝缘层破损会造成多么严重的后果。黑鸟的优势在于，它的所有外壳和连接器都是为了承受持续以3.2马赫的速度飞行一小时甚至更长时间的严苛考验而设计的，因此它们不会很快老化。问题是：它们在27年的时间里是否老化了？如果答案是老化程度不大，那么除了发动机之外，我们可能已经解决了关于修复这架飞机的一大难题。

问：你认为NASA会尝试让尾翼844基本保持原样飞行，还是会对其进行深度修改，或者在此基础上建造一些新的东西？

答：完全未知。他们肯定有能力改装机身，对吧？他们在90年代就改装过，用来搭载线性气动尖锥套件。那对机身本身来说是一项巨大的工程。他们成功完成了。阿姆斯特朗公司在这个领域仍然拥有相当强大的技术实力，所以如果他们想改装钛合金结构，我认为他们完全可以做到。

美国宇航局 SR-71 飞机（尾号 844）上的线性气动尖锥超导实验 (LASRE) 吊舱。（图片由 Heritage Space/Heritage Images 通过 Getty Images 提供）

但这确实是个好问题。再说一遍，这可能最终会指向空气动力学研究。如果换作是我，作为纳税人，我会倾向于通过计算研究来获得答案。我的日常工作中也经常这样做：在涉及外部空气动力学的情况下，我会放弃实际测试而选择计算。但是，在这种速度范围内进行集成推进系统测试时，就真正需要来自实际运行工况的测试数据了。

问：与数字建模相比呢？

答：是的。例如，假设黑鸟侦察机的空气动力学数据库丢失了（这种情况很有可能发生）。我知道现在还有一些简单的空气动力学模型，但像那种可以用于飞行员模拟器的真正高保真模型，或许可以很快地重新生成。以现在的计算能力来看，可能只需要几个月的时间。所以我认为模拟能力可以很快建立起来。这当然是飞行员训练的基础。

问：关于飞行员训练，我们稍后再详细讨论，但首先我想问一下现代化改造的问题。如果NASA要对SR-71进行现代化改造，您希望看到哪些改进？从材料科学、航空电子设备、推进系统等方面来看，哪些改进最合理？

答：我不是材料专家。我觉得利用自适应飞行控制技术优化机身结构会很有意思。所以，如果飞行控制系统能够数字化，我认为这将带来一些非常有趣的飞行实验。但我对此表示怀疑。我可能错了，但如果目标是让机身恢复飞行并作为推进系统测试平台，那么就没必要拆除液压机械飞行控制系统并用数字系统取而代之。

这是第9战略侦察联队的一架SR-71侦察机着陆时的左侧视角。飞机在夕阳的映衬下呈现出剪影效果。（美国空军）

说了这么多，我真正想看到的还是我们几分钟前讨论的，也就是现代高速发动机技术。那么，我们能做些什么呢？J58发动机是低工作压力比系统。我认为，如果用一台现代化的、数字化控制的多流式高马赫数发动机来改造，将会是真正具有开创性的。

之所以人们对这个速度区间感兴趣，其中一个原因是它曾被忽视多年。当时的焦点都集中在高超音速飞行器上。如果你提出任何回到15年前，比如说，3.5马赫速度区间的方案，都会被忽略。那时，高超音速飞行器才是真正的焦点。高超音速飞行器在某些战术场景下确实非常强大，但它的弱点如今也逐渐显现出来。

至于反制措施，高超音速仍然有一席之地。别误会我的意思，但从成本角度来看，并非所有系统都能做到高超音速。所以，在过去的五年里，我们看到很多系统重新出现在人们的视野中，它们的运行速度在2马赫到4马赫之间，它们之所以都在这个范围内运行是有原因的，对吧？这样可以避免使用更高级金属材料的速度限制，使其保持在钛合金的适用范围内。当然，它们可以飞行到3.5马赫，短时间内甚至可以达到4马赫左右，这对于对抗许多军事目标和防御系统来说具有战术意义。所以，现在我们拥有了一个潜在的飞行试验平台，它可以搭载J58级别的发动机。

问：像这样的项目大概需要多少成本？它在经济上真的可行吗？您认为需要多长时间？

答：我一直在考虑这个问题，我认为这取决于谁来做。我不想贬低我以前在政府部门的同事。我以前在NASA工作时非常尊重他们，但我离开NASA的原因之一就是它变得越来越规避风险。这导致所有部门都臃肿不堪。以前我们能快速完成的工作，现在在德莱顿飞行研究中心已经无法快速或低成本地完成了，这正是我所担心的。

如果NASA能像以前那样灵活运作，如果德莱顿/阿姆斯特朗研究中心能像30年前那样灵活运作，他们可能几年就能完成这项工作。我再次强调，这取决于他们具体需要对机身进行哪些改动。如果只是修复机身，利用现有的接口安装新发动机，那速度肯定比进行大规模的机身改造快得多。

问：鉴于 844 号飞机自 1999 年以来一直闲置，在考虑让它重新投入使用之前，您首先想检查或测试的是什么？

A：我听到的传言正是他们正在这么做。飞机上所有通电部件的状况如何？因为如果整个机身短路，你知道会发生什么。

如果你的车电池线接反了——我以前就有一辆车，有人这么接的。结果车子彻底报废了，因为接下来的几个月里我一直在追查短路，车子也一直抛锚，因为线路受损，熔化、起泡，弄得车子到处都是。然后线路还会进水。短路就发生了。我认为，这就是通电测试的目的之一：确保整个机身线路的连通性，确保可靠的连通性。所以，这正是第一步。

我认为第二个问题应该是液压系统。那辆车是液力机械式的。那么执行器之类的部件状态如何呢？

问：您说这项工作目前正在进行中？

答：它肯定正在接受检查。这也是他们把它从阿姆斯特朗的展台上撤下来的原因之一。但这项工作已经持续了几个月，而且看起来至少有理由让他们感到鼓舞，并继续进行下一步。否则，他们就会直接把它拖回停车位了。

SR-71“黑鸟”侦察机，尾号844，在NASA阿姆斯特朗飞行研究中心展出时（谷歌地球）

问：下一步是测试系统吗？

问：我们之前稍微提到过，SR-71的J58发动机在闲置近30年后重新投入使用有多大可能？您最担心这些发动机的哪些方面？还剩下多少台？

答：嗯，你说得对。至于容易找到的发动机，爱德华兹空军基地的空军飞行测试博物馆里就有好几台。我记得它们一直存放在室外。不过，如果你看看世界各地所有展出黑鸟侦察机的博物馆，几乎所有黑鸟都装的是J58发动机，而且通常都会有一台发动机放在展出的机身旁边，所以发动机的数量是充足的。当然，问题在于它们是否还能使用。

但对于一台发动机来说，最大的问题可能就是轴承磨损——其实对于一台闲置数十年的燃气轮机来说，问题就更多了——那就是轴承会磨损变形。虽然肉眼可能看不出来，但旋转的涡轮机械非常怕轴承磨损。所以，出于显而易见的振动原因，轴承磨损是必然的。此外，密封件也会出现问题。密封件会开裂，滞留的燃油会变成油泥，堵塞管路。当然，那台发动机是全液压机械式的，或者说，由于高温问题，它没有采用任何数字控制系统。因此，燃油液压系统在那台发动机中扮演了至关重要的角色。

那些管路里可能积满了油污。我想这就是它们基本上被判定为无法使用的原因。我感到沮丧，因为我问过的一个问题没有得到解答：有人尝试过启动发动机或者拆解它们吗？但我现在甚至不知道J58发动机的拆卸说明是否存在。我相信只要找对人就能搞定，但你也知道，拆东西比装回去容易得多。

问：所以现在已经没有使用手册了吗？

答：我不知道有没有专门针对这架飞机的操作手册。就像我之前在《航空周刊》上跟史蒂夫·特林布尔（Steve Trimble）说的那样，肯定有操作手册。你可能见过SR-71A的飞行员手册，那真是一本好书。网上有很多副本，你可以下载PDF版本。这些手册写得非常好，而且篇幅很长。我知道这架飞机的纸质版手册也有，以前在爱德华兹博物馆保存着。我相信现在已经归还给NASA了。所以，并不是完全没有相关信息。

SR-71“黑鸟”844号侦察机沐浴在加利福尼亚州爱德华兹空军基地的月光下。（美国空军照片，摄影：托德·沙努斯）托德·沙努斯

我在NASA的时候，负责接收普惠公司在空军终止J58项目后留下的所有资料。这些资料装在两三个小盒子里，包括一些打印出来的代码或数值数据，以及几卷磁带状的代码。东西不多。当时有人告诉我，我之所以能拿到这些资料，是因为空军发出销毁通知时有人漏掉了。资料放在某人的桌子底下，所以很遗憾，并没有起到什么重要的知识传承作用。

问：你把这些钱都怎么处理了？

答：我1998年离开NASA时把它留在了那里。

问：它后来怎么样了？

答：我不知道。希望有人扫描过。不过，那是J58的信息，对吧？所以如果他们要用新发动机，他们应该会有新系统的完整数字模型。而且我相信，重建空气动力学数据库，包括进气性能之类的数据，都可以用计算工具很快地重新生成。

问：我们之前稍微提到过，要复制黑鸟侦察机使用的JP-7燃料有多难？还需要专门的加油机，对吗？

答：所以我问的问题之一就是这种配方是否仍然存在。得到的答复是，炼油厂基本上应该能够重新配制出合适的替代品。仔细想想，JP-7的独特之处在于它的挥发性非常低。

我从一些冲压发动机的研究中了解到，Jet A 的挥发性极低，当然，这是其设计使然。因此，我认为 JP-7 与 Jet A 级燃料（例如 JP-8 型燃料）的化学特性并没有太大差异。JP-8 相较于 JP-4 是一项重大改进，空军最初在其机队中使用 JP-4，然后在 90 年代为了与海军的配方保持一致而改用 JP-8。JP-8 是一种低挥发性燃料，在 NASA，我们不得不重新测试所有喷气式飞机使用 JP-8 后的飞行性能，但结果令人满意。

我们之前担心的是操作性问题——比如熄火、发动机重新点火和飞行中继故障。这些问题最终都没有出现，所以我不想把事情想得太简单，但我认为或许可以用现有的航空煤油（Jet A），添加合适的添加剂，将其挥发性降低到黑鸟飞机可以安全飞行的水平。

空军一等兵詹姆斯·杜兹（James Douds），第386远征后勤保障中队的燃料专家，正在卸载JP-8喷气燃料。（美国空军技术军士乔纳森·亨利摄）高级军士长乔纳森·亨利

问：要让空中加油机能够为黑鸟侦察机加油，需要做些什么？

答：黑鸟侦察机有专门的JP-7加油车。我不知道他们能不能对现有的系统进行清洗。这取决于配方，对吧？JP-7因其不良特性而臭名昭著，它有毒。

有一次我站在黑鸟侦察机的机翼下，衬衫被JP-7燃油滴了一身，只好扔掉。那件衬衫上的JP-7燃油味儿太浓了，怎么也洗不掉。那燃油真够奇特的。所以，如果你能找到一种更符合现役燃油特性的燃油，我相信在加油方面应该不会有什么大问题，但你也知道，这架飞机肯定需要加油机的支援。

问：你说JP-7燃料有异味。它闻起来是什么味道？

A：我只记得当时感觉恶心反胃。那天我一直闻到一股怪味，伸手一看，发现肩膀上有一块污渍。我不记得那天剩下的时间发生了什么，只记得那股味道让我反胃，而且洗衬衫也洗不掉。

问：除了燃料之外，SR-71 还依赖于一个庞大的专用设备、液体、人员和流程生态系统。如今，重建这套基础设施的哪些部分最困难？

答：这是迈克·雷利亚在和史蒂夫·特林布尔谈话时提到的一点。这确实是个好问题。你可能听说过，J58发动机是用启动车启动的，那车基本上就是一排并排的别克12缸发动机。这套系统听起来很悦耳，但非常独特。不过，除了通过轴输出动力或者使用压缩空气之外，发动机的启动方式是什么呢？这取决于发动机的需求。所以我认为，启动车的研发应该相当简单。

但正如迈克指出的那样，这其中有很多专用设备。机翼拆解后，需要用到特定的支架固定。发动机从机翼中吊出也需要特殊设备。拆卸进气道锥体也需要特殊的支架。这些困难并非无法克服，但你肯定不想等到最后一刻才意识到需要特殊设备。所以，所有这些都必须考虑在内。

这台发动机启动车是专门为SR-71系列飞机开发的。它使用两台别克V-8赛车发动机，通过一个公共齿轮箱连接在一起，为飞机发动机的启动驱动轴提供动力。这两台V-8发动机需要超过600马力的功率才能将J58发动机的转速提升到约3200转/分以启动。（美国空军照片）

问：博物馆里现有的SR-71侦察机能否实际用作844号飞机的备件来源？或者说，拆解这些飞机反而会带来更多问题？这些飞机的机身结构是否完好无损？

答：我相信这就是与黑鸟侦察机的协议。如果博物馆要展出其中一架，就必须对保养和维护提出一定的要求。与其说是维护，不如说是保护和保存。想想看，很多黑鸟侦察机都存放在室内恒温恒湿的设施里。我知道好几架就是这样保存的，包括图森这里就有一架。当然，对于任何含有弹性体和塑料的物品来说，室内恒温恒湿的设施都是最佳的保存场所。所以，这么多黑鸟侦察机都得到了如此妥善的保护，这令人欣慰。归根结底，无论这些侦察机是室内还是室外，最终都要看哪些部件会最先失效，我相信这正是NASA正在研究的问题。

接下来，你就得开始深入挖掘，追查供应链上的供应商，你也知道航空航天领域的供应链有多复杂。所以这绝非易事。我不想把它说得轻描淡写。不过，我认为这并非无法克服。

问：那么这些飞机可以作为备件来源吗？

A：当然，绝对没问题。

问：目前是否有人已经拥有黑鸟侦察机并贡献了零件？

答：我知道爱德华兹航空博物馆正在尽力提供备件和图纸。我不知道还有谁，不过我相信第二架NASA SR-71A去了俄勒冈州的常青航空航天博物馆。我想他们应该也了解情况。

（TWZ联系了常青树酒店，询问其是否为此项工作做出了任何贡献。）

一架保存极其完好的黑鸟侦察机现陈列于俄勒冈州北美航空航天博物馆（原常青航空冒险博物馆）内。（NAAM）斯蒂芬妮·塔索内

问：对于现代试飞员来说，驾驶尾号为844的飞机，或者任何基于该项目研发的飞机，难度会有多大？如今训练飞行员驾驶这架飞机最难的部分是什么？您认为他们会将其改装成无人驾驶飞机吗？

答：嗯，除非采用数字化骨干网，否则把那架飞机改装成无人驾驶飞机确实很困难。就像我说的，我认为这将是一项巨大的工程。但这并非闻所未闻。在F-15E项目启动之前，NASA就曾与麦克唐纳·道格拉斯公司合作，将几架F-15战斗机改装成全数字化骨干网。这是可以实现的，只是成本很高，并不容易。

但驾驶训练要从一台好的模拟器开始，对吧？驾驶训练绝对至关重要。我在德莱顿亲眼目睹过。也就是说，这需要几年时间，可能两年。对于德莱顿的飞行员来说，这差不多是他们学习安全驾驶黑鸟所需的时间，他们本身就非常优秀。而且他们当时使用的是双座教练机，而我们这次没有双座教练机了。

所以我认为关键在于尽快搭建一个数字模拟器，如果NASA已经开始这项工作，我一点也不会感到惊讶。搭建好模拟器后，还要让那些仍然健在的前飞行员坐在驾驶舱里，确保模拟器与他们对飞机独特特征的记忆相符。

我在空军黑鸟模拟器上积累了100小时的飞行时间。我不是飞行员，但我以前负责为飞行员和NASA进行高阻力任务的飞行前演练，所以我很熟悉这架飞机爬升和起飞的过程，而且驾驶起来非常困难。这并不容易。所以训练并非不可逾越。就像我说的，关键在于一个好的、高保真的模拟器。NASA非常擅长建造这类模拟器，尤其是模块化模拟器，而且速度很快。在如今这个时代，我们应该能够很快地搭建一个高保真模拟器用于训练。

如果你还记得的话，黑鸟的驾驶舱简直就是个模拟噩梦。到处都是断路器，到处都是旋钮。我怀疑有人会建议我们采用全数字化的驾驶舱。那工作量太大了。但如果我们坚持使用之前用过的纯模拟驾驶舱，那就需要非常熟悉的操作。我相信相关的训练系统可能仍然存在，只是只适用于那架飞机。我们需要把它们重新拼凑起来。

问：是什么让黑鸟战机如此难以飞行？

答：这架飞机是低G型的，所以你得小心翼翼地操控。很容易让迎角超出控制范围。而且由于那些折角翼面，飞机很容易抬头。这就是我在模拟飞行中总是把它弄坏的原因。我总是让迎角失控。

问：您知道是否有飞行员被召回参与此次让这架飞机重新起飞的工作吗？

A：不，我不知道。

问：A-12“牛车”攻击机首飞至今已近70年。在此期间，肯定还有其他高速飞机在保密测试环境中出现或退役。考虑到如今高超音速技术的飞速发展，不难相信新型平台已经存在。如果SR-71仍然存在，为什么不使用其他飞机呢？如果确实存在，是因为SR-71已经解密了吗？

A：是的，这很可能就是我们现在面临的情况。这周也有朋友问过我这个问题。我们当时在讨论SR-72。它现在怎么样了？我不知道。我认识一些几年前参与过SR-72项目的人，但之后就再也没有消息了。所以，SR-72可能真的属于高度机密，根本不可能被用作测试平台。因此，我认为你说的完全正确。“黑鸟”侦察机现在已经不再是机密项目了，而且“黑鸟”可能使用的发动机也可能不再是机密项目。

SR-72侦察机的效果图。洛克希德·马丁公司

问：这些发动机中是否有任何一款适用于SR-71的重启项目？

问：你知道它们是否存在吗？

答：不。但从泄露或暗示的有关该飞行器尺寸的信息来看，无论该飞行器的动力装置是什么，其尺寸似乎都差不多合适。

问：您如何看待近年来高速航空航天能力的某种复兴？

答：我曾在雷神公司参与HAWC（高超音速吸气式武器概念）项目，后来该项目发展成为HACM（高超音速攻击巡航导弹）。我参与设计的系统之一是HACM上使用的进气隔离器，虽然目前尚未投入使用，但未来将会投入使用。HACM是雷神公司研发的一种吸气式武器。这段经历让我深入了解了部署此类系统所需的尖端技术。

它很昂贵，也很困难，供应链更是一大挑战。它们的单价如此之高是有原因的。因此，我们看到人们致力于开发更低成本的高超音速系统，例如卡斯特利翁公司的“黑胡子”导弹（低成本高超音速导弹）。它不是吸气式高超音速导弹，所以我认为它比我们在雷神公司遇到的吸气式高超音速导弹问题要容易解决。尽管如此，他们能把价格降到现在的水平仍然令人印象深刻，所以你可以看到高超音速领域正在发生这样的变化。

你的速度基本停滞不前，但价格却在下降。与此同时，由于我之前提到的原因，大量弹药正占据着2马赫到4马赫的速度区间。这些弹药的单发成本和效果成本都低得多，这就是价格下降的原因。因此，降低速度区间会牺牲一些生存能力，但价格优势让你能够以极高的火力压制敌方的防御系统。

迄今为止，这是美国空军发布的唯一一张与高超音速攻击巡航导弹（HACM）项目和/或国防高级研究计划局（DARPA）此前的高超音速吸气式武器概念（HAWC）项目相关的实际吸气式高超音速巡航导弹试验件的照片。（美国空军）

问：如果SR-71再次翱翔蓝天，这难道不是近几十年来最引人瞩目的航空事件之一吗？它肯定会激发无数年轻人和老年人的想象力。您如何看待这件事的社会影响？

答：我还没遇到过谁对这个前景不兴奋。当然，航空界人士都觉得这很酷。就连我一些不太懂飞机的家人也觉得很酷。大家都觉得这太棒了。话虽如此，大家也都想知道我们为什么要这么做。但有趣的是，大家还是会说：“不管怎样，我们还是要做吧，因为它是一架标志性的飞机，一架漂亮的飞机，一架鼓舞人心的飞机。” 希望我们能找到一个值得花这笔钱的好理由。但我认为，即使理由不太充分，大家也都希望它能再次翱翔蓝天。

问：蒂姆，如果你是个喜欢打赌的人，你觉得这件事再次发生的几率有多大？

A：我觉得有25%的可能性。

联系作者：howard@twz.com

评论加载失败，请刷新页面。