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

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.

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.

I actually didn't even notice that until you put it in quotes just now.

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)

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.

I'm more bothered by the tautology. What is an unswept delta-wing supposed to look like?

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”.

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.

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

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.