I don't see that as a valid comparison. SR-71s could operate with a much higher level of risk than commercial passenger planes. IIRC, SR-71s leaked fuel on the ground, and their wings dragged on the ground without special attachments. Pilots needed special pressure suits, etc.

I also expect that they were much less complex than an aircraft that provides a comfortable, pressurized cabin; the high level of safety mentioned above; freight capacity; etc.

Also, despite Boeing's recent problems, I would guess that commerical passenger planes are far more safe than they were decades ago when the SR-71 was developed. Accidents were much more common despite many fewer flights, iirc.

▲

imadethis 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

12/32 SR71s were lost in the 33 years they were flying. 11/200 MD-11s have been hull-lost from 1988-2025. Not to mention that passenger/cargo planes will put on a lot more flight hours than the SR71s did in a given year.

▲

dylan604 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

the SR-71 leaking fuel on the ground was not a design flaw. it was designed to be operated at speed where things would expand to fill in. if they were filled in on the ground, they'd have no place to expand at speed/temps. the risk assessment was that it was better to leak fuel on the ground rather than blowing up at speed/temp

▲

mmooss an hour ago | parent [-]

Right, it was risk management. I doubt that leaking fuel would be acceptable risk management for a commercial passenger plane at a public airport.

Obviously they could have designed something that could expand and contract if they thought it was worth it.

	▲	lazide an hour ago \| parent [-]
		They designed special fuel that wouldn’t catch on fire under normal circumstances. Also, this was done because airframe skin temps exceeded 400F during flight due to the high speeds.