HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 Blackbird
Keywords: Blackbird
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:12:43 GMT
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In <1992Nov4.115631.14579@ugle.unit.no> borud@solan.unit.no (Bj|rn Borud):
> I'm looking for some info on the SR-71 Blackbird. Generally data like
> when it was designed, when it was built, it's performance spec's
> (speed, altitude, climb-rate, manouverability etc. etc.), how many 
> were made.....

The Blackbird series were designed and first flew in the early 1960's.
They were designed by the legendary Kelly Johnson at the Lockheed
Skunk Works, who also designed the P-38, P-80, T-33, F-104, and U-2
(amoung others).

Most everything on the SR-71 is still classified.  The aircraft is beleived
to have been built in three different versions, the A-12, SR-71, and YF-12,
with about 40 total airframes constructed.  The planes are beleived to fly
at about Mach 3.5 and about 125,000 feet.

> I also wan't to know if they have been totally shut down or if they
> still fly once in a while. (When did they fly their last mission ?)

The USAF has retired the SR-71, and the CIA is believed to have retired
all of its A-12's.  NASA still operates three SR-71, and the USAF has
retained several SR-71 in flyable storage (just incase).

Even though there were supposedly no active Blackbirds during Desert Storm,
there are widely circulated rumors that at least one Blackbird mission
was undertaken, possibly several more.  These rumors seem to be centered on
someone who claims that they were on board a KC-135 that was carrying the
special fuel that is only used by the Blackbird.

-john-

-- 
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III		(612) 942-6969		    john@newave.mn.org
Newave Communications, Ltd.			    ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john
From: strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Blue Angels aircraft (Was: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25)
Date: 13 Nov 92 21:18:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov13.211821.17127
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

> The Streak Eagle was 1 of many pre-production Eagles built
> for testing and training. The same goes for the A-10
> at the Air Force Museum. Its also true for the Navy's
> Blue Angels, they fly pre-production F/A-18s.

Actually, I believe that the Angels fly aircraft that are normal production
run, but merely high in their life cycle.  

Randall Haskin
L-17 N77BH
strega@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney)
Subject: Re: Reason for Retirement (was Re: SR-71 Blackbird)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:48:28 GMT

Ian Nelson writes:
> I'm sure that a lot of the aircraft
>we have are almost as fast as the sr-71, it just might not be public info 
>(the government "gives" a lot of information on f-16s and f-18s and such, but
>these are still used in battle and I'm sure there are still secrets on them)
>As well, with the current levels of technology, I think it would be easy to
>build a plane that is faster and more manuverable if we need it.

I doubt that there is little secret about the F-16, F/A-18, or F-15, F-14 for
that matter.  Basically, they've been far too widely exported for anything to be
held secret.  The SR-71 stayed closely controlled by the US, so there are still
unknowns (maybe not, if the Researcher's Handbook really does give everything
away).  We know that the F/A-18C is limited to well under Mach 2 by its fixed
inlets.  The F-16 is almost certainly limited to Mach 2.2 by its geometry and
inlet design.  these are all things that any mildly competent aeronautical
engineer can figure out.
  In fact, designing aircraft for sustained Mach 3 flight is very, very complex. 
Mach heating is the big problem.  To fly efficiently at these speeds, you have to
go high, but the low air density up there makes it difficult to bleed off heat. 
Drag effects are less serious at very high altitudes, but heating effects
actually become worse.  This was one of the big problems that the B-70
encountered in development.  Don't underestimate these difficulties.  It took the
SR-71 a decade after its first flight to reach its maximum speed.

				E
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: hshubs@cis.umassd.edu (Howard S Shubs)
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 03:39:02 GMT

In <1992Nov13.115102@usho21.hou281.chevron.com> hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:

>In article <BxML3v.sC@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tz10956@meibm13.cen.uiuc.edu (Thomas Zych) writes:

>|> Not to mention the fact that it was chained to the end of the runway so that
>|> it could work up to full afterburners _before_ the explosive bolts were fired,
>|> starting the clock.  Probably accounted for at least a couple of seconds...

>  Chained!?  Explosive Bolts!?  What, the brakes wouldn't hold?!

>  Gee... I hadn't heard that one.  I guess they could have removed
>  them as part of reducing weight.  So, huh, like what part of the
>  F-15 did they hook up the chains to?

And how'd they -stop- afterwards??
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: johnm@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com (John Mosbarger)
Subject: Re: Spitfires
Organization: HP Cardiology Business Unit - McMinnville, OR
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1992 15:05:02 GMT

     My favorite source book on the Spit is:

     Spitfire - The Story of a Famous Fighter
     Harleyford Publications Ltd. 1960 (Revised 1961)
     Library of Congress Card No. 60-15431

     I have no idea of its availability, but if I can find out much it's
worth, I may be persuaded to sell my copy.

John

--
*****************************************************************************
| John Mosbarger          |                                                 |
|                         |     "One thing the world needs is popular       |
| HP McMinnville, OR      |      government at popular prices."             |
|                         | 	                     --George Barker        |
| johnm@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com |                     	                    |
|***************************************************************************|
|                     Opinions are mine and mine alone.                     |
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: aapo@niksula.hut.fi (A.J. Heijola)
Subject: Re: SR-71 Altitude (Was Re: B
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: 14 Nov 92 01:50:27


   ATC really doesn't exercise any control above FL600, but they do provide
   advisory information.  And the Blackbirds, when operating above FL600
   used coded altitudes.  Some reference altitude ("Charlie") was
   designated each day, and altitudes were reported as "Charlie +
   (something)"

Using reference altitudes is quite a normal practice in military
aviation I believe. (Somebody correct me if I'm wrong)
Mentioned for example in the book "Flight of the Intruder" by
Stephen Coonts, which I find one of the best books about
modern combat-aviation.

Aapo Heijola
Helsinki University of Technology
Finland
email: aapo@batman.hut.fi
 
P.S. A little facta about the Finnish Air Force.
     Finnish AF uses two types of "fighters" :
     - Swedish built SAAB 35 Draken and
     - Russian built MiG 21-bis
     So as you know both airplanes are almost obsolete, but
     they are going to be replaced by F/A -18 by the end of the 
     century.
     As jet trainers a british Hawk is used and the first trainer
     is a finnish built Vinka not in use anywhere else in the world.
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Height records and Yeager (Was: SR-71 / MIG-25)
Date: 12 Nov 1992 09:52:42 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


Steinar Bang <steinarb@idt.unit.no> writes:

>What about that Starfighter version mentioned near the ending of "The
>Right Stuff", the one Yeager nearly was killed in. Did that plane
>really exist? The book is supposedly a documentary.

Yes, it does (or did).  There's one on a stick outside the USAF Test Pilot
School at Edwards AFB.

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions, go and get your own."
From: augustho@aludra.usc.edu (August Horvath)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Mystery B-58
Keywords: Mystery B-58
Date: 12 Nov 92 12:29:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: aludra.1dvavsINNklv
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

In article <1992Nov12.181400.15710@news2.cis.umn.edu> rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin) writes:

>When we rebuilt our B-25, we had to initially put it into Experimental
>category for FAA required flight tests.  Following successful completion
>of those tests, we applied for, and received, a Limited certificate. 

>Before we could even get the Experimental category, we had to "restore"
>the designation of the aircraft to it's original.  However, I believe that
>was not for the Experimental needs, but rather the Limited.  While I'm
>not sure about Experimental, I'm quite sure on all others.

My suspicion would be that many warbird owners keep their birds in the
Experimental category, just as if they were homebuilts (most restorations
these days would easily pass the 51% rule! :-) ).  My basis for thinking
this is that (1) the amazing array of aircraft being successfully flown
these days could not possibly be anticipated by the FAA's list (is the
Soko Ikarus on there?) and (2) I have seen quite a few warbirds flying around
with "Experimental" placards under their cockpits for years on end. 

August Horvath <augustho@aludra.usc.edu>
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: SR-71 / MIG-25
Date: 12 Nov 1992 09:53:11 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


in article <BxK6sF.Eqn@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
JHan <jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca> writes:

>A modified F-15A (the Streak Eagle) took the climb world record (60,000 ft in
>less than two minutes.  I think.)

Can't argue with success...but take a look at the Streak Eagle.  No avionics,
_no paint_, all excess weight stripped.  Calling it an A model was a definite
stretch of the imagination.

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions, go and get your own."
From: tz10956@meibm13.cen.uiuc.edu (Thomas Zych)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:57:29 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil writes:


>in article <BxK6sF.Eqn@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
>JHan <jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca> writes:

>>A modified F-15A (the Streak Eagle) took the climb world record (60,000 ft in
>>less than two minutes.  I think.)

>Can't argue with success...but take a look at the Streak Eagle.  No avionics,
>_no paint_, all excess weight stripped.  Calling it an A model was a definite
>stretch of the imagination.

Not to mention the fact that it was chained to the end of the runway so that
it could work up to full afterburners _before_ the explosive bolts were fired,
starting the clock.  Probably accounted for at least a couple of seconds...


+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Tom Zych   tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | The University of Illinois           |
|           tz10956@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu |     at Urbana-Champaign...           |
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
|  The University may have all my money, but the opinions still belong to me. |
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
|  A witty slogan should appear here.  |   And probably over here as well.    |
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

-- 
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Tom Zych   tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | The University of Illinois           |
|           tz10956@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu |     at Urbana-Champaign...           |
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: watk@cbnews.cb.att.com (e.l.watkins)
Subject: Re: Aircraft in Museums (was: SR-71 / MIG-25)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:06:05 GMT

In article <prm.721612099@genesis.ecn.purdue.edu> prm@genesis.ecn.purdue.edu (Philip R. Moyer) writes:
>geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:
>>Given their cost and the presumed need for them in squadron service, it
>>surprises me that so many examples of current frontline aircraft are in
>>museums.  The B-1A is a test article, of course, and was probably not easily
>>modifiable to the operational B-1B configuration.  But the A-10 mentioned
>>above is an example of an airframe that I'd have thought would be needed
>>out in the field, as is the USAF Museum's F-117A.  Sounds like a waste
>
>The Air Force Museum's 117 is not an F model, but a YF.  It is, like the
>B-1 (which is, btw, an A, not a B), a test article.
>
>Many of the current A/C at the Museum have been damaged or in some way
>fulfilled their purpose for existing.  I believe the only A/C there that
>are still in active service are (this is from memory, so correct me
>if I'm wrong :-):
>
>	FB-111
>	A-10
>	F-15	Streak Eagle
>	T-38
>
>I can't think of any others offhand.  Note that they do not have a Falcon
>yet.  They also do not have an AC-130 (or any 130 variant, for that matter)
>which distresses me to no end....
>
>Cheers!
>Phil (who spends entirely too much time at the AF Museum :-)

	The last time I was there there was a preproduction
	F-16 out in front. It had been used as an atraction
	at fairs etc. The wings were on hinges so it could
	be easly loaded on a truck and transported.
	The missle rails were also removed, I assume for safty.
	I'm not sure its still there.
From: pdills@staff.tc.umn.edu (Peter in Amiland)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Tech Manual for B-17F/G models
Date: 7 Nov 92 22:10:08 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota


Does anyone know were to look for the 'Tech Manual' for the Boeing B-17F/G
models?

It would seem that Boeing no longer has copies or originals of them, not
even in their archives.

I have to figure out where the emmpenage and the fuselage can be taken apart,
as they were put together in the factory. :-/

Thank you in advance,

Peter

*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*  pdills@epx.cis.umn.edu (Internet, immer/always) Walter Computer Lab Mngr *
*  pdills@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Internet, immer/always) Consultant EE/CSCI *
*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
From: scottwee@mercury.ksu.ksu.edu (Chuan Chun Wee)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Flight Surveillance Avionics
Date: 12 Nov 1992 13:43:18 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: mercury.ksu.ksu.edu


 I need some information pertaining to Flight Surveillance Avionics

 eg: 1) What is it?
     2) Which companies are involved in this field??	

  In fact ANY information will be greatly appreciated! :) 

   Please post response (if any) to this newsgroup! :)

   Thanks!!! :-)

scottwee@ksuvm.ksu.edu
scottwee@matt.ksu.edu
Dept of Chemical Engineering, KSU
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: Reason for Retirement (was Re: SR-71 Blackbird)
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 12:10:46 GMT


spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:
 >Kerry Kurasaki writes
 >> I'm surprised that no one has described what it takes to stage
 >> an SR-71 mission.  Something like 3 tankers (KC-135/KC-10?) are
 >> required to be on station.  If one of them doesn't make it, then
 >> the mission is scrubbed.

I believe it was two KC-135Qs that were required to be in the air and on 
station for immediately refueling an SR-71 taking off on a recce mission.
Of course there were then others tankers needed at intervals along the
Blackbird's intended flight path.  It was worldwide overhead like that
which figured prominently in the decision to cancel the program...

 >Not only that, but I seem to remember that because of special fuel  
 >requirements, dedicated tankers had to be used (ie not your standard  
 >line KC-135).  

There was a total of 56 KC-135Q (modified KC-135As) tanker aircraft, 
from the 100th Air Refueling Wing, used to support the 9th SRWs 
Blackbird operations.  The biggest difference in the "Q" is that 
the engines were modified to be compatible with the JP-7 fuel
burned by the Blackbird.

Today, NASA is using standard USAF KC-10s and KC-135s for their SR-71 flights.
The KC-135Q fleet was retired, since they were some of the oldest 135s left
in the AF inventory.

-dean

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: ahng@ee.ualberta.ca (Allan Hong-Kay Ng)
Subject: Re: SR-71 Blackbird
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 07:27:20 GMT

simms@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (dan simms) writes:

>James_Zuchelli@qm.claris.com (James Zuchelli) writes:

>>In article <1992Nov5.182717.27349@cbnews.cb.att.com>, watk@cbnews.cb.att.com (e.l.watkins) writes:
>>> 
>>> In article <1992Nov4.115631.14579@ugle.unit.no> borud@solan.unit.no writes
>>> >I'm looking for some info on the SR-71 Blackbird. Generally data like
>>> >when it was designed, when it was built, it's performance spec's
>>> >(speed, altitude, climb-rate, manouverability etc. etc.), how many 
>>> >were made.....

>>I was researching some stuff earlier this year and talked to a PR person at 
>>the Pentagon.  She made some calls and got back to me and said the top speed
>>of the SR-71 is still classified.

>True.  However there is some data available for the YF-12A, since it set
>several records. (bummer that only three were ever made).  What I would
>like to know is, what the differences in hardware were between the YF-12A
>and the SR-71 ??  The few that come to mind are the lack of a weapons bay
>(I assume) in the SR-71, the nose change, added surveilance equipment..
>were there engine changes? what?


Hi according to my sources there was no engine change between the YF-12A
models and the later SR-71.  The same Pratt and Whitney J58 engines were
used.  FYI: each engine produces 34500 lb thrust with afterburning and
has an sfc of 2.174 (wow!).  The rest of the information is easily found
in every aviators bible Jane's All the Worlds Aircraft.  This also lists
the FAI records (hence performance) info everybody thinks is so classified.
>		
>					dan

>-----
>artie@uiuc.edu
From: diskwiz@maple.circa.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: TR-3a
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:45:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: math.1992Nov9.164506.436
Reply-To: diskwiz@maple.circa.ufl.edu
Organization: Center for Instructional and Research Computing Activities

I was wondering If anyone had gathered any new info on the TR-3a. I haven't
been able to glean much from my usual sources. I was told it has a real-time
data link for passing target info to F117s and that iit resembles a small 
B-2. Anybody heard anything else?

Also, anyone have detailed info on the ACM, the new stelath cruise missle
that is replacing the ALCM? I saw a film shot of a launch of one the other
day. I was amazed that the USAF let it out of the bag. Jane's air launched
wepons mentioned the ACM but didn't have any specs except that it uses a
laser radar for taquisition and terminal homing.

Oh, by the way, the YF-12 was intended to carry eight AIM-47 semi-active
predecessors to the AIM-54 Phoenix. It also had to IR imaging systems to
acquire targets in high ECM environments (or so I have been told. This 
would be expensive for a bird of this era.)

Chad Young. University of Florida.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 Blackbird
From: erkamp@JANUS.ARC.AB.CA (Bob Erkamp)
Date: 5 Nov 92 11:48:44 MDT
Reply-To: erkamp@JANUS.ARC.AB.CA
Organization: Alberta Research Council

In article <1992Nov4.115631.14579@ugle.unit.no>, borud@solan.unit.no (Bj|rn Borud) writes:
>I'm looking for some info on the SR-71 Blackbird. Generally data like
>when it was designed, when it was built, it's performance spec's
>(speed, altitude, climb-rate, manouverability etc. etc.), how many 
>were made.....
>
>I also wan't to know if they have been totally shut down or if they
>still fly once in a while. (When did they fly their last mission ?)
>

I beleive that NASA got 2 of these for high speed/altitude tests.

Bob
From: strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Military Aircraft Parks ...
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:56:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov5.225638.14155
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle


I _HIGHLY DOUBT_ that there are any warbirds in repositories that have not
already been scrapped or requisitioned.  The warbird parts trade is so
lucritive that I think anyone who had any sort of access to these supplies
would be incredibly well known.
As far as I can fathom, the only place where you could find WWII aircraft
in derelict condition would be in Central or South America.  Those countries
purchased huge amounts of ex-military and obsolete hardware to fight their
civil wars, etc.  Consequently, many rare finds in the warbird world have
come from there.  The Whittington Brothers in Florida recovered a B-17E
(the oldest flyable B-17 left) in Bolivia.  Also, Connie Edwards pu/rchased
many P-51 Mustangs, which he has stockpiled at his "Ranch" (which I believe
is somewhere in Texas).  Mr. Edwards, however, is very secretive about his 
posessions, so I would not advise asking him to visit his aquisitions.
Additionally, the former Soviet Union has recently become a goldmine for
warbird enthusiasts.  Most recently, a Curtiss P-40B (of which most people
beleived was TOTALLY extinct) was recovered from Siberia, and will FLY in 
less than 2 years.  Reportedly, there are many Bell P-39's and early
Bf-109's which are ready for recovery.  The Russians, hungry for Western
money, are also more than happy to sell these hunks off.  The aircraft are
all in great condition, due to the low temps, etc.
As far as these "aircraft parks" go, I believe everything has been tapped
out.  Davis-Monthan AFB is as good as you're going to get.  You also might
look at Falcon Field in Arizona (near the Champlin Fighter museum) as there
is a junkyard there, and there were 3 Lockheed Constellations there last time 
I was there.  The fire-bomber trade is the next best place to look if you 
want to see the hardware.  In the western states, Air Tanker outfits 
like ConifAir and Aero Union have LOTS of warbirds they use for bombing,
and in my experience, are nice to enthusiasts who approach them and want to
look, take pictures, etc.