8 ms·

I didn't make it past the first lovely sentence. "With a sleek needle nose and a swept double-delta wing with two prominent nacelles, the supersonic SR-1 Blackb

by onesun 9y ago

I didn't make it past the first lovely sentence. "With a sleek needle nose and a swept double-delta wing with two prominent nacelles, the supersonic SR-1 Blackbird spy plane is the stuff aviation legend." SR-1? "Stuff aviation legend"? I'd expect a little better editing from Popular Mechanics.

kevincennis 9y ago
You stopped reading the entire article because they dropped an "of"?
- cyberferret 9y ago
  I must admit that I picked up on the "SR-1" typo. If this was my local daily rag article, I could forgive, but for a technical publication that is supposed to give us accurate, meaningful data, that immediately sows some distrust that the rest of the information in the article may be suspect. Grammatical errors I can forgive to a certain extent, but getting the designation of the aircraft wrong that is the feature of the article? That is sloppy editing.
  - kevincennis 9y ago
    I actually didn't even notice that until you put it in quotes just now.
    - romwell 9y ago
      Then there are outright broken sentences like this: >The 1980s saw an increase in threats capable to countering the SR-71, including improved enemy air defenses and the introduction of the MiG-31, which was armed with the R-33 air-to-air missile could intercept the Blackbird. This just breaks my mental parsing, since there are so many ways to fix this: 1. ..MiG, which, being armed with the R-33 missile, could intercept the Blackbird; 2. ..MiG, which was armed with the R-33 missile, and could intercept the Blackbird; 3. ..MiG, which was armed with the R-33 air-to-air missile, and therefore could intercept the Blackbird. (and so on)
  - rconti 9y ago
    They mentioned the SR-1 program again later in the article too. I even had to Google it to make sure it wasn't me with the misunderstanding.
- jpeanuts 9y ago
  I'm more bothered by the tautology. What is an unswept delta-wing supposed to look like?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    That's closer to an oxymoron than a tautology. But I guess a wing with a back swept leading edge and a forward swept trailing edge (which the SR-71 has) could have a triangular shape and a 0° sweep as typically measured (the SR-71 doesn't, of course), making it an “unswept delta”.
- onesun 9y ago
  I wrote that with a bit of sarcasm, but yes, it was hard for me to take this article seriously, even though I did manage to finish it.
ProAm 9y ago
Good old hacker news where people would rather discuss how the article was written instead of the content it contains.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 9y ago
  Please don't posture over the community while being part of it. There are tons of substantive comments in this thread alone. Your superiority to others is, at a minimum, off topic.
SamReidHughes 9y ago
I didn't notice those typos the first time I read the article. Maybe it's really easy to misread letter-number combinations like that if you're already expecting it to be a certain number.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

by onesun 9y ago

kevincennis 9y ago

You stopped reading the entire article because they dropped an "of"?

cyberferret 9y ago
I must admit that I picked up on the "SR-1" typo. If this was my local daily rag article, I could forgive, but for a technical publication that is supposed to give us accurate, meaningful data, that immediately sows some distrust that the rest of the information in the article may be suspect. Grammatical errors I can forgive to a certain extent, but getting the designation of the aircraft wrong that is the feature of the article? That is sloppy editing.
- kevincennis 9y ago
  I actually didn't even notice that until you put it in quotes just now.
  - romwell 9y ago
    Then there are outright broken sentences like this: >The 1980s saw an increase in threats capable to countering the SR-71, including improved enemy air defenses and the introduction of the MiG-31, which was armed with the R-33 air-to-air missile could intercept the Blackbird. This just breaks my mental parsing, since there are so many ways to fix this: 1. ..MiG, which, being armed with the R-33 missile, could intercept the Blackbird; 2. ..MiG, which was armed with the R-33 missile, and could intercept the Blackbird; 3. ..MiG, which was armed with the R-33 air-to-air missile, and therefore could intercept the Blackbird. (and so on)
- rconti 9y ago
  They mentioned the SR-1 program again later in the article too. I even had to Google it to make sure it wasn't me with the misunderstanding.
jpeanuts 9y ago
I'm more bothered by the tautology. What is an unswept delta-wing supposed to look like?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  That's closer to an oxymoron than a tautology. But I guess a wing with a back swept leading edge and a forward swept trailing edge (which the SR-71 has) could have a triangular shape and a 0° sweep as typically measured (the SR-71 doesn't, of course), making it an “unswept delta”.
onesun 9y ago
I wrote that with a bit of sarcasm, but yes, it was hard for me to take this article seriously, even though I did manage to finish it.

ProAm 9y ago

Good old hacker news where people would rather discuss how the article was written instead of the content it contains.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dang 9y ago
Please don't posture over the community while being part of it. There are tons of substantive comments in this thread alone. Your superiority to others is, at a minimum, off topic.

SamReidHughes 9y ago

I didn't notice those typos the first time I read the article. Maybe it's really easy to misread letter-number combinations like that if you're already expecting it to be a certain number.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]