HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: SR-71 Blackbird
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 12:51:41 GMT

john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:
 >The Blackbird series were designed and first flew in the early 1960's.

The first A-12 flight was at Groom Lake on April 26, 1962.

 >Most everything on the SR-71 is still classified.  

Well, there is quite a lot of info around these days.

 >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.

Add the M-12 drone carrier to that list.

Here is a Blackbird type/total listing:

     A-12 .... 13
    YF-12 ....  3
     M-12 ....  2
    SR-71 .... 29
    SR-71B ...  2
    SR-71C ...  1
   ---------------
    total .... 50

 >The planes are beleived to fly at about Mach 3.5 and about 125,000 feet.
125K is a rather high estimate...

 >The USAF has retired the SR-71, and the CIA is believed to have 
 >retired all of its A-12's.  

The CIA A-12/OXCART project was terminated way back in 1968.  The final
operational A-12 mission was on May 8, 1968.  SR-71s took their place.

 >NASA still operates three SR-71, 

Yep... all based at the Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility (Edwards AFB).

 >and the USAF has retained several SR-71 in flyable storage (just incase).

There are three SRs in storage at Lockheed Palmdale (Plant 42): 962/967/968,
but from what i've heard they are not particularly "flyable" these days.
NASA also has plans to use these last three Blackbirds for spare parts.

 >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.  

Maybe... maybe not.  There are "rumors", but there really isn't much in 
the KTO that would demand the penetration speed of the SR-71.  Subsonic
TR-1s and TR-3As should have been capable of providing the coverage needed.
Not to mention the fleet of KH-11s, Advanced KH-11s, and Lacrosse birds, some
with orbits specially optimized to provide better gulf coverage...

 >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.

That would be JP-7 of course, most of which is now stored at Edwards AFB
and was formerly carried by special KC-135Q tankers.  But... anyone making 
such a "claim" would have seemingly been part of a classified reconnaissance
mission.  Therefore if they "talked", it would be a rather serious offense.  
Maybe it was just JP-5 or something...

-dean
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:27:17 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <BxK6sF.Eqn@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>, jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (JHan) writes:
|> > I have heard the rate of climb world record still belongs to 
|> > MIG-25, I am not sure about the speed record. May be someone
|> > could help...
|> 
|> A modified F-15A (the Streak Eagle) took the climb world record
|> (60,000 ft in less than two minutes.  I think.)

   Yep, after the MIG-25 set the record, the USAF and MD took an
   F-15, stripped it down and souped it up, to take the record
   right back.  It is/was called the STREAK EAGLE.

 Travis
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: pettypi@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Carl Pettypiece)
Subject: Aurora (again)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 06:13:52 GMT

Well, with all the talk about the Aurora spyplane lately, I was
suprised to read in a British magazine about supposed sightings
of the beast.  Surprized, because I figured I'd read it here
first.  But since I didn't I'll quote it.

Aircraft Illustrated, September 1992

Aurora Sighted

More insights to the top-secret Aurora programme have come from
the USA where several observers have independently seen a large
aircraft, almost 200 ft long, resembling the long defunct North
American XB-70 Valkyrie, but with retractable foreplanes.  The
machine appears to have the forward portion of an SR-71 (but with
rounded chines) allied to a delta wing with upturned tips.  On 12
July, such an aircraft landed at Lockheed's radar cross-section
test range at Helendale, in the Mojave desert, presumably for
assessment of it's stealth characteristics.  Earlier, on the
evening of 6 January, a front fuselage fitting the same
description was loaded into a C-5 at Lockheed's Burbank plant and
flown to Boeing Field, Seattle.  The Valkyrie-like aircraft seen
near Edwards AFB since mid-1990 has the deep rumbling engine note
previously ascribed to Aurora, but not the pulsating tone
associated with the donuts-on-a-rope condensation trails seen
behind mystery aircraft this year.

I'm sorry if this is old news, it wasn't to me.  In a similar
vane has anyone got any info on the TR-3A?  Is it just a recce
version of the F-117, or is it a new plane?  If it's new, have
there been any sightings?  What's the poop???

Note:  I'm not affiliated at all with Ian Allen, just a happy
reader of their fine wares, and have been for years and years.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Pettypiece (pettypi@gaul.csd.uwo.ca)        Disclaimer:  Hell, I don't
Department of Computer Science                   even know if these are MY
University of Western Ontario                    opinions!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: x (x)
Subject: Re: SR-71 Blackbird
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Organization: x
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 12:47:21 GMT


> > >The planes are beleived to fly at about Mach 3.5 and about 125,000 feet.
> 
> >125K is a rather high estimate...
> 
> I have a copy of the Researcher's Guide to SR-71 experiments.  In it
> is the complete flight envelop.  The max altitude was constarined by
> the minimum airspeed limit of 310 KEAS and the maximum design Mach of
> 3.2.  That and a standard atmosphere will net you about 84,888 feet
> msl.  The Guide shows that some aircraft have exceeded that minimum
> and gone as high as about 90,000 feet.
> 
> The pilot's manual (available at most bookstores for abour $US 100)
> has an additional footnote that reads:
> 
> "Mach 3.2 to 3.3 speed region only usable when authorized by the
> Commander."
> 

When I spendt some time on a NADGE operations center, we used to watch
SR71s flying up along the norwegian coast to Kola penninsula (in the 80s).
A typical MAX performance during the to&from part of the mission was
3.3M / 3.25M and 75.000'. This speed region was used for a short period
of time only. The max flight level estimate above looks OK, 90.000 is not 
unrealistic if the atmosphere has optimal pressure&humidity.
 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: thumper@engin.umich.edu (Bob Topping)
Subject: Re: Reason for Retirement (was Re: SR-71 Blackbird)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 12:36:47 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Nov11.025517.17415@leland.Stanford.EDU> spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu 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.
>> 
>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).  Perhaps someone can either correct me or supplu  
>additional details (ie what exactly where the requirements?)

  That would be the KC-135Q tanker, which could carry the fuel.  I
  believe, but I'm not positive, that it was very corrosive, which
  was one of the reasons for the special variant.


-- 
@ "Our lives are better left to chance; +       PLEASE E-Mail to:           @
@  I could have missed the pain, but    +  bob.topping@um.cc.umich.edu      @
@  I'd have had to miss the dance."     +  phy_astrclub@emunix.emich.edu    @
@       -- Garth Brooks, The Dance.     +     ** RETURN OUR HURON! **       @
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (JHan)
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:53:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.005125.1@wharton.upenn.edu>, shtono34@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
> Following the intense discussion on SR-71 I thought it would
> be a good idea to include the (no less marvellous) MIG-25 in
> our discussion. These two planes were made for similar
> purposes, though I believe the Russian plane was more versatile.

Not really.  The SR-71 was made to fly high and take pictures.  The MiG-25 was made to fly high and shoot down people taking pictures.  End of story.

It is interesting to note that whenever an SR-71 met a MiG-25 (or MiG-31, for that matter), the SR-71 would just tap the throttles and just accelerate away from the '25, while the 25 driver has both engines in Afterburner.

> 
> I have heard the rate of climb world record still belongs to 
> MIG-25, I am not sure about the speed record. May be someone
> could help...

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


> Another interesting thing about the MIG is the raw output power 
> of its radar 600kW! Is this really so high?

Wouldn't surprise me- vacuum tubes take a lot of power.


Jerry Han
From: James_Zuchelli@qm.claris.com (James Zuchelli)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 Blackbird
Date: 7 Nov 92 03:07:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Claris Corp

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 (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 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.

James Zuchelli
----------------
This is my personal opinion and not that of Claris Corp or my Employer.
From: strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Mystery B-58
Keywords: Mystery B-58
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:22:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov11.032216.15273
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle


It is one of six TB-58As built.  Honestly, I could not tell the differ
ence between this TB-58 and a regular B-58.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In all actuality, there's probably no difference, with the exception that there is a revised I.D. placard, and when in operation, the bombing mechanisms were probably removed.  For the most part, when converting to a "training" designation, all that is required is paperwork.  For instance, the CAF's B-29 "FIFI" ioks actually a TB-29, but there was really no difference, with the exception that it was located stateside in a strictly training unit.

Randall Haskin
L-17 N77BH
strega@u.washington.edu
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Spitfires
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:12:58 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <003166j.1.721070325@ace.acadiau.ca>
003166j@ace.acadiau.ca (JASON WILLIAM JARVIS) writes:

> I'm just wondering if anybody out there can recommend a good source book on 
> the Spit; i.e., who flew her (as in non-Commonwealth countries), what 
> models, how many, any mods, and for how long.  Thanks.

Well let's see, here are just four listed in Dartmouth's library
system, I've personally read many more, there are just scads of them. 
One I recall which was real interesting was "Song of a Merlin", sorry
don't remember the author.  Jeffrey Quill by the way was the
Supermarine chief test pilot and got to fly every single variation.  He
liked the early models best, because of the nice control balance.  He
actually used the early carburated models problem to his advantage
during acrobatics.  He'd go inverted or vertical and let the engine
quit, then performed a few more maneuvers during which the engine would
restart with a bang and lots of smoke.  The engine never let him down
by not restarting but he made lots of people angry at him when he
performed this maneuver in front of a crowd.  I should point out that
in combat, this maneuver would not be considered a plus.  He once
engaged in a mock dogfight with some other pilot and found to his
consternation that he could not shake the guy off his tail.  No matter
what he did, the other guy stuck to him like glue.  Finally, he went
vertical then started back down in a tail slide which stopped his
engine because it started going backwards (I swear I'm only quoting
Jeffrey Quill in his book) and the guy on his tail took off thinking
he'd forced Quill into a crash.  Jeffrey thought this was great stuff,
but my impression is in combat, if you give the guy on your tail the
kind of time it takes to go vertical then come back down in a tail
slide, your dead meat.

Author: Quill, Jeffrey.
    Title: Birth of a legend : the Spitfire / Jeffrey Quill ; with
            Sebastian Cox ; foreword by J.E. 'Johnnie' Johnson.
  Imprint: Washington, D.C. : Smithsonian Institution Press, 1986.

 Author: Beurling, George F
    Title: Malta spitfire; the story of a fighter pilot, by Flying
Officer
            George F. Beurling ... and Leslie Roberts, with a foreword
by
            Air Marshal W. A. Bishop ... illustrated by Clayton Knight.
  Imprint: New York,d Toronto, Farrar & Rinehart, inc., [1943]

Author: Crook, David Moore.
    Title: Spitfire pilot, by Flight-Lieutenant D.M. Crook, D.F.C.
  Imprint: London, Faber and Faber limited [1942]

Author: Donahue, Arthur Gerald, 1913-
    Title: Tally-ho! Yankee in a Spitfire, by Arthur Gerald Donahue ...
  Imprint: New York, The Macmillan company, 1941.
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SR-71
Keywords: SR-71 blackbird
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:21:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu

In article <rvk.721002005@wink> rvk@blink.att.com (Bob Kline) writes:
>	* designed around 1967 by a team headed by Lockheed's
>	  Kelly Johnson.  

No, it was designed in the 50s early sixites. They were flying mid-late 60s.

>	* the engines are ( or at least were for a time ) GE J58's.

Pratt & Whitney made the J58 for the Blackbirds. The first A-12s flew with 
something else for testing....

>	* speed at least 2,100 mph.  the plane made a flight from
>	  somewhere in California to the east coast in about 68 minutes.

68minutes 17seconds (or was it 13seconds?) LA to NY? I believe.

>	* altitude at least 80,000 ft. some were lost, but I don't
>	  think any were actually shot down.

Normally given as 85,000+ and sometimes claimed to be 100,000

>	* probably quite maneauverable.  Kelly Johnson and team intended
>	  they be used as high speed interceptors.  the military 
>	  apparently decided they were too impractical for that.

The SR-71 is VERY UNmaneauverable. The YF-12 interceptor was designed to 
carry missiles (AIM-47?) and it was a straight line high-speed plane. The 
Blackbird can take a few states to turn around at top speed.

>	  Smithsonian.  NASA still operates two or three.  I'm not
>	  sure exactly what for.

NASA has 2 SR-71A's and 1 SR-71B for high-speed research for the NASP program
and other high speed flight regimes.

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: hajo@bwl.bwl.th-darmstadt.de (Hans-Jochen Schmitt)
Subject: Re: OV10A BRONCO
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:28:58 GMT
Organization: Inform.Systems Department, University of Darmstadt

In article <1992Nov4.150738.15870@athena.mit.edu> cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo) writes:
>From: cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo)
>
>
>Here is some info on the Bronco, with thanks
>to Joe Baurgher who sent it to sci.military
>back in 1991 (welll before moy NetNews exposure.)
>Special thanks to Brndlfly@athena.mit.edu for getting me this article.
>
>
>		OV-10B was a version built for Germany as an unarmed target
>		tug. The turboprop engines were supplemented by a J-85 turbojet
>		mounted in a pod over the rear fuselage.  18 built.
>

  Have seen the OV-10B here in Germany during my military service.
  It was very impressive, seeing a plane with a approx. 1000 m cable on
  the tale, towing a target. Most impressive to me was the fact, that 
  my fellows fired with AA-guns (sharp!) at the target.
  The told the story, that the OV-10B was flown by a woman. Must  be 
  a crazy job, flying around and knowing that someone is aming at you with
  a 20mm double AA gun ....

  Hajo Schmitt

  BTW: They told me that there is a automatic (electronic?) hit-detection
  build into the target, that even when you miss the target close, you
  get a feedback. Is this possible ?

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: colangel@rebecca.JSC.NASA.GOV (Michael Colangelo/MDSSC)
Subject: Mystery B-58
Keywords: Mystery B-58
Organization: IGOAL
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:21:05 GMT

Well folks, here is the latest and greatest on that mysterious B-58 in Galveston, TX.

I visited the fine folks at the Lone Star Flight Museum last saturday and found
out that the B-58 there is no longer parked outside of the museum.  It is now parked inside
there newest hangar on display while undergoing restoration. 

The plane is a TB-58A, which is a trainer version of the Hustler.  It's serial number is
55-0668.  It is one of six TB-58As built.  Honestly, I could not tell the difference 
between this TB-58 and a regular B-58.  I'm sure there are some differences, but I don't
claim to be an expert on this particular type of aircraft.  It also had that big external
 pod mounted underneath the centerline.  I was also told that it is on loan to the museum
 from the USAF.  It came from Carswell, AFB in Ft. Worth, TX.

Another interesting tidbit of info on this plane:  the museum had to disassemble it at Carswell
 and needed eight truckloads to bring it all to Galveston.  So I guess at one point it was
a bunch of crates and boxes and stuff.  (It doesn't have engines, by the way).  

Later,
      Mike
From: john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Two Tidbits
Date: 12 Nov 92 04:18:41 GMT
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

Two tidbits I picked up:

- The USAF has apparently renamed the TR-1 recon plane to be the U-2.
Although the TR-1 is essentially an updated U-2, the USAF choose the
TR-1 designation to avoid antagonizing the Soviets.  Now that the Soviet
Union has fallen, the USAF wants to use the U-2 designation.  If anyone
know more about this, please post.  I am curious about the actual designation,
and if NASA plans to rename the ER-2 aircraft.

- I had a chance to walk through the new AC-130U gunship.  This plane has
lenses, sensors, and antennas sprouting off in every conceivable location.
It even has a low light TV system to allow the crew to watch their target
as the guns fire.  One major feature in the U variant is the fully pressurized
cargo deck.  All of the guns have air-tight rubber boots around the barrels
to prevent air from escaping from the aircraft.  This makes for a much
more pleasant work environment for the crew.  All in all, the AC-130U is a
very impressive piece of engineering.

-john-

==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III		(612) 942-6969		    john@newave.mn.org
Newave Communications, Ltd.			    ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john
Organization: What?  Here?
X-Subliminal-Message: You want to send me lots of cash (unmarked 20's)...
X-ObObnoxious-Message: Just look at your damn self!
X-Notquiteassubliminal-Message: SEND ME MONEY, DAMBIT!  :)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:26:49 EST
From: Dave <JDO103@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SR-71
Distribution: usa

In article <rvk.721002005@wink>, rvk@blink.att.com (Bob Kline) says:
>
>        a couple of random, off-hand tidbits about the SR-71:
>
>        * probably quite maneauverable.  Kelly Johnson and team intended
>          they be used as high speed interceptors.  the military
>          apparently decided they were too impractical for that.

    I don't think they were meant to be maneuverable.  At the time they were
designed, high speed interceptors weren't ver maneuverable.  All they needed
to do was fly REALLY fast towards incoming bombers, launch missiles, and then
turn around to go home.

    I haven't seen any videotapes of the SR-71 flying, but the various
flight simulators I have seen comparing that to other jets, make it fly like
like a greased pig.  Fast, but not to maneuverable.

    Hmmm... here's something I just thought of, seems like a trend would be for
interceptors being used in the Recon role.  Case in point being the MiG-25 and
the SR-71.  Fly fast and straight, avoid trouble through speed, and return
home with the pics.  Kinda like the MiG-25 over Israel avoiding the F-4's
YEARS ago being higher and fast than they were.  Making sharp turns would
seriously retard the airspeed of any aircraft, and put it in jeopardy.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

On another , yet somewhat related note, I read in a book a while back called:
MiG Pilot (about Victor Belenko's defection in a MiG-25) that the MiG-25
could only pull about 2.2 g's  with a full fuel load or else the wings would
break off...

   Of course, YMMV!
                             :)


>
>        -r. kline

James D. Osterhout        "Hello!  Allow me to introduce meself.  My name's
jdo103@psuvm.psu.edu       Rodney, and I'm immensely strong!  When I was boy,
                           I could lift ..."  -Iron Maiden
Disclaimer:  Doorknob!
From: dobosz_m@wfooff.enet.dec.com (Mike Dobosz)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Reason for Retirement (was Re: SR-71 Blackbird)
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:28:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: dbased.1992Nov10.213055.28395
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Westfield, Massachusetts


In article <1992Nov10.042732.29265@athena.mit.edu>, cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo) writes...
> 
>Shouldn't the SR-71 be kept for these reasons?
>Is it much to expensive?  I find it hard to accept it being
>out of date, its still a hell of a soph aircraft for
>its age.  Can any one shed some light on this?
>Maybe I'm just naive, or not well enough informed.

Maybe, just maybe there's a new and improved replacement already flying...

-- 
             {decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!wfooff.enet!dobosz_m
             dobosz_m%wfooff.enet@decwrl.dec.com 
             dobosz_m@wfooff.enet.dec.com               DoD # 0596
From: gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Mystery B-58
Date: 14 Nov 1992 02:58:18 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au
Keywords: Mystery B-58

rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin) writes:

>|> I've never heard or seen references to an RB-25 before, are you sure such a
>|> plane ever existed? Do you have a reference or was the above stipulated?

>We have an actual airplane.  :-)

Oh wow! :) Lucky guys!

I guess that's proof, it's just that for B-25K & RB-25 i can find no official
military designations or North American Factory numbers, i have the TB-25K as a
Hughes modification listed. So your FAA is probably just freelance designating
:)