Having spent a forty year career in aeronautical engineering at Lockheed, 30+ of those years at Skunk Works, I must say I am truly impressed with this presentation. He actually gets the history correct, something that often doesn't happen when outsiders talk about these things. The P-80 was before my time, but I worked on the other aircraft mentioned here, and quite a few others. I realize Mr. Means is primarily trying to make a motivational presentation here - but his Skunk Works history stands on its own as being worthwhile.
I made many of the components for these planes. It was both exciting and strange working with the Skunk Works. Your right about how they kept information simple. Manufacturing information was always done on hand drawn blueprints (sometimes with very funny notes- that you would never see on BAC, LAC, GD, DAC, etc drawings). Many times a RFQ would be hand delivered Friday morning, accepted by lunchtime and the structural component made overnight (sometimes 2-3 'overnights), picked up by a follow-up person (LAC Union had a big problem with this) and on the flight line Sunday Morning for testing, R/R,etc. One had to have a lot of corporation from other vendors especially when the part had to be rushed through processing, ie mag./penetrant inspect, alodine, x-ray, primer/paint, Heat Treat, Chrome Plating , etc.- otherwise could take many days /weeks. If you were a manufacture vendor/supplier for the Skunk Works you probably worked with a whole variety of materials. Sometimes with Stainless Steels, 4000 Series Steel, 7000 Series AL, Elgi Alloy, Mp35n, and always a lot of Ti 6AL-4V. I remember making some specialized components out of this green plastic called Floro Green. Soft and flexible but would wear a cobalt/carbide tool out in a instant if you thought it was just plastic. Of course since this was all 'black-box' stuff, blue print title/ description information was removed or cut-out of the blue print. And sometimes it would appear like 'swiss cheese' since there were so many 'holes' in it. But whether it was for SR-71, U-2, F-117, etc. sometimes you could tell where the component was going on the aircraft because of the design. I remember that I was almost arrested after telling a Skunk Works Rep. that "this 'bulkhead part' was missing a dimension".....And he said "Who told you where this went??" And then proceeded to read me the US Governments Riot Act. If You know anything about aircraft/aerospace design/structures, many times you can almost guess where that component goes to. Anyway it was a much different time than Aircraft/Aerospace manufacturing today.
As a CNC programmer & machinist in the aerospace industry, this was an amazing history lesson. This is the type of educational material that should be mandatory. I love learning about the accomplishments of the machinists and engineers who first started working with heat resistant super alloys such as Titanium-6Al-4V and Hastelloy-X. There were so many gems hidden in this magnificent presentation. I was absolutely fascinated about the problems they didn't solve, hacking their way around the rest, and ultimately still achieving success! Mind blowing
I've watched many of your videos. As a leader you have some of the most entertaining videos out there, but that is just the beginning. You highlight how to successfully run a team and a company to make it successful. Furthermore you show people the signs to look for if they are working for the right team or company or the wrong type of team or company. What is the point of working for a team or company if the long run of that job or project they are working on is going to come to a toxic end? It is truly something to think about and give so many that freedom and confidence to look for the right position that will not only nurture their potential, but see it come to fruition! Thank you Nickolas Means!
It is mind-blowing how they made the A-12 finished on the drawing board in 1959. Could have looked OK for the 70ies, but making it a working design in 50s is crazy.
Lockheed made some of the most beautiful American aircraft of the 20th century.... and I even include the F-117. I was already in love with the SR-71 before having a solid understanding of engineering as a young child. When I got around the age of 10-11 years old I was starting to grasp some of the engineering, and then got to see the SR-71 in person, in Texas. The SR-71 is burned into my mind and is my absolute favorite aircraft of all time.
One of the "best" talks that I've heard and seen in my almost eight decades of life. One of my Minuteman Missile squadron commanders in the seventies had been an SR-71 pilot.
I once told my flight instructor after a preflight inspection... "That plane is leaking oil" He said, "good... if it's not leaking oil, its out of oil."
What he is advocating is basically the polar opposite of every single book written for executives and business management types since the 1980s. That's why you don't see these sorts of ideas very often in organizations, they're quite radical. The idea of hiring good people and trusting them to do good work is at odds with the goal of most management methodologies to reduce every business practice to a checklist so that employees can be disposable and wages kept low. That's why the Skunkworks had to be a special part of Lockheed Martin and not just another department, with lots of other Skunkworks departments all over the company. Those management techniques were built for an economy where the primary business activity was manufacturing. The Skunkworks projects were almost entirely mental work, engineering and design, not assembly-line repetitive labor. They might be a great model for how to handle most business now, since mental work is the primary business activity and responds so poorly to having manufacturing-era ideas applied to it. You will have a very hard time convincing the MBAs holding the purse strings of this, however, as it goes against quite literally everything they've ever been taught.
This statement has been my exact experience in industry for 15 years. There are those with talent, skill, ability to envision the future, and how to make it work. . .and there are those that can't see past doing things the way that their engineering courses said to do it. As you can imagine, the businesses that drive with ingenuity and talent first, are often rewarded with successful projects, while the others get lost in the quagmire of "right and wrong" ways to find unique solutions to complex problems. The only way into the future is to understand that there is no way, no path, no blueprint but brilliant ideas from often unlikely sources.
Have you read The Goal by Goldratt and The Phoenix Project by Kim, et. al? They are basing their work on the ideas of W. Edwards Deming, which is basically the opposite of Frederick Winslow Taylor teachings, know today as "taylorism". So what is taylorism? Basically the same management type you described. Unfortunately managers still fall into the same traps today. Still believing in the "illusion of control", putting people in boxes and focus on "efficiency" instead of results. "It is only through enforced standardization of methods, enforced adoption of the best implements and working conditions, and enforced cooperation that this faster work can be assured. And the duty of enforcing the adoption of standards and enforcing this cooperation rests with management alone." - Taylor
@@ddanielsandberg Thanks for the references, I will be adding those titles to my 'to read' list. Results based work environments are more and more prevalent today, but only more progressive environments such as Silicon valley, New York, Seattle....but these places don't necessarily have the industrial force that they once did in the past. The good news is that these ideas come back around, and management style today is all about results.
@@ddanielsandberg Well it depends on what you manage. If you manage a production line where you need to produce maximum number of standardized products with lowest price in shortest time with high reliability, what Taylor says is absolutely correct. You can't manage production facility like a San Francisco startup - Tesla being prime example. You will misplace insane amount of resources by doing so. On the other hand, you can't manage high end development team like a production line. Those managerial approaches are tools and it's not like those tools are good or bad on it's own, it's more like that people misapply them.
@@gtpk3527 While I want to agree that R&D has a different flow than a factory line I have to disagree with "If you manage a production line where you need to produce maximum number of standardized products with lowest price in shortest time with high reliability, what Taylor says is absolutely correct." Taylor lived in a different era, where the economics (education, labour, technology) were quite different than today and his ideas might have been the best fit at the time, we know better today and have better knowledge and tools at our disposal. I recommend that you read The Goal, The Phoenix Project as well as anything by E.W. Deming, John Gall and Russell L. Ackoff. The solutions presented are quite counter-intuitive and flies in the face of most managerial thinking.
I was stationed at Beale in the early eighties. I worked on the U2 and Sr-71. Later, I was stationed at Hickam and worked on the T-33 (the trainer version of the P-80). I even got to fly one once.
I was a Marine platoon commander in Vietnam 1968-1969. While I was supposed to have about 50 Marines in my platoon, I never had more than 34. And I only had two radios, one to talk to the company commander, and one to send with a squad on patrol. The only problem was that I normally had two squads on patrol at the same time. Sometimes we operated in open areas like rice paddies where arm and hand signals were effective, but most of the time we operated in conditions where voice and hand and arm signals were impossible. I relied on my squad leaders to know what to do in a given situation where I could not communicate with them. This was similar to Kelly Johnson's principle of design and production. Let the junior people make the decisions when communications is lost or too complicated.
@@snooks5607 P38 was not the fastest prop during 2nd world war. Do335 was and even before do in level flight the p47 or the 190 and so on outspeeded it. The sr71 being the only aircraft of the us air force not being ever shot down. The eagle is so too.
Working with the Skunk Works and make parts for the SR-71 was some of the most fun I had back in the 50 and 6o's. There will never be another group like it.
Nothing new here for me, but the presenter has done an excellent job of pulling a considerable amount of information together and weaving it into a riveting story. Well done !
@Alex Taylor that's okay, I have time to watch videos that make my brain work and ones that show good things about people. It's time for me to settle down and study God's word now. Have a good evening, and thanks again. You did well 🌷
This guy always does his homework. If you want to see another of his presentations, look up his lecture about what really happened at Three Mile Island. Excellent beyond description. It scared me pretty well.
WHAT A GREAT STORY ABOUT GREAT MEN AND GREAT PLANES. THANK YOU, I HAD TO WATCH IN TWICE. NOW THE B AND W PHOTO OF THE SR 71 TAKEN AT KADENA AB THAT I HAVE ON THE WALL MEANS SO MUCH, AND THE 2 SKUNK WORKS PINS I FOUND HERE IN WASHINGTON STATE AT A THRIFT STORE MEAN SO MUCH MORE. THANKS AGAIN.
I first saw the SR-71 in person in July of 1965 at Lockheed Burbank. I was in the Air Force going to school on the SR-71 before the air force had any. I then went to engine school at Pratt & Whitney in East Hartford, CT in Nov of 1965. We got the first SR-71 at Beale AFB in January 1966. It is a great memory.
I was stationed at Kadena Air Base,Okinawa in the mid 80's. The SR-71 was based there at the time. We always knew when the SR-71 was going to fly that day because you could hear those V-8s running from everywhere on base. When they would take off,they would roll down the runway and then about halfway down they would takeoff and then go almost vertical like a rocket. Even at the time,it was a big deal to be able to see them out on the runway and taking off.But we never saw them land.
It is great to learn things even being an aviation buff. Spent 10 yrs active in the AF working 4 different planes. Thank you for posting this. Kelly is a legend as is the Skunks and Lookheed.
This is yet another excellent talk, alongside the outstanding presentations on UA 232 and Three Mile Island (I’ve studied Nuclear Engineering and this is one of the best layman presentations I’ve seen on TMI). The speaker really ought to do a lot more of these as they are much more interesting and informative than most TED talks.
I got to see this plane fly over my car on my way home thought the rice fields in northern California near Beal airforce base like one or two times a week!!! I use to pull over to watch it!! Awesome!! Thats all I can say. I am so excited for the SR72!!!!
This is an odd error, given that he's addressing a British audience: the Canberra that flew the photorecon mission over Kapustin Yar was not a Martin B-57, but an English Electric Canberra (built under license by Martin as the B-57) flown by the RAF. It did leave from an American airbase in Germany, and landed safely in Iran after being peppered by cannon shells from MiGs.
At first, I didn't noticed the length of the video. I thought I've been watching some short clip about some Lockheed's department. When I finished watching, I wasn't able to comprehend how much time past... It was the best 53 minutes I've ever watched!
I loved building model airplanes when I was a kid. I'd hang them from my ceiling in various flying positions. The P-38 was one of my favorites. The Stuka #1
There is a book called Skunk Works by Ben Rich which is basically what this presentation seems to be based on. I highly recommend it no matter what industry you work in.
@@Mike-gt7skit's the other way around. The Air Force was probably pretty happy to hear that Lockheed needed a "stealth" pole. The need implies pretty strongly that their stealth airplane may be a success.
I flew in this A/C in 1963 and maintained it from 1962 -1964. It was a T-33B by that time, two seater. I also was involved in the Cuban Crisis, met Ben Rich, successor to Kelly Johnson, and landed a F-18 for him on a simulator. Shook his hand and talked to him. He said that we now have the ability to take E.T. Home!!!! Very sobering!!
I thought the same thing when I watched his video on the Sioux City crash. It"s really a pretext. But he's quite good. Watched it all. Much more interesting than a video about healthcare software.
I’m reading Kelly’s biography “More than my share of it all” right now. Awesome, small, fast paced book. And yeah, it presents things a bit more precisely than what’s at the beginning here. Like, the first time Lockheed told Kelly and his friend “we don’t have anything right now, but come around next year”, Hibbard was quite generous and gentlemanly towards Kelly (and the whole small company was like that), and the instability of early Electra was kind of industry’s norm at that time (if you consider that practically nobody had their own wind tunnels at the time, you might guess why they didn’t fix the instability). Also the guess on where “skunk works” name comes from is different. But all that’s dribbles. The book is awesome. Recommend it very much.
I love listening to stories like this.These folks were doing this for the love of their country. The ultimate goal was to create the tools needed to keep an eye on the biggest threat to us and our way of life. I view them as heroes.
This is an amazing presentation!!!! I ran across this by accident and a happy accident it is. I will share this one for sure. Thanks so much for posting. Amazing.
This is not only great content but has the added benefit of attracting intelligent viewers who add meaningful insights. Thanks to those who have shared their added knowledge to the mix.
This was probably the most engrossing video I’ve ever watched on TH-cam and I’ve been watching TH-cam videos for many many many many years; well done great work calling from the UK!!
Titanium has a strange property of localized expansion/contraction. When drilling, the hole expands from the heat generated by friction at the drill tip then cools rather quickly and contracts around the following drill body. "Snap!" Successfully drilling titanium requires a well sharpened high quality drill, flowing coolant and a more often than usual "pecking" cycle. Challenging but a lovely and fascinating material.
Porsche made the suspension of its 908 race car from titanium. The first race for these cars was at the Sebring 12 Hours. A bolt holding on a rear suspension member broke at about 8 pm, IIRC, and someone called the factory to tell them. Whoever answered the phone was very happy and said their computer had predicted a failure at 6 pm.
When drilling titanium, pecking should only be used when the depth of drilling absolutely requires it to clear the chip out of the hole. Otherwise, you're re-cutting through work-hardened material for no reason.
@@jockellis cool story. may I elaborate ? the next year the computer called up the race-team about a failure prediction at 7pm, but it never happened ! not only that but a similar A.I . machine, on earth, did not make such a prediction at all !
Because he's not a pilot. People who are "sincerely" interested in aviation but won't take the controls and solo are short on credibility. Now, I don't know this guy; he may actually BE a pilot. But from the first minute *I* "sincerely" _doubted_ it.
Hi Nick, I ran across this looking for something else. Anyway great presentation and so true. I was told at a young age, hire the best people you can and stay out of their way. That has held true for me for many years now. I am glad that philosophy is still on the minds of people. Cheers
This guy has far better info about this plane that many of the documentaries I've seen about it, and I have seen several. So efficiency, focus, creative and failure freedom, delegate responsibility
Great presentation. One correction to Mean’s presentation. The reason for the partially filled fuel tanks on the SR-71 at time of takeoff is not due to any issue with the insufficient lift profile due to fuel weight; the reasons for the partially filled fuel tanks is threefold: (1) reduced weight to reduce tire blowout risk during takeoff when 400+ psi tires are still in contact with the ground, (2) the emergency brake procedure issues, & (3) during first inflight refueling the complete replacement of ambient atmosphere with gaseous nitrogen to serve as a volubility buffer best happens when the SR-71 has the most space available for refueling. In other words, the SR-71 can easily attain lift at full gross weight; there are other considerations involved that mandate the partially filled fuel tanks. Anyway, great presentation. Mr Means skunkworks management advice is now scaled to a cross institutional framework in the GitHub world, noting that GitHub itself is an organization with which he is now affiliated and employed.
A great orator that expressed his love for planes and for Kelly & his foresight into the needs of the clients his people & his planes. also in Kelly also knew how to bring the cohesive bonding of a tight circle of professionals!
This is an awesome presentation kids growing up now are going to need this is a glimpse into the past! The skill sets they will need in the coming new industrial age. We are about to start manufacturing light speed and this is exactly what is needed to be successful!! Clearly focused team yet no micromanagement well done sir!
Thank you, Nickolas Means. Some of the best storytelling I've come across in a decade of TH-cam... and about a quarter of my career besides actual animation has been Storyboarding for my own animation AND other folks' TV spots, programs and Arcade Games. New Subscriber. ‹ =ºÞ
The skills and style of presentation in this gentleman transformed the 'dry' subject matter into a yearning to want more in me... and more he gave... and more. Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Marvelous speech. Since a kid I was a fan of the SR-71, even as of now the age of 55. I've read a lot of the history mentioned in the speech, but, still, it's all fascinating as though I'm still a kid. The management side is also very true.
For what it's worth... #1) the electra did end up with a different tail, and yes it did have a stability issue as designed but the design change configuration was mainly driven by hangar clearance and is in fact inferior (structurally heavier) to the original cruciform tail (not a t-tail as stated). A standard tail configuration with a larger tail volume would have most likely resulted in a slightly better performing and more structurally sound aircraft. Lots of factors go into aircraft design, and some of those are not driven by aircraft performance. (Look up pictures of Lockheed manufacturing Amelia Earhart's aircraft and you can see that the Burbank facility simply is not tall enough for a standard configuration tail assembly). #2) The US had been working on jet engine technology at the same time as the German and British. However some efforts were not with centrifugal compressors, but with axial compressors and other mechanical arrangements. Look up Nathan price and the Lockheed J37. This is in the late 1930's the same as the germans and british, the difference here is funding. The germans had the best funding, the british weaker, and the americans the least. #3) The P-80 although put together in a very short period of time benefited from almost all of its major components having been preliminary designed over the previous 5 years as a consequence of Kelly Johnson and Price's interest in the axial flow jet engine and an aircraft for it. It's the reason why the P-80 has an odd bloated gut shape, it was originally designed for an axial flow engine but was quickly adapted. No, an aircraft was not miracled into existence in 143 days, although that makes a cute story. The same thing is done by subcontractors to the military today. They secretly start work on a prototype and then try to find a buyer. Price, Johnson and many other had been working on that jet for many years before the contract was turned on in 1943. Much of the aircraft systems came from existing aircraft, the OML had already been extensively studied, and they had a VERY good idea of exactly they were going to create when given the money. I stopped watching here. History is rewritten by each storyteller...
@Chrisopher Maglio: You are right about all the factors affecting aircraft design, but I doubt hanger clearance mattered for a tail dragger. The dual vertical stabilizers were very frequent in the period for control authority in engine out flight, among other considerations. And yes, a heavier structure results.
A slight correction about the SR71 and why it always took off with a partial fuel load. The constraint were the tires, there was a significant risk of bursting them if the plane was fully loaded. This is according to one of my colleagues who was a tanker pilot for the SR71.
It did take off with a full fuel load sometimes. The issue was that the engines were underpowered under Mach 1, so if they lost an engine with a full fuel load a single engine would struggle to cope.
A commonly held misconception is the aircraft "grew" at 3.0 Mach and this eliminated the fuel leaks. This is not true. The leaks are caused by sealant failures due to high temperature especially out near the engines. A second mistake was the reason for the partial fueling for take off. It is not because the aircraft leaked fuel so badly. They took off with a full fuel load until the day the main landing gear failed after the go/no go point on shredding parts that pierced the wing fuel tanks and caused the aircraft to go off the end of the runway blowing thru the arresting gear, ripping all the landing gear out of the aircraft. This accident caused the change to starting with a partial lighter load of fuel which eliminated the risk of over stressing the landing gear. I supported the SR-71 fleet as an aircraft fuel system specialist from 1967 to 1970.
Every pilot and mechanic ive heard talk about it say that. Yes it leaked because the seals wore out due to heat and expansion. But the plane would stop leaking when the titanium slats expanded and sealed tight.
@@willefixit Which fuel load? Take off was just over 1/2 tank at 45,000 pounds, there was also a 55,000 pound take off load, but if an SR-71 somehow had empty tanks and was fully fuel it could hold 80,000 pounds. 6.68 pound/gallon using the spec of 800 kg/meter cubed so for SR-71 a full load would be 11,994 gallons of JP-7. The A-12 held less 68,000 pounds IIRC as the A-12 was shorter, but went higher and a little faster..
I was there. It was one of the best speeches on managing a project. Nickolas is a brilliant speaker, breaking things down. Glad it's on TH-cam to take more notes and refresh my knowledge as we tend to forget.
Excellent! Your ability to extrapolate what truly made these aerospace leaders great is amazing! We need a lot more of this type of in depth analysis in the world today! Keep up the good work.
The "Martin B-75" was actually a B-57 Canberra, designed by English Electric. A fine machine, and still working for NASA, (at least until recently). To train U-2 pilots to land a machine that really just wanted to float, without a 2-seat version, the air force used the Cessna 310, military designation U-3. The pilot's eye height on the "Blue Canoe", aka the "Me Too" was about the same, and a suitable throttle setting could simulate the floating behaviour. The partial fuel takeoffs are to prevent problems if a motor quits on take-off; single-engine behaviour with a full load was Not Nice. With a partial load, it could be handled.
He actually called it a B-57 Canberra since that was it's US designation, don't know where you got B-75 from. But you're also wrong because that is not it's British designation, in the RAF it was designated the Canberra B not a "B-57 Canberra".
This opened my mind to so many new concepts. There’s a huge lesson on pragmatism attached to the SR-71’s leaky fuel tank and the U2 bombers landing gear.
Thanks for your kind remarks on my reply’s Re: working on Ted Smith’s AEROSTAR prototype and my experiences in other facets of aviation tech work. I pride myself on writing coherent and interesting comments. Aviation still fascinates me even though my efforts as an aviation technician are starting to fade into the mist of the distant past. I turned eighty this past year.
Although he does point out interesting things to apply to your teams, the majority of this talk is just a cliff note's version of Ben Rich's Skunkworks book so it's not like he did a ton of research to come up with all the details it talks about. It's a great book and I highly recommend you read it yourself!
It's a bad ass plane ,I never forget seeing sr71 coming down raf mildenhall runway ,seen it fly 4 or 5 times first seen on display at Farnborough in 82 or 83 next to the b1 b .👍
The name of the Skunk Works was lifted from the then-popular _Li'l Abner_ comic strip, which had been launched by Al Capp in 1934. The cartoonist called his version in the strip the "Skonkworks". Capp allegedly wanted to sue Lockheed for infringement, but by changing the spelling to "Skunk Works" the parties came to an amicable agreement.
I’d read that it was originally coined because of the hideous smells that come off the materials they had been working on to combat the heats generated in flight. Namely the self sealing fuel bladders they tried out. I’m I mistaken ??
@Allie - I don't think the SR-71 had self-sealing fuel bladders, as they wouldn't have bee able to withstand the heat. That's a feature one would find on a fighter to counter bullet holes. I recall reading years ago that the fuel tanks on the SR-71 leaked badly when it was on the ground. They would put enough fuel into it to get airborne, whereupon it would be refueled in mid-air, then would accelerate to supersonic speed on its way to the target area. The friction from the air would cause the skin of the plane to expand. sealing the leaks. Journalists who got joy-rides on the SR-71 reported the metal frame around the cockpit windows got too hot to touch and they would have burned their fingers, save for the protection that the pressure suit gloves gave them.
@Ellis K - Honestly, I never bothered watching to the end. I've read quite a bit and watched many documentaries on the SR-71 over the last 50 years - probably longer than the speaker has been alive - and I found the talk in this video badly structured. It didn't hold my attention, and if it had been any worse, I would have down-voted it.
When I was in the Air Force I worked with/for an engineer from Lockheed skunk works in Space Command. I had no clue how lucky I was, but very thankful for the experience.
The name Skunk Works was actually first publicized in the "Little Abner" cartoon series. Frequently there was a sign pointing in a direction totally unrelated to the story saying "Skunk Works". Late 40s to mid 50s. I was born in 1948 and remember.
That was an amazing use of my life to listen to that story! I’ve had the opportunity to work on some small but critical IT projects during my career. I fortunately had some great managers who subscribed to some of Kelly’s principles and resulted in successes. I will think of this story any time I see any of those planes, and I’ll point my sons to this as a lesson that they can effect in whatever they do in their work.
Nickolas, I remember this incident all too well. The crew did a great job working with what they had. I am a private pilot, the son of a WWII P-51 pilot and CFII and a mother who was head of the Maryland chapter of the 99s. To boot. my son is a lead web developer and I'm an engineer trying to learn to code. You did a great job with the talk and I am re-looking at Kelly's list to see what I can borrow for my work. Thanks!
During the X-20 Program, they used F-104s with modified "thruster" control surfaces at the wingtips and the nose (like how the Shuttle adjusts it's attitude in space), and a small, liquid fueled rocket in the rear of the plane, for extra thrust. It was well known that these F-104s could attain altitudes in excess of 100K feet during a zoom climb. When used in conjunction with the 6K pound thrust H²O² rocket that was bolted into the tail, altitudes of over 120K feet were common. I THINK the F-104 still has a record(s) for highest altitude for a jet that took off under it's own power...
Excellent bait & switch (or should I say add-on?): Grabs and holds your attention with an exciting story and then climaxes in a motivational speech on effective leadership. Congrats!
50:56 Every decision he made was around how to deliver the most value in the shortest amount of time for his customer while bringing out the best in his people. Working in a new company, we try to do exactly this, but we also have to say "for the small budget given" - and that's where the whole philosophy breaks down. Because you're so restricted on budget, you spend a considerable amount of time just trying to find ways to cut costs everywhere, losing time in evaluating options by not being able to chose what you need but what you can afford. And whenever you need to ditch yet another spec because you're running out of money and thereby essentially time, you waste time updating everyone on what has changed in contrast to the plans of last week. That's the real tragedy of being a developer in a small, new company without the funding budget of a somewhat successful mother corporation and the military during the cold war behind your back.
Then what you have to do is build allegiance in your team by pitching in, being there with them, and signing them on to the challenges of an impossible mission. I won a lot of awards that way- the pay was pretty poor, especially for me (the lowest paid of the lot) but the work was beyond excellent.
When I lived in Warner Robins, GA, at the Air Force Base, there was a museum. At the time that I lived there, they were building more hangars for the museum. There was an SR-71 sitting out back, in the grass in a field. You could walk right up under it, see it from any angle. It had a fuel leak :P I will NEVER forget the day I got to rub the belly of a Blackbird.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
Having spent a forty year career in aeronautical engineering at Lockheed, 30+ of those years at Skunk Works, I must say I am truly impressed with this presentation. He actually gets the history correct, something that often doesn't happen when outsiders talk about these things. The P-80 was before my time, but I worked on the other aircraft mentioned here, and quite a few others. I realize Mr. Means is primarily trying to make a motivational presentation here - but his Skunk Works history stands on its own as being worthwhile.
R6tttt rrr
That's excellent to hear, because I really enjoy hearing both the history in his talks, and the moral of the story he has at the end. 😀
Incredible that you not only worked on these planes but also watched this video. Fantastic stuff
Cap, you're probably a 16 year old who's at school still
I made many of the components for these planes. It was both exciting and strange working with the Skunk Works. Your right about how they kept information simple.
Manufacturing information was always done on hand drawn blueprints (sometimes with very funny notes- that you would never see on BAC, LAC, GD, DAC, etc drawings).
Many times a RFQ would be hand delivered Friday morning, accepted by lunchtime and the structural component made overnight (sometimes 2-3 'overnights), picked up
by a follow-up person (LAC Union had a big problem with this) and on the flight line Sunday Morning for testing, R/R,etc. One had to have a lot of corporation from other vendors
especially when the part had to be rushed through processing, ie mag./penetrant inspect, alodine, x-ray, primer/paint, Heat Treat, Chrome Plating , etc.- otherwise could take
many days /weeks.
If you were a manufacture vendor/supplier for the Skunk Works you probably worked with a whole variety of materials. Sometimes with Stainless Steels, 4000 Series Steel,
7000 Series AL, Elgi Alloy, Mp35n, and always a lot of Ti 6AL-4V. I remember making some specialized components out of this green plastic called Floro Green. Soft and flexible
but would wear a cobalt/carbide tool out in a instant if you thought it was just plastic.
Of course since this was all 'black-box' stuff, blue print title/ description information was removed or cut-out of the blue print. And sometimes it would appear like 'swiss cheese'
since there were so many 'holes' in it. But whether it was for SR-71, U-2, F-117, etc. sometimes you could tell where the component was going on the aircraft because of the design.
I remember that I was almost arrested after telling a Skunk Works Rep. that "this 'bulkhead part' was missing a dimension".....And he said "Who told you where this went??" And then
proceeded to read me the US Governments Riot Act. If You know anything about aircraft/aerospace design/structures, many times you can almost guess where that component goes
to. Anyway it was a much different time than Aircraft/Aerospace manufacturing today.
As a CNC programmer & machinist in the aerospace industry, this was an amazing history lesson. This is the type of educational material that should be mandatory. I love learning about the accomplishments of the machinists and engineers who first started working with heat resistant super alloys such as Titanium-6Al-4V and Hastelloy-X. There were so many gems hidden in this magnificent presentation. I was absolutely fascinated about the problems they didn't solve, hacking their way around the rest, and ultimately still achieving success! Mind blowing
I've watched many of your videos. As a leader you have some of the most entertaining videos out there, but that is just the beginning. You highlight how to successfully run a team and a company to make it successful. Furthermore you show people the signs to look for if they are working for the right team or company or the wrong type of team or company. What is the point of working for a team or company if the long run of that job or project they are working on is going to come to a toxic end? It is truly something to think about and give so many that freedom and confidence to look for the right position that will not only nurture their potential, but see it come to fruition!
Thank you Nickolas Means!
Fantastic listening. The engineers in the late 50's and 60's...geniuses, with sliderules!!
It is mind-blowing how they made the A-12 finished on the drawing board in 1959. Could have looked OK for the 70ies, but making it a working design in 50s is crazy.
@@Max-xl9qv
Still would have been crazy for the 70's.
Lockheed made some of the most beautiful American aircraft of the 20th century.... and I even include the F-117. I was already in love with the SR-71 before having a solid understanding of engineering as a young child. When I got around the age of 10-11 years old I was starting to grasp some of the engineering, and then got to see the SR-71 in person, in Texas. The SR-71 is burned into my mind and is my absolute favorite aircraft of all time.
One of the "best" talks that I've heard and seen in my almost eight decades of life. One of my Minuteman Missile squadron commanders in the seventies had been an SR-71 pilot.
I once told my flight instructor after a preflight inspection... "That plane is leaking oil"
He said, "good... if it's not leaking oil, its out of oil."
Everything runs on smoke. Just don't let the magic smoke out and it'll be fine.
Drew Kosonen.
Drew Kosonen .
Drew Kosone
@@garretpilbeam5228 Don't wear it out...
What he is advocating is basically the polar opposite of every single book written for executives and business management types since the 1980s. That's why you don't see these sorts of ideas very often in organizations, they're quite radical. The idea of hiring good people and trusting them to do good work is at odds with the goal of most management methodologies to reduce every business practice to a checklist so that employees can be disposable and wages kept low. That's why the Skunkworks had to be a special part of Lockheed Martin and not just another department, with lots of other Skunkworks departments all over the company. Those management techniques were built for an economy where the primary business activity was manufacturing. The Skunkworks projects were almost entirely mental work, engineering and design, not assembly-line repetitive labor. They might be a great model for how to handle most business now, since mental work is the primary business activity and responds so poorly to having manufacturing-era ideas applied to it. You will have a very hard time convincing the MBAs holding the purse strings of this, however, as it goes against quite literally everything they've ever been taught.
This statement has been my exact experience in industry for 15 years. There are those with talent, skill, ability to envision the future, and how to make it work. . .and there are those that can't see past doing things the way that their engineering courses said to do it. As you can imagine, the businesses that drive with ingenuity and talent first, are often rewarded with successful projects, while the others get lost in the quagmire of "right and wrong" ways to find unique solutions to complex problems. The only way into the future is to understand that there is no way, no path, no blueprint but brilliant ideas from often unlikely sources.
Have you read The Goal by Goldratt and The Phoenix Project by Kim, et. al? They are basing their work on the ideas of W. Edwards Deming, which is basically the opposite of Frederick Winslow Taylor teachings, know today as "taylorism".
So what is taylorism? Basically the same management type you described. Unfortunately managers still fall into the same traps today. Still believing in the "illusion of control", putting people in boxes and focus on "efficiency" instead of results.
"It is only through enforced standardization of methods, enforced adoption of the best implements and working conditions, and enforced cooperation that this faster work can be assured. And the duty of enforcing the adoption of standards and enforcing this cooperation rests with management alone." - Taylor
@@ddanielsandberg Thanks for the references, I will be adding those titles to my 'to read' list. Results based work environments are more and more prevalent today, but only more progressive environments such as Silicon valley, New York, Seattle....but these places don't necessarily have the industrial force that they once did in the past. The good news is that these ideas come back around, and management style today is all about results.
@@ddanielsandberg Well it depends on what you manage. If you manage a production line where you need to produce maximum number of standardized products with lowest price in shortest time with high reliability, what Taylor says is absolutely correct. You can't manage production facility like a San Francisco startup - Tesla being prime example. You will misplace insane amount of resources by doing so.
On the other hand, you can't manage high end development team like a production line. Those managerial approaches are tools and it's not like those tools are good or bad on it's own, it's more like that people misapply them.
@@gtpk3527 While I want to agree that R&D has a different flow than a factory line I have to disagree with "If you manage a production line where you need to produce maximum number of standardized products with lowest price in shortest time with high reliability, what Taylor says is absolutely correct."
Taylor lived in a different era, where the economics (education, labour, technology) were quite different than today and his ideas might have been the best fit at the time, we know better today and have better knowledge and tools at our disposal.
I recommend that you read The Goal, The Phoenix Project as well as anything by E.W. Deming, John Gall and Russell L. Ackoff. The solutions presented are quite counter-intuitive and flies in the face of most managerial thinking.
I was stationed at Beale in the early eighties. I worked on the U2 and Sr-71. Later, I was stationed at Hickam and worked on the T-33 (the trainer version of the P-80). I even got to fly one once.
WOW. I was riveted to the screen watching and listening to this speech. Totally fascinating!
I was a Marine platoon commander in Vietnam 1968-1969. While I was supposed to have about 50 Marines in my platoon, I never had more than 34. And I only had two radios, one to talk to the company commander, and one to send with a squad on patrol. The only problem was that I normally had two squads on patrol at the same time.
Sometimes we operated in open areas like rice paddies where arm and hand signals were effective, but most of the time we operated in conditions where voice and hand and arm signals were impossible.
I relied on my squad leaders to know what to do in a given situation where I could not communicate with them.
This was similar to Kelly Johnson's principle of design and production. Let the junior people make the decisions when communications is lost or too complicated.
He really should start a TH-cam channel where he just talks about airplanes.
No. Some stuff should stay inside a dark hangar. Don't want cats launching out of bags.
Problem is, some stuff he says about airplanes is absolute incorrect. :c
@@GottHoldNicetomeet care to name a few?
@@snooks5607 P38 was not the fastest prop during 2nd world war. Do335 was and even before do in level flight the p47 or the 190 and so on outspeeded it.
The sr71 being the only aircraft of the us air force not being ever shot down. The eagle is so too.
It woudlnt end talking only about airplanes- you know about it ;)
"Hey, Vsauce, plane Michael here." For real though, this guy's presentations are excellent.
MIATA GANG
I wouldn't be surprised if only a tiny fraction of the people watching Nickolas' talks were developers. I love that guy xD
When TH-cam channels collide...
More like plane Tom Segura
Sadly Vsauce got quite silent in the last years :(
I can't get enough Skunkworks footage and info...these guys were legends. History Channel just did a 2 hour documentary.
The debt America and the West have to them is immeasurable.
Best, most interesting, and enlightening aeronautical talk I have heard in 49 years in the industry! Great job!
Where were you then? Under a rock? There is tons of info everywhere about the Skunk Works? Read books.
Working with the Skunk Works and make parts for the SR-71 was some of the most fun I had back in the 50 and 6o's. There will never be another group like it.
gwharton68 guess back in the day people with awful grammar were in high demand by,, the skunk works. Ok.
thanks for your service!!!
Nothing new here for me, but the presenter has done an excellent job of pulling a considerable amount of information together and weaving it into a riveting story. Well done !
Thanks for letting us know
Wow... I stumbled upon this video and have sat here the entire time mesmerized. Fantastic presentation !
You stole the exact words from my fingers. Ty.
@@glennwilson6179 I'm a retired registered nurse, never thought about aircraft until I stumbled on this ! Lol
@Alex Taylor thanks so much for the information. I will certainly look for other talks as you suggested. ☺
@Alex Taylor that's okay, I have time to watch videos that make my brain work and ones that show good things about people.
It's time for me to settle down and study God's word now. Have a good evening, and thanks again. You did well 🌷
This guy always does his homework. If you want to see another of his presentations, look up his lecture about what really happened at Three Mile Island. Excellent beyond description. It scared me pretty well.
WHAT A GREAT STORY ABOUT GREAT MEN AND GREAT PLANES. THANK YOU, I HAD TO WATCH IN TWICE. NOW THE B AND W PHOTO OF THE SR 71 TAKEN AT KADENA AB THAT I HAVE ON THE WALL MEANS SO MUCH, AND THE 2 SKUNK WORKS PINS I FOUND HERE IN WASHINGTON STATE AT A THRIFT STORE MEAN SO MUCH MORE. THANKS AGAIN.
I first saw the SR-71 in person in July of 1965 at Lockheed Burbank. I was in the Air Force going to school on the SR-71 before the air force had any. I then went to engine school at Pratt & Whitney in East Hartford, CT in Nov of 1965. We got the first SR-71 at Beale AFB in January 1966. It is a great memory.
I was stationed at Kadena Air Base,Okinawa in the mid 80's.
The SR-71 was based there at the time.
We always knew when the SR-71 was going to fly that day because you could hear those V-8s running from everywhere on base.
When they would take off,they would roll down the runway and then about halfway down they would takeoff and then go almost vertical like a rocket.
Even at the time,it was a big deal to be able to see them out on the runway and taking off.But we never saw them land.
It is great to learn things even being an aviation buff. Spent 10 yrs active in the AF working 4 different planes. Thank you for posting this. Kelly is a legend as is the Skunks and Lookheed.
This is yet another excellent talk, alongside the outstanding presentations on UA 232 and Three Mile Island (I’ve studied Nuclear Engineering and this is one of the best layman presentations I’ve seen on TMI). The speaker really ought to do a lot more of these as they are much more interesting and informative than most TED talks.
you "studied Nuclear Engineering" in what capacity?
Tim Harrell TMI has at least 2 expansions too much information & Three Mile Island and don’t forget how many RCH’s are in a barn
I'm 9 minutes into this presentation and I'd agree. The guy is informed and is very clear for this layman.
He's a good, no! He is an excellent storyteller. Only off on a couple of spots, doesn't matter.
I got to see this plane fly over my car on my way home thought the rice fields in northern California near Beal airforce base like one or two times a week!!! I use to pull over to watch it!! Awesome!! Thats all I can say.
I am so excited for the SR72!!!!
This is an odd error, given that he's addressing a British audience: the Canberra that flew the photorecon mission over Kapustin Yar was not a Martin B-57, but an English Electric Canberra (built under license by Martin as the B-57) flown by the RAF. It did leave from an American airbase in Germany, and landed safely in Iran after being peppered by cannon shells from MiGs.
What's odd is that the info was commented 10 months ago and recieved 11 likes. You post it again and get 17 likes.
At first, I didn't noticed the length of the video.
I thought I've been watching some short clip about some Lockheed's department.
When I finished watching, I wasn't able to comprehend how much time past...
It was the best 53 minutes I've ever watched!
Why did I watch all of this, I love it all
I wish there were more guys like this where I work. I could sit through his meetings all day.
Which is exactly what he doesn't want you to do lol
I loved building model airplanes when I was a kid. I'd hang them from my ceiling in various flying positions. The P-38 was one of my favorites. The Stuka #1
There is a book called Skunk Works by Ben Rich which is basically what this presentation seems to be based on. I highly recommend it no matter what industry you work in.
"we can't see the stealth plane because the pole is more visible" - "hold my beer while i design a half million dollar stealth pole" :'D
and that’s pretty much what happened....except I think the engineers were partial to single malt.
man lockheed martin really knew they made it when the USAF gave them half a million dollars to design a fuckin pole
@@Mike-gt7skit's the other way around. The Air Force was probably pretty happy to hear that Lockheed needed a "stealth" pole. The need implies pretty strongly that their stealth airplane may be a success.
I flew in this A/C in 1963 and maintained it from 1962 -1964. It was a T-33B by that time, two seater. I also was involved in the Cuban Crisis, met Ben Rich, successor to Kelly Johnson, and landed a F-18 for him on a simulator. Shook his hand and talked to him. He said that we now have the ability to take E.T. Home!!!! Very sobering!!
How about the T-34?
Right! 👽
Here is a man who wants to talk about airplanes, and somehow shoe-horned a motivational speech into it.
I thought the same thing when I watched his video on the Sioux City crash. It"s really a pretext. But he's quite good. Watched it all. Much more interesting than a video about healthcare software.
Like Wendover Productions but a software developer
dont we all just want to talk about planes to somebody haha
It's a lot easier to be motivated if you actually have a cool goal to reach
Exec_Jack And does a damn fine job of it.
I’m reading Kelly’s biography “More than my share of it all” right now. Awesome, small, fast paced book. And yeah, it presents things a bit more precisely than what’s at the beginning here. Like, the first time Lockheed told Kelly and his friend “we don’t have anything right now, but come around next year”, Hibbard was quite generous and gentlemanly towards Kelly (and the whole small company was like that), and the instability of early Electra was kind of industry’s norm at that time (if you consider that practically nobody had their own wind tunnels at the time, you might guess why they didn’t fix the instability). Also the guess on where “skunk works” name comes from is different. But all that’s dribbles. The book is awesome. Recommend it very much.
I love listening to stories like this.These folks were doing this for the love of their country. The ultimate goal was to create the tools needed to keep an eye on the biggest threat to us and our way of life. I view them as heroes.
The SR-71 is the same plane I fell in love with
I have never seen a better presentation. Well done.
This is an amazing presentation!!!! I ran across this by accident and a happy accident it is. I will share this one for sure. Thanks so much for posting. Amazing.
this guy is an awesome storyteller pure gold. He could make a living off these talks.
I bet he does
lakermangmx
I bet he does!!!!
This is not only great content but has the added benefit of attracting intelligent viewers who add meaningful insights. Thanks to those who have shared their added knowledge to the mix.
The thunderbirds are cool flyers. They are always spot on in sync with each other.
The best talk I've heard in ages. Learned so much about the planes I loved as I grew up!!!
Then you haven't been listening or reading much.
This was probably the most engrossing video I’ve ever watched on TH-cam and I’ve been watching TH-cam videos for many many many many years; well done great work calling from the UK!!
An excellent, entertaining and informative presentation. Superb. Thank you.
I watch this 2-3 times a year. It’s brilliant.
Titanium has a strange property of localized expansion/contraction.
When drilling, the hole expands from the heat generated by friction at the drill tip then cools rather quickly and contracts around the following drill body.
"Snap!"
Successfully drilling titanium requires a well sharpened high quality drill, flowing coolant and a more often than usual "pecking" cycle.
Challenging but a lovely and fascinating material.
Porsche made the suspension of its 908 race car from titanium. The first race for these cars was at the Sebring 12 Hours. A bolt holding on a rear suspension member broke at about 8 pm, IIRC, and someone called the factory to tell them. Whoever answered the phone was very happy and said their computer had predicted a failure at 6 pm.
I agree. I machine ti every day and your right. The secret to machining it is repetition. Whether milling, turning or drilling.
When drilling titanium, pecking should only be used when the depth of drilling absolutely requires it to clear the chip out of the hole. Otherwise, you're re-cutting through work-hardened material for no reason.
Well, it was actually an alloy containing titanium.
@@jockellis cool story. may I elaborate ?
the next year the computer called up the race-team about a failure prediction at 7pm, but it never happened !
not only that but a similar A.I . machine, on earth, did not make such a prediction at all !
One of the top 10 engineering marvels of all time, the SR-71.
RyanKC the safest plane in aviation history
i vote that the a10 is the engineering marvel of the decade ....
How does this talk only have a thousand views! Thanks Nickolas, great talk about the original MVP.
Because he's not a pilot. People who are "sincerely" interested in aviation but won't take the controls and solo are short on credibility.
Now, I don't know this guy; he may actually BE a pilot. But from the first minute *I* "sincerely" _doubted_ it.
Hi Nick, I ran across this looking for something else. Anyway great presentation and so true. I was told at a young age, hire the best people you can and stay out of their way. That has held true for me for many years now. I am glad that philosophy is still on the minds of people. Cheers
Corona virus lockdown brought me here. And i sat here for all the 53 mins and 9 secs of it, Mezmerized. Wow.
This guy has far better info about this plane that many of the documentaries I've seen about it, and I have seen several.
So efficiency, focus, creative and failure freedom, delegate responsibility
When was managing the ambulance emergency control room. In the way Kelly's rules worked.
I always said "don't fix the blame, fix the problem".
Great presentation. One correction to Mean’s presentation. The reason for the partially filled fuel tanks on the SR-71 at time of takeoff is not due to any issue with the insufficient lift profile due to fuel weight; the reasons for the partially filled fuel tanks is threefold: (1) reduced weight to reduce tire blowout risk during takeoff when 400+ psi tires are still in contact with the ground, (2) the emergency brake procedure issues, & (3) during first inflight refueling the complete replacement of ambient atmosphere with gaseous nitrogen to serve as a volubility buffer best happens when the SR-71 has the most space available for refueling. In other words, the SR-71 can easily attain lift at full gross weight; there are other considerations involved that mandate the partially filled fuel tanks.
Anyway, great presentation. Mr Means skunkworks management advice is now scaled to a cross institutional framework in the GitHub world, noting that GitHub itself is an organization with which he is now affiliated and employed.
When I was "there", the sequence was: A-11.....YF 12-A......SR-71
A great orator that expressed his love for planes and for Kelly & his foresight into the needs of the clients his people & his planes. also in Kelly also knew how to bring the cohesive bonding of a tight circle of professionals!
I think this lecture was fantastic! Will need to watch it again!
I come back to this video (and all his other talks) at least once a year.
Don’t get too picky, it was a really good “Ted Talk” sort of, well spoken, informative, funny and a great story. Great job mate!
This is an awesome presentation kids growing up now are going to need this is a glimpse into the past! The skill sets they will need in the coming new industrial age. We are about to start manufacturing light speed and this is exactly what is needed to be successful!! Clearly focused team yet no micromanagement well done sir!
Thank you, Nickolas Means. Some of the best storytelling I've come across in a decade of TH-cam... and about a quarter of my career besides actual animation has been Storyboarding for my own animation AND other folks' TV spots, programs and Arcade Games. New Subscriber. ‹ =ºÞ
The skills and style of presentation in this gentleman transformed the 'dry' subject matter into a yearning to want more in me... and more he gave... and more. Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
I just randomly stumbled onto this, really enjoyed thanks for the upload...
Marvelous speech. Since a kid I was a fan of the SR-71, even as of now the age of 55. I've read a lot of the history mentioned in the speech, but, still, it's all fascinating as though I'm still a kid. The management side is also very true.
Best Historical documentary I've ever heard and seen of Kelly's Skunk works. Thats what beat the Cold War, along with Hughes AirCraft.
Then you haven't seen much or read much.
Fantastic video, about Skunkworks, Kelly Johnson and the best ways to go about getting the job done.
For what it's worth...
#1) the electra did end up with a different tail, and yes it did have a stability issue as designed but the design change configuration was mainly driven by hangar clearance and is in fact inferior (structurally heavier) to the original cruciform tail (not a t-tail as stated). A standard tail configuration with a larger tail volume would have most likely resulted in a slightly better performing and more structurally sound aircraft. Lots of factors go into aircraft design, and some of those are not driven by aircraft performance. (Look up pictures of Lockheed manufacturing Amelia Earhart's aircraft and you can see that the Burbank facility simply is not tall enough for a standard configuration tail assembly).
#2) The US had been working on jet engine technology at the same time as the German and British. However some efforts were not with centrifugal compressors, but with axial compressors and other mechanical arrangements. Look up Nathan price and the Lockheed J37. This is in the late 1930's the same as the germans and british, the difference here is funding. The germans had the best funding, the british weaker, and the americans the least.
#3) The P-80 although put together in a very short period of time benefited from almost all of its major components having been preliminary designed over the previous 5 years as a consequence of Kelly Johnson and Price's interest in the axial flow jet engine and an aircraft for it. It's the reason why the P-80 has an odd bloated gut shape, it was originally designed for an axial flow engine but was quickly adapted. No, an aircraft was not miracled into existence in 143 days, although that makes a cute story. The same thing is done by subcontractors to the military today. They secretly start work on a prototype and then try to find a buyer. Price, Johnson and many other had been working on that jet for many years before the contract was turned on in 1943. Much of the aircraft systems came from existing aircraft, the OML had already been extensively studied, and they had a VERY good idea of exactly they were going to create when given the money.
I stopped watching here.
History is rewritten by each storyteller...
@Chrisopher Maglio: You are right about all the factors affecting aircraft design, but I doubt hanger clearance mattered for a tail dragger. The dual vertical stabilizers were very frequent in the period for control authority in engine out flight, among other considerations. And yes, a heavier structure results.
An ok delivered speech, convincing many that he is delivering accurate aviation history, while being 75% factual 100% of the time
A slight correction about the SR71 and why it always took off with a partial fuel load. The constraint were the tires, there was a significant risk of bursting them if the plane was fully loaded. This is according to one of my colleagues who was a tanker pilot for the SR71.
It did take off with a full fuel load sometimes. The issue was that the engines were underpowered under Mach 1, so if they lost an engine with a full fuel load a single engine would struggle to cope.
As a structural mechanic for 34 years, this was awesome!!!! Thank you!!!!! :-)
A commonly held misconception is the aircraft "grew" at 3.0 Mach and this eliminated the fuel leaks. This is not true. The leaks are caused by sealant failures due to high temperature especially out near the engines. A second mistake was the reason for the partial fueling for take off. It is not because the aircraft leaked fuel so badly. They took off with a full fuel load until the day the main landing gear failed after the go/no go point on shredding parts that pierced the wing fuel tanks and caused the aircraft to go off the end of the runway blowing thru the arresting gear, ripping all the landing gear out of the aircraft. This accident caused the change to starting with a partial lighter load of fuel which eliminated the risk of over stressing the landing gear. I supported the SR-71 fleet as an aircraft fuel system specialist from 1967 to 1970.
The plane did grow, and the growth did stop the leaks.
Every pilot and mechanic ive heard talk about it say that. Yes it leaked because the seals wore out due to heat and expansion. But the plane would stop leaking when the titanium slats expanded and sealed tight.
you know you were there!!! thanks for your service!!!! dad was tailgunner on pbm pacific .what was fuel load in gallons?
@@willefixit Which fuel load? Take off was just over 1/2 tank at 45,000 pounds, there was also a 55,000 pound take off load, but if an SR-71 somehow had empty tanks and was fully fuel it could hold 80,000 pounds. 6.68 pound/gallon using the spec of 800 kg/meter cubed so for SR-71 a full load would be 11,994 gallons of JP-7. The A-12 held less 68,000 pounds IIRC as the A-12 was shorter, but went higher and a little faster..
Did you have to go Rantoul Air Training Base Rantoul Illinois?
Nickolas, I helped develop the J58 engine on the SR71. Its not a turbofan engine its a turbojet.
Sir.....You have the "RITE STUFF'" ....Thanks so very much...!!
He is an EXCELLENT speaker, extremely interesting speech.
Brilliant talk with in depth aeronautical knowledge and history that converge to key take aways on how to manage a project
I was there. It was one of the best speeches on managing a project. Nickolas is a brilliant speaker, breaking things down. Glad it's on TH-cam to take more notes and refresh my knowledge as we tend to forget.
It's basically just a cliff note's version of Ben Rich's Skunkworks book...
Excellent! Your ability to extrapolate what truly made these aerospace leaders great is amazing! We need a lot more of this type of in depth analysis in the world today! Keep up the good work.
The "Martin B-75" was actually a B-57 Canberra, designed by English Electric. A fine machine, and still working for NASA, (at least until recently).
To train U-2 pilots to land a machine that really just wanted to float, without a 2-seat version, the air force used the Cessna 310, military designation U-3. The pilot's eye height on the "Blue Canoe", aka the "Me Too" was about the same, and a suitable throttle setting could simulate the floating behaviour.
The partial fuel takeoffs are to prevent problems if a motor quits on take-off; single-engine behaviour with a full load was Not Nice. With a partial load, it could be handled.
He actually called it a B-57 Canberra since that was it's US designation, don't know where you got B-75 from. But you're also wrong because that is not it's British designation, in the RAF it was designated the Canberra B not a "B-57 Canberra".
I absolutely love the SR-71. The Blackbird is neck and neck with the Valkyrie XB-70 for me as my aviation inspiration. Great talk.
Thanks for the picture of the A-1, first one I've seen AFAIK
This opened my mind to so many new concepts. There’s a huge lesson on pragmatism attached to the SR-71’s leaky fuel tank and the U2 bombers landing gear.
This video... seriously... sooo sooo goood :) I LOVE engineering. Thank you for sharing!
Well YOU are easily impressed....maybe you should read a book or something.
Thanks for your kind remarks on my reply’s Re: working on Ted Smith’s AEROSTAR prototype and my experiences in other facets of aviation tech work. I pride myself on writing coherent and interesting comments. Aviation still fascinates me even though my efforts as an aviation technician are starting to fade into the mist of the distant past. I turned eighty this past year.
Although he does point out interesting things to apply to your teams, the majority of this talk is just a cliff note's version of Ben Rich's Skunkworks book so it's not like he did a ton of research to come up with all the details it talks about. It's a great book and I highly recommend you read it yourself!
@Pedro DLR Big emphasis on AFAIK........others know better.
At least it will lead more people to the book.
And missed a ton of Stuff. Easy to fly?, 2 kt. Difference between stall and airframe damage at 70k.
It's a bad ass plane ,I never forget seeing sr71 coming down raf mildenhall runway ,seen it fly 4 or 5 times first seen on display at Farnborough in 82 or 83 next to the b1 b .👍
The name of the Skunk Works was lifted from the then-popular _Li'l Abner_ comic strip, which had been launched by Al Capp in 1934. The cartoonist called his version in the strip the "Skonkworks". Capp allegedly wanted to sue Lockheed for infringement, but by changing the spelling to "Skunk Works" the parties came to an amicable agreement.
I’d read that it was originally coined because of the hideous smells that come off the materials they had been working on to combat the heats generated in flight. Namely the self sealing fuel bladders they tried out. I’m I mistaken ??
@Allie - I don't think the SR-71 had self-sealing fuel bladders, as they wouldn't have bee able to withstand the heat. That's a feature one would find on a fighter to counter bullet holes. I recall reading years ago that the fuel tanks on the SR-71 leaked badly when it was on the ground. They would put enough fuel into it to get airborne, whereupon it would be refueled in mid-air, then would accelerate to supersonic speed on its way to the target area. The friction from the air would cause the skin of the plane to expand. sealing the leaks. Journalists who got joy-rides on the SR-71 reported the metal frame around the cockpit windows got too hot to touch and they would have burned their fingers, save for the protection that the pressure suit gloves gave them.
@@Milosz_Ostrow The plastics factory would have have been producing early 20th Century plastics, not materials for the A12/SR71 series.
@@muirallie Jesus Christ. Skonkworks / Skunkworks came about in 1945. Way before the Blackbirds.
@Ellis K - Honestly, I never bothered watching to the end. I've read quite a bit and watched many documentaries on the SR-71 over the last 50 years - probably longer than the speaker has been alive - and I found the talk in this video badly structured. It didn't hold my attention, and if it had been any worse, I would have down-voted it.
When I was in the Air Force I worked with/for an engineer from Lockheed skunk works in Space Command. I had no clue how lucky I was, but very thankful for the experience.
The name Skunk Works was actually first publicized in the "Little Abner" cartoon series. Frequently there was a sign pointing in a direction totally unrelated to the story saying "Skunk Works". Late 40s to mid 50s. I was born in 1948 and remember.
I automatically think of Bruce Dickinson when I hear the words "Skunk Works". 🤘
That was an amazing use of my life to listen to that story! I’ve had the opportunity to work on some small but critical IT projects during my career. I fortunately had some great managers who subscribed to some of Kelly’s principles and resulted in successes. I will think of this story any time I see any of those planes, and I’ll point my sons to this as a lesson that they can effect in whatever they do in their work.
6:19 "no more commercial hits"
Constellation: am I a joke to you??
The constellation first flew AFTER the start of the second World War.
I just watched a 53 min presentation and I'm about to do it again :) Good stuff.
My name is Nicholas and the A-12 started a life long obsession with me too! That and the book of modern day war planes
Great Video. I have been into Military planes for as long as I can remember. The Planes of the Skunk Works are some of my very favorites.
I want to hear this guy's assessment of the de Havilland Mosquito. I really like the details he covers.
Nickolas, I remember this incident all too well. The crew did a great job working with what they had. I am a private pilot, the son of a WWII P-51 pilot and CFII and a mother who was head of the Maryland chapter of the 99s. To boot. my son is a lead web developer and I'm an engineer trying to learn to code. You did a great job with the talk and I am re-looking at Kelly's list to see what I can borrow for my work. Thanks!
Greatly appreciated video! I really like Kelly's rules. 😊
This guy’s presentations are amazing
During the X-20 Program, they used F-104s with modified "thruster" control surfaces at the wingtips and the nose (like how the Shuttle adjusts it's attitude in space), and a small, liquid fueled rocket in the rear of the plane, for extra thrust.
It was well known that these F-104s could attain altitudes in excess of 100K feet during a zoom climb.
When used in conjunction with the 6K pound thrust H²O² rocket that was bolted into the tail, altitudes of over 120K feet were common.
I THINK the F-104 still has a record(s) for highest altitude for a jet that took off under it's own power...
More correctly the NF-104...
@@allangibson8494 Indeed. I forgot to specify.
Excellent bait & switch (or should I say add-on?): Grabs and holds your attention with an exciting story and then climaxes in a motivational speech on effective leadership. Congrats!
50:56 Every decision he made was around how to deliver the most value in the shortest amount of time for his customer while bringing out the best in his people.
Working in a new company, we try to do exactly this, but we also have to say "for the small budget given" - and that's where the whole philosophy breaks down. Because you're so restricted on budget, you spend a considerable amount of time just trying to find ways to cut costs everywhere, losing time in evaluating options by not being able to chose what you need but what you can afford. And whenever you need to ditch yet another spec because you're running out of money and thereby essentially time, you waste time updating everyone on what has changed in contrast to the plans of last week. That's the real tragedy of being a developer in a small, new company without the funding budget of a somewhat successful mother corporation and the military during the cold war behind your back.
Good, cheap, or fast. Pick two.
Then what you have to do is build allegiance in your team by pitching in, being there with them, and signing them on to the challenges of an impossible mission. I won a lot of awards that way- the pay was pretty poor, especially for me (the lowest paid of the lot) but the work was beyond excellent.
When I lived in Warner Robins, GA, at the Air Force Base, there was a museum. At the time that I lived there, they were building more hangars for the museum. There was an SR-71 sitting out back, in the grass in a field. You could walk right up under it, see it from any angle. It had a fuel leak :P I will NEVER forget the day I got to rub the belly of a Blackbird.