Here is some text I received froma friend of mine about the SR-71.

Enjoy

Big John
************************************************** **8




Subject: SR-71 Data
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 22:17:03 -0400

Be sure to read notation at the end of this very interesting article
on the SR-71 "Blackbird."



Recently, at the museum of flight (Boeing Field, Seattle) was the
2007 Blackbird Forum. SR-71 pilots, reconnaissance officers, and crew
chiefs discussed their experiences with the airplane and answered
questions. The capabilities of that airplane built with 1960
technology are mind boggling. The engine is a masterpiece. At mach
3.2, 75% of the thrust comes from the inlet. (The nose spike moves aft
26 inches.) Air pressure in front of the compressor increases from 0.5
psi to 14.5 psi over a distance of 5 feet, while internal airflow
slows from mach 3.2 to mach 0.8 so the compressor blades can handle it
without stalling. Bypass tubes divert extra air around the engine
directly to the afterburner and cause it to perform like a ram jet.

Airspeed is not the limiting factor. At mach 3.2 a primary
instrument is compressor inlet temperature. If it exceeds 427 degrees
Centigrade, the compressor blades disintegrate. The pilot monitors the
CIT and lets the airspeed take care of itself.

At mach 3.2, the titanium skin heats considerably. The fuselage
stretches six inches. The fuselage is six fuel tanks. They leak all
the time on the ground, but at altitude they heat up and expand,
sealing the joints. After some fuel is consumed, the fuel still cools
the bottom of the tanks, but is no longer in contact with the top.
Therefore the top of the fuselage stretches more than the bottom,
causing it to actually bend down somewhat at each end.

When the USSRshot down our U-2 in 1960, Kelly Johnson immediately
realized we needed something higher and faster that no enemy could
reach, so the Skunk Works went back to the drawing board. The first
flight was 22 months later. Try that today. We lost three out of 50
due to accidents. (One broke up after colliding with the drone it had
just launched.) No enemy was ever able to touch it.

SecDef Robert McNamara ordered all the SR-71 manufacturing tools
destroyed so he would have more tax dollars to waste on the F-111. In
1994 William Jefferson Clinton used line item veto to cancel all
funding for SR-71s. They are now in museums. The pilots said that we
really need that airplane today for reconnaissance over places like
Iran, Iraq, Syria, Korea:country-region>, China, Russia, etc. If it
were not for Clinton, SR-71 would still be performing that
reconnaissance today. The argument that satellites can do the job is
not correct. Any school boy with a lap top can tell you when a
satellite will be overhead, so the bad guys simply shut things down,
and later restart them. On the other hand, the enemy never knows where
or when the SR-71 will suddenly appear out of nowhere.

At 80,000 feet the cameras can see 80 miles. From 20 miles off the
coast, the airplane can photograph objects 60 miles inland.
The requirement for a rock solid gyro stabilized camera platform
was paramount. My favorite analogy was this:
Nail a four foot square sheet of plywood to the bottom of the
airplane. Drill a quarter inch hole through the middle of it. Insert a
quarter inch dowel that is 16 MILES long. Drag the dowel across the
surface of the earth at 30 miles per MINUTE.
Program the camera to take one photo per second of a specified set of
coordinates for four minutes, in order to examine the spot from all
angles. Do this in such a way that all photos are crystal clear, with
no blurring.

Pilots, who are not trained as photo interpreters, say they can
read the photos easily. One pilot looked at an Infrared photo of a
USAF base and immediately recognized the shadow (heat signature) of a
spot where a B-52 had been parked one hour earlier.

Celestial navigation is automatic. There are about 50 stars
programmed into the computer. These stars can be observed by the
navigation system while parked on the ramp during broad daylight.
Although the pilot takes off and lands the airplane manually, the
navigation system is accurate enough to put the airplane on the runway
in zero-zero conditions after flying nonstop from Californiato Iraqand
return with four inflight refuelings.


Some of you on this distribution list may be aware that in addition to
being a line B-52 pilot, I also had a tour of duty as a SAC command
post controller at Beale AFB, Calif in the mid 70's. In addition to
B-52's and KC-135(Q)s, the base was home to the the famous SR-71
Blackbird and later, to the U-2 reconnaissance aircraft formerly from
Davis Monthan AFB in Tucson, Arizona. The term controller in this
case does not mean "air traffic controller" but rather more like an
shift operations controller for the base. It was my job to know where
all of the base's aircraft were at any given time and to be able to
give immediate updates to the wing commander and the air division
commander (a 2 star general) on aircraft status. As such, I was fully
advised on SR-71 missions and results. I'm sure I know many of the
SR-71 pilots who recently attended the "Blackbird Forum." Needless to
say and to no one's surprise, we were regularly overflying Cuba, China
and North Korea. There also were the fun missions, like setting
international speed records from NY to LA and from London to NY--very
carefully executed missions requiring exact timing for air refueling
just moments before the Blackbird hit the "timing gate" to begin the
record run. So much for background on my involvement with the SR-71.
The following is one of many recollections of that involvement that I
have never forgotten.

One of the Blackbird's missions was for humanitarian purposes at the
request of the Japanese government. A Japanese fishing trawler went
missing, but the Japanese "coast guard" could not find any trace of
the ship or it's crew, so they requested that a Blackbird fly some
recce sorties in support of their efforts (the Japanese were very
aware of the capabilities of the SR-71 because the U.S. used Kadena AB
in Okinawa as a forward airbase for the SR). I recall being the duty
controller the night this mission was scheduled out of Kadena. Later
in the shift, the intelligence officer in charge of the
photo-reconnaissance lab asks to be cleared into the command post to
see me. He brings in some photos just downloaded and sent to him from
that mission. He shows me a picture (taken from 80,000++ feet and
mach 3++ mind you) of a lone Japanese fisherman in an inflatable life
raft. He is looking skyward (right into the camera) and his Asian
features--slanted eyes, etc) are easily discernable. Absolutely
amazing! The U.S. passed along the coordinates of the photo and he
was rescued. He was the only survivor. I thought you might find this
"first-hand" account of the amazing capabilities of the Blackbird to
be of interest.


Source deleted.



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1096 - Release Date:
10/27

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:40:23 -0500, Big John >
wrote in >:

>Here is some text I received froma friend of mine about the SR-71.
>
>Enjoy

Thanks for sharing.

"Big John" > wrote in message
...

> We lost three out of 50 due to accidents.

I heard 12, including the one that's on display at the Boeing Museum of
Flight. This very fascinating site seems to indicate 20:
http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/srloss~1.htm

Still....

If they recommissioned the remaining birds tomorrow I'd call it tax money
well-spent, if nothing but on the very principle of flying it over people's
heads for the simple psychological value. "We built this in the '60s and
you still can't do anything about it...look, it ****s pure money. We can
afford it..."

-c

In a previous article, Big John > said:
>destroyed so he would have more tax dollars to waste on the F-111. In
>1994 William Jefferson Clinton used line item veto to cancel all
>funding for SR-71s. They are now in museums. The pilots said that we

The line item veto was declared unconstitutional soon afterwards, Congress
offered to re-authorized the money, but the Air Force declined because
they wanted to spent the money on Predator and Global Hawk. And let's not
forget that try as you might, you can't blame the first SR-71 retirement
on Clinton.



--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish. And if he can't
be bothered to learn to fish and starves to death, that's a good enough
outcome for me. -- Steve VanDevender

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Big John" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> We lost three out of 50 due to accidents.
>
> I heard 12, including the one that's on display at the Boeing Museum of
> Flight. This very fascinating site seems to indicate 20:
> http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/srloss~1.htm
>
> Still....
>
> If they recommissioned the remaining birds tomorrow I'd call it tax money
> well-spent, if nothing but on the very principle of flying it over
> people's heads for the simple psychological value. "We built this in
> the '60s and you still can't do anything about it...look, it ****s pure
> money. We can afford it..."

It would be a lot cheaper to fly over their heads with much slower aircraft
and purge the toilets.

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, Big John > said:
>>destroyed so he would have more tax dollars to waste on the F-111. In
>>1994 William Jefferson Clinton used line item veto to cancel all
>>funding for SR-71s. They are now in museums. The pilots said that we
>
> The line item veto was declared unconstitutional soon afterwards, Congress
> offered to re-authorized the money, but the Air Force declined because
> they wanted to spent the money on Predator and Global Hawk. And let's not
> forget that try as you might, you can't blame the first SR-71 retirement
> on Clinton.

Why not?

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

>> The line item veto was declared unconstitutional soon afterwards,
>> Congress
>> offered to re-authorized the money, but the Air Force declined because
>> they wanted to spent the money on Predator and Global Hawk. And let's
>> not
>> forget that try as you might, you can't blame the first SR-71 retirement
>> on Clinton.
>
> Why not?

It was first deactivated in the '80s, before the Clinton administration.

-c

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> The line item veto was declared unconstitutional soon afterwards,
>>> Congress
>>> offered to re-authorized the money, but the Air Force declined because
>>> they wanted to spent the money on Predator and Global Hawk. And let's
>>> not
>>> forget that try as you might, you can't blame the first SR-71 retirement
>>> on Clinton.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> It was first deactivated in the '80s, before the Clinton administration.
>

"Deactivated" is not the same as "retired".

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>> The line item veto was declared unconstitutional soon afterwards,
>>>> Congress
>>>> offered to re-authorized the money, but the Air Force declined because
>>>> they wanted to spent the money on Predator and Global Hawk. And let's
>>>> not
>>>> forget that try as you might, you can't blame the first SR-71
>>>> retirement
>>>> on Clinton.
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>
>> It was first deactivated in the '80s, before the Clinton administration.
>>
>
> "Deactivated" is not the same as "retired".
PS: IIRC

On Oct 29, 6:09 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> The line item veto was declared unconstitutional soon afterwards,
> >> Congress
> >> offered to re-authorized the money, but the Air Force declined because
> >> they wanted to spent the money on Predator and Global Hawk. And let's
> >> not
> >> forget that try as you might, you can't blame the first SR-71 retirement
> >> on Clinton.
>
> > Why not?
>
> It was first deactivated in the '80s, before the Clinton administration.
>
> -c

I think it's pretty likely they deactivated it because they had a
replacement that was even better. They don't generally give up
capabilities unless they can be replaced by something just as good or
better. Why stick with 60s technology when you can bring it up 20
years and take advantage of newer technology? They just haven't
decided to publicize it yet.

Phil > wrote:
> I think it's pretty likely they deactivated it because they had a
> replacement that was even better.

I was under the impression that improvements in recon by satellite made use
of the SR-71 obsolete.

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Phil > wrote:
>> I think it's pretty likely they deactivated it because they had a
>> replacement that was even better.
>
> I was under the impression that improvements in recon by satellite made
> use
> of the SR-71 obsolete.

That's what they say.

I'm not saying he is right, or is wrong, but what he says does make sense.
How long did the SR-71 exist, before anyone knew about it?

What he is hinting at is probably the Aurora. You know, the one that leaves
donut shaped con trails?
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> I'm not saying he is right, or is wrong, but what he says does make sense.
> How long did the SR-71 exist, before anyone knew about it?
>

Not very long. I remember reading an article about it in about 1970, and it
wasn't news then.

IIRC, the SR-71 was "outed" early as a peace keeping effort.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:42:31 -0500, "Maxwell" > wrote:

>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm not saying he is right, or is wrong, but what he says does make sense.
> > How long did the SR-71 exist, before anyone knew about it?
> >
>
> Not very long. I remember reading an article about it in about 1970, and it
> wasn't news then.
>
> IIRC, the SR-71 was "outed" early as a peace keeping effort.

An article I read a while back indicated that "outing" the Blackbird was a
political move by Johnson; he was under increasing pressure about Vietnam, and
unveiled the RS-71 as a distraction.

Yes, *RS*-71. Johnson transposed the letters, and the Air Force had to call it
"SR" forever after....

(RS: Reconnaissance Strike)

Ron Wanttaja

> What he is hinting at is probably the Aurora. You know, the one that leaves
> donut shaped con trails?

Bill Fox, the man who donated everything for our awesome "Blackbird
Suite", has confirmed that there was, indeed, an Aurora. He won't say
anything more about it. (He worked at the Skunkworks for over 30
years, and ran the famous "Area 51" for a couple of years.)

BTW: Bill says we lost nearly half of the SR-71s ever built, none to
enemy fire. It was a VERY dangerous bird to fly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:42:31 -0500, "Maxwell" > wrote:

> >
> > "Morgans" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I'm not saying he is right, or is wrong, but what he says does make sense.
> > > How long did the SR-71 exist, before anyone knew about it?
> > >
> >
> > Not very long. I remember reading an article about it in about 1970, and it
> > wasn't news then.
> >
> > IIRC, the SR-71 was "outed" early as a peace keeping effort.

> An article I read a while back indicated that "outing" the Blackbird was a
> political move by Johnson; he was under increasing pressure about Vietnam, and
> unveiled the RS-71 as a distraction.

> Yes, *RS*-71. Johnson transposed the letters, and the Air Force had to call it
> "SR" forever after....

> (RS: Reconnaissance Strike)

> Ron Wanttaja

In the late 60's I was in air defense in Korea.

Every once in a while we would track (well, not really, it was going too
fast for a track lock) something that was going at "impossible" speeds for
the time, almost always either coming in from the Pacific and up
across North Korea or leaving North Korea and heading out to the
Pacific.

While on mid tour leave, I was standing by the runway at Kadena AFB
killing time until my ride to the States watching airplanes when the
ground started shaking and there was this hellacious noise.

I looked down at the end of the runway (I was about midfield) and
saw this little black spec getting bigger and bigger until it
was almost in front of me, at which point it basically stood on it's
tail and disappeared in the sky within a few seconds.

There was a guy standing behind me; I turned to him and said "Did
you see that!".

I then noticed he was an AP and he said "Did I see what?"

I got the drift real quick and changed the subject.

A few years later the existence of the SR-71 was acknowledged and I
put two and two together.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Big John writes:

> Although the pilot takes off and lands the airplane manually, the
> navigation system is accurate enough to put the airplane on the runway
> in zero-zero conditions after flying nonstop from Californiato Iraqand
> return with four inflight refuelings.

I'm not so sure about that. The ANS was accurate to within half a mile or so,
as I recall. It wasn't good enough for a landing in zero visibility. Of
course, the published accuracy for the ANS could be (dramatically)
understated.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:09:55 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

> has confirmed that there was, indeed, an Aurora.

Must be true... it's on the internet.

:-)

http://wave.prohosting.com/aurora85/images/montana.html


--
Dallas

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Big John writes:

> > Although the pilot takes off and lands the airplane manually, the
> > navigation system is accurate enough to put the airplane on the runway
> > in zero-zero conditions after flying nonstop from Californiato Iraqand
> > return with four inflight refuelings.

> I'm not so sure about that. The ANS was accurate to within half a mile or so,
> as I recall. It wasn't good enough for a landing in zero visibility. Of
> course, the published accuracy for the ANS could be (dramatically)
> understated.

As could be your understanding of anything that deals with real flight.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Big John writes:
>
>> Although the pilot takes off and lands the airplane manually, the
>> navigation system is accurate enough to put the airplane on the
>> runway in zero-zero conditions after flying nonstop from Californiato
>> Iraqand return with four inflight refuelings.
>
> I'm not so sure about that. The ANS was accurate to within half a
> mile or so, as I recall.

How the **** would you know, idiot boi?


It wasn't good enough for a landing in zero
> visibility. Of course, the published accuracy for the ANS could be
> (dramatically) understated.
>


Ya think?


Bertie

Big John > wrote in
:

drone it had
> just launched.) No enemy was ever able to touch it.
>
> SecDef Robert McNamara ordered all the SR-71 manufacturing tools
> destroyed so he would have more tax dollars to waste on the F-111. In
> 1994 William Jefferson Clinton used line item veto to cancel all
> funding for SR-71s. They are now in museums. The pilots said that we
> really need that airplane today for reconnaissance over places like
> Iran, Iraq, Syria, Korea:country-region>, China, Russia, etc. If it
> were not for Clinton, SR-71 would still be performing that
> reconnaissance today.


Does he know that Kingfish isn't?


Bertie
>
>

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

>
> Yes, *RS*-71. Johnson transposed the letters, and the Air Force had
> to call it "SR" forever after....
>
> (RS: Reconnaissance Strike)
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Interesting, I always thought the SR was short for strategic reconnaissance.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

>>> It was first deactivated in the '80s, before the Clinton administration.
>>>
>> "Deactivated" is not the same as "retired".

Interesting point.

> PS: IIRC

Ha! That should be my sig file, or standing caveat.

-c

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...

> What he is hinting at is probably the Aurora. You know, the one that
> leaves donut shaped con trails?

That's no longer with us, is it?

Anybody ever hear about Pumpkinseed? I -think- that was the external
combustion (for lack of better term) project.


-c

Gatt wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> What he is hinting at is probably the Aurora. You know, the one that
>> leaves donut shaped con trails?
>
> That's no longer with us, is it?
>

Well according to THE GOVERNMENT it never was. And the plane that
didn't/doesn't exist was supposed to be pulse jet.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
:

> Gatt wrote:
>> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> What he is hinting at is probably the Aurora. You know, the one that
>>> leaves donut shaped con trails?
>>
>> That's no longer with us, is it?
>>
>
> Well according to THE GOVERNMENT it never was. And the plane that
> didn't/doesn't exist was supposed to be pulse jet.
>
>
>
Not quite. Though the principle is essentially the same, the engine has not
moving valve at the front. A pulse jet wouldn't be able for supersonic, let
alone hypersonic flight.
the inlet would have an annular inlet arranged so the flow would direct
each pulse down the rear of the engine, but there would be a small efflux
out of the annular inlet. The biggest advantage to this system is that it's
easily throttleable simply by varying the frequency of the pulses.
this thing almost certainly exists. More than likely it's a development of
the Convair Kingfish which was , like the A-12, an upshot of project GUSTO,
but we're not going to be told anytime soon! I read about the Kingfish
years ago and can't find anything decent about it on the net, but it was a
parasite aircraft with some sort of ramjet or zip engine that had a ceramic
coating and was capable of cruising at over mach 4. At least one of it's
designers has alluded to it actually having gone ahead, but it's still a
very black item.



Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>>
> Not quite. Though the principle is essentially the same, the engine
> has not moving valve at the front. A pulse jet wouldn't be able for
> supersonic, let alone hypersonic flight.
> the inlet would have an annular inlet arranged so the flow would
> direct each pulse down the rear of the engine, but there would be a
> small efflux out of the annular inlet. The biggest advantage to this
> system is that it's easily throttleable simply by varying the
> frequency of the pulses. this thing almost certainly exists. More
> than likely it's a development of the Convair Kingfish which was ,
> like the A-12, an upshot of project GUSTO, but we're not going to be
> told anytime soon! I read about the Kingfish years ago and can't find
> anything decent about it on the net, but it was a parasite aircraft
> with some sort of ramjet or zip engine that had a ceramic coating and
> was capable of cruising at over mach 4. At least one of it's
> designers has alluded to it actually having gone ahead, but it's
> still a very black item.
>
>

I mis-wrote. I should have written Pulse Detonation Engine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_detonation_engine

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_detonation_engine

Hmm, amybe I'll try welding one up out of some old drainpipe I have
outside!
I'll never forget the sound of the old dynajets some of the guys had at my
CL field when I was a kid.



Bertie

On Oct 30, 11:08 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote :
>
> > Gatt wrote:
> >> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>> What he is hinting at is probably the Aurora. You know, the one that
> >>> leaves donut shaped con trails?
>
> >> That's no longer with us, is it?
>
> > Well according to THE GOVERNMENT it never was. And the plane that
> > didn't/doesn't exist was supposed to be pulse jet.
>
> Not quite. Though the principle is essentially the same, the engine has not
> moving valve at the front. A pulse jet wouldn't be able for supersonic, let
> alone hypersonic flight.
> the inlet would have an annular inlet arranged so the flow would direct
> each pulse down the rear of the engine, but there would be a small efflux
> out of the annular inlet. The biggest advantage to this system is that it's
> easily throttleable simply by varying the frequency of the pulses.
> this thing almost certainly exists. More than likely it's a development of
> the Convair Kingfish which was , like the A-12, an upshot of project GUSTO,
> but we're not going to be told anytime soon! I read about the Kingfish
> years ago and can't find anything decent about it on the net, but it was a
> parasite aircraft with some sort of ramjet or zip engine that had a ceramic
> coating and was capable of cruising at over mach 4. At least one of it's
> designers has alluded to it actually having gone ahead, but it's still a
> very black item.
>
> Bertie

I think it's pretty likely that Kingfish (or Aurora or whatever they
actually called it) is flying. If I had to guess, I would say they
retired the SR-71 because it was old technology and because it was
vulnerable to newer generation anti-aircraft missiles. As far as the
secrecy surrounding the new aircraft, it is hard to see what would be
gained by making it public.

Phil

Phil > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Oct 30, 11:08 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote
>> :
>>
>> > Gatt wrote:
>> >> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> >>> What he is hinting at is probably the Aurora. You know, the one
>> >>> that leaves donut shaped con trails?
>>
>> >> That's no longer with us, is it?
>>
>> > Well according to THE GOVERNMENT it never was. And the plane that
>> > didn't/doesn't exist was supposed to be pulse jet.
>>
>> Not quite. Though the principle is essentially the same, the engine
>> has not moving valve at the front. A pulse jet wouldn't be able for
>> supersonic, let alone hypersonic flight.
>> the inlet would have an annular inlet arranged so the flow would
>> direct each pulse down the rear of the engine, but there would be a
>> small efflux out of the annular inlet. The biggest advantage to this
>> system is that it's easily throttleable simply by varying the
>> frequency of the pulses. this thing almost certainly exists. More
>> than likely it's a development of the Convair Kingfish which was ,
>> like the A-12, an upshot of project GUSTO, but we're not going to be
>> told anytime soon! I read about the Kingfish years ago and can't find
>> anything decent about it on the net, but it was a parasite aircraft
>> with some sort of ramjet or zip engine that had a ceramic coating and
>> was capable of cruising at over mach 4. At least one of it's
>> designers has alluded to it actually having gone ahead, but it's
>> still a very black item.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I think it's pretty likely that Kingfish (or Aurora or whatever they
> actually called it) is flying. If I had to guess, I would say they
> retired the SR-71 because it was old technology and because it was
> vulnerable to newer generation anti-aircraft missiles. As far as the
> secrecy surrounding the new aircraft, it is hard to see what would be
> gained by making it public.
>


Also hard to see what could be gained by keeping it secret at this
stage. If one exists, any opposition knows about it. It's been in the UK
and you know how crap they are at keeping secrets. (One of them had a
close encounter with a Brittania airlines 767 in Manchester about ten
yars ago, though it could have been an F-117, of course)
in this day and age when sattelites can read licence plates and everyone
knows it you'd wonder why they would bother keeping it secret after all
these years for any reason other than habit.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> Also hard to see what could be gained by keeping it secret at this
> stage. If one exists, any opposition knows about it. It's been in the
> UK and you know how crap they are at keeping secrets. (One of them
> had a close encounter with a Brittania airlines 767 in Manchester
> about ten yars ago, though it could have been an F-117, of course)
> in this day and age when sattelites can read licence plates and
> everyone knows it you'd wonder why they would bother keeping it
> secret after all these years for any reason other than habit.
>
>
> Bertie

A. If they make it public they are going to have to tell how much it costs.

B. Once public, sooner or later the specs on it will get out. The one
advantage a spy plane has over spy-sats is that you don't know when it is
going to be over you taking pictures. If it becomes known that the plane can
fly from Nevada to Iran in x hours they just have to have someone in Nevada
to tell them about the launch and then x hours later whatever they need to
hide will be hidden.

C. They would have to disclose the alien tech that is in the aircraft.

My money's on A. No matter what they will use B as the reason once they do
make it public. But I really wish C were the reason.

On Oct 30, 2:17 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:

> C. They would have to disclose the alien tech that is in the aircraft.
>

Once everyone sees that it's a saucer, the cat's out of the bag!

Ah yes, Bill Clinton, the Republican Party's favorite scapegoat. Well, if
you read the 1996 book "SR-71 Revealed" by former 9th Strategic
Reconnaissance Wing Commander Rich Graham, you'll find out that the demise
of the SR-71 was already being planned as early as 1986 if not before. He
writes on page 196 "The head of SAC intelligence favored satellites over the
SR-71 and wouldn't stand in the way of his boss, General Chain, who wanted
to terminate the program entirely."
On page 198: "A vocal DoD official who expressed displeasure with the
SR-71 was the Assistant Secretary for Defense for Command, Control and
Communications, Mr Duane Andrews. As his Pentagon title would suggest, he
was an avid supporter of increased reliance on satellites to gather
intelligence and used his Pentagon influence to keep the SR-71 from being
a viable reconnaissance aircraft. Whenever funding support for needed
upgrades to the aircraft were sought, he used his connections on the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (where he once served as a
staff member) to disapprove the request. Lieutenant Colonel "Geno" Quist
remembers briefing Mr Andrews when he was a Congressional staffer:
'One day in 1985, I was summoned over to the "Hill" to talk to some
Congressional staffers on the SR-71 program. The two that I talked to
eventually became"somebody" in the Bush administration.- Mr. Duane
Andrews and Mr. Marty Faga. In a closed room, these two advocates of
space-based assets tried to give me their solution to all of the problems
of military reconnaissance. Their idea was to "mothball" the entire SR-71
fleet but have it ready to respond to any needs the nation may see in the
future. I tried to explain in vain that you needed the SR-71 support,
aircrews, and infrastructure in existence before you could fly the
aircraft. The fact that I had experience flying the SR had no effect on
their ideas, and it soon became obvious that their only answer to future
reconnaissance systems was going to be space-based. It was just a matter
of time before they were in a position to make things happen. Mr. Faga
went on to become an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (in fact he was
the head of the National Reconnaissance Office) and Mr. Andrews worked in
the Office of the Secretary of Defense.' "
"Two key Air Force players instrumental in retiring the SR-71 were
Generals Larry Welch and John Chain."... "When asked during a 12
September 1990 interview with ABC News about why he terminated the SR-71
program, General Welch stated it was "too expensive, vulnerable to enemy
air defenses, and duplicated overhead systems." Colonel Graham says all
of those charges were simply not true. Colonel Graham was removed from
command by General John Chain, who was commander of the Strategic Air
Command, in November of 1988 "because the SR-71 program phase-out was
proceeding too slowly and met resistance to SAC Headquarters plans every
step of the way."
So the program was closed down in 1990. Ten aircraft were given to
museums that year. Colonel Graham notes that when 61-7972 set four world
speed records while being delivered to the Smithsonian on March 6, 1990,
no senior USAF officers attended the event. General Welch had canceled
the record flight at least once before, "presumably because he didn't
want ANY favorable publicity concerning the SR-71. The flight was finally
pushed through by certain Lockheed executives, politicians supporting the
SR-71, and a small cadre of lower ranking but influential officers. Had
it not been for the initiative of those officers, the media would not
have been informed about the record breaking event, much to the wishes of
those who wanted no more publicity for the SR-71."
In September 1994 Congress put $72.5 million in the defense bill to
bring back three SR-71s. Rich Graham wrote on page 217: "The Air Force
wants nothing to do with the return of the SR-71s and consequently has
not budgeted for the aircraft. It will be up to congress to fund the
program each year, making it difficult to plan for the future." This
book was written before the final retirement of the aircraft, but it is
apparent that if Clinton did indeed kill the program off for good with a
line item veto, he had the wholehearted support of the USAF command
staff. I'd bet he did it at the urging of the command staff, though I
don't know if we'll ever know that for sure.
Col. Graham also describes the animosity the USAF had for the people
connected to the SR-71 program at the end. In 1989 ten Habu crew members
were up for promotion, but only one was promoted, the other nine were
passed over! Anyone who knows about the Blackbird program knows that
every officer chosen to be part of the program was an exceptional
performer, and it's obvious there was discrimination against the men
connected to the SR-71. Getting passed over for promotion is a very black
mark on an officer's record. It was outrageous, and there was nothing
anyone could do about it.
So scapegoat Mr Clinton if you must, but know it was a Republican
administration and the USAF command staff that really killed the
Blackbird.
Scott Wilson

wrote in
. net:

> Ah yes, Bill Clinton, the Republican Party's favorite scapegoat. Well,
> if you read the 1996 book "SR-71 Revealed" by former 9th Strategic
> Reconnaissance Wing Commander Rich Graham, you'll find out that the
> demise of the SR-71 was already being planned as early as 1986 if not
> before. He writes on page 196 "The head of SAC intelligence favored
> satellites over the SR-71 and wouldn't stand in the way of his boss,
> General Chain, who wanted to terminate the program entirely."
> On page 198: "A vocal DoD official who expressed displeasure with
> the SR-71 was the Assistant Secretary for Defense for Command,
> Control and Communications, Mr Duane Andrews. As his Pentagon title
> would suggest, he was an avid supporter of increased reliance on
> satellites to gather intelligence and used his Pentagon influence to
> keep the SR-71 from being a viable reconnaissance aircraft. Whenever
> funding support for needed upgrades to the aircraft were sought, he
> used his connections on the House Permanent Select Committee on
> Intelligence (where he once served as a staff member) to disapprove
> the request. Lieutenant Colonel "Geno" Quist remembers briefing Mr
> Andrews when he was a Congressional staffer:
> 'One day in 1985, I was summoned over to the "Hill" to talk to some
> Congressional staffers on the SR-71 program. The two that I talked
> to eventually became"somebody" in the Bush administration.- Mr.
> Duane Andrews and Mr. Marty Faga. In a closed room, these two
> advocates of space-based assets tried to give me their solution to
> all of the problems of military reconnaissance. Their idea was to
> "mothball" the entire SR-71 fleet but have it ready to respond to
> any needs the nation may see in the future. I tried to explain in
> vain that you needed the SR-71 support, aircrews, and
> infrastructure in existence before you could fly the aircraft. The
> fact that I had experience flying the SR had no effect on their
> ideas, and it soon became obvious that their only answer to future
> reconnaissance systems was going to be space-based. It was just a
> matter of time before they were in a position to make things
> happen. Mr. Faga went on to become an Assistant Secretary of the
> Air Force (in fact he was the head of the National Reconnaissance
> Office) and Mr. Andrews worked in the Office of the Secretary of
> Defense.' "
> "Two key Air Force players instrumental in retiring the SR-71 were
> Generals Larry Welch and John Chain."... "When asked during a 12
> September 1990 interview with ABC News about why he terminated the
> SR-71 program, General Welch stated it was "too expensive,
> vulnerable to enemy air defenses, and duplicated overhead systems."
> Colonel Graham says all of those charges were simply not true.
> Colonel Graham was removed from command by General John Chain, who
> was commander of the Strategic Air Command, in November of 1988
> "because the SR-71 program phase-out was proceeding too slowly and
> met resistance to SAC Headquarters plans every step of the way."
> So the program was closed down in 1990. Ten aircraft were given to
> museums that year. Colonel Graham notes that when 61-7972 set four
> world speed records while being delivered to the Smithsonian on
> March 6, 1990, no senior USAF officers attended the event. General
> Welch had canceled the record flight at least once before,
> "presumably because he didn't want ANY favorable publicity
> concerning the SR-71. The flight was finally pushed through by
> certain Lockheed executives, politicians supporting the SR-71, and
> a small cadre of lower ranking but influential officers. Had it not
> been for the initiative of those officers, the media would not
> have been informed about the record breaking event, much to the
> wishes of those who wanted no more publicity for the SR-71."
> In September 1994 Congress put $72.5 million in the defense bill
> to bring back three SR-71s. Rich Graham wrote on page 217: "The
> Air Force wants nothing to do with the return of the SR-71s and
> consequently has not budgeted for the aircraft. It will be up to
> congress to fund the program each year, making it difficult to plan
> for the future." This book was written before the final retirement
> of the aircraft, but it is apparent that if Clinton did indeed kill
> the program off for good with a line item veto, he had the
> wholehearted support of the USAF command staff. I'd bet he did it
> at the urging of the command staff, though I don't know if we'll
> ever know that for sure. Col. Graham also describes the animosity
> the USAF had for the people connected to the SR-71 program at the
> end. In 1989 ten Habu crew members were up for promotion, but only
> one was promoted, the other nine were passed over! Anyone who
> knows about the Blackbird program knows that every officer chosen
> to be part of the program was an exceptional performer, and it's
> obvious there was discrimination against the men connected to the
> SR-71. Getting passed over for promotion is a very black mark on an
> officer's record. It was outrageous, and there was nothing anyone
> could do about it.
> So scapegoat Mr Clinton if you must, but know it was a Republican
> administration and the USAF command staff that really killed the
> Blackbird.
> Scott Wilson
>

Completely believable.

Why would Bill willingly scrap the best down blouse shot platform ever
made?


Bertie

I recall attending the Rancho Murietta Air Show several years ago. One
of the highlights of the show (for me, anyway) was the SR-71 from Beale
coming into to the field at about 1000 AGL. When he crossed the
runway, he went to full power and pulled up; fortunately I had my
camcorder running. I got to admit it was absolutely awsome.

--

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Big John" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> We lost three out of 50 due to accidents.
>
> I heard 12, including the one that's on display at the Boeing Museum of
> Flight. This very fascinating site seems to indicate 20:
> http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/srloss~1.htm
>
> Still....
>
> If they recommissioned the remaining birds tomorrow I'd call it tax money
> well-spent, if nothing but on the very principle of flying it over
> people's heads for the simple psychological value. "We built this in
> the '60s and you still can't do anything about it...look, it ****s pure
> money. We can afford it..."
>
> -c


I have a feeling that a lot of the spying we do now is with drones, stealth
and otherwise. Who cares if they crash or get shot down, no family to
notify. Slick Willy's selling out of America not withstanding, I think the
US military had other aircraft fill the SR71 spot even though the SR71 is an
amazing aircraft. Besides the B2 and F117 are incredible
aircraft...conceived 20 years ago, can you imagine the stuff they are
playing with now that we have not seen!

-------------------------------
DW

In article >,
"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> >> We lost three out of 50 due to accidents.
> >
> > I heard 12, including the one that's on display at the Boeing Museum of
> > Flight. This very fascinating site seems to indicate 20:
> > http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/srloss~1.htm
> >
> > Still....
>
> I have a feeling that a lot of the spying we do now is with drones, stealth
> and otherwise. Who cares if they crash or get shot down, no family to
> notify. Slick Willy's selling out of America not withstanding, I think the
> US military had other aircraft fill the SR71 spot even though the SR71 is an
> amazing aircraft. Besides the B2 and F117 are incredible
> aircraft...conceived 20 years ago, can you imagine the stuff they are
> playing with now that we have not seen!
>

I can understand the AF program to retire the Blackbird. When it was
operational, IIRC, it was "the most expensive system in the AF
inventory." I can believe that -- just the support infrastructure
(tankers, special fuel, special maintenance, spares, training,
equipment, etc.) had to be exorbitant!

Then in AF thinking, it couldn't even deliver a weapon to a target!

Yes, I can believe that satellites, TR-2s and drones, etc. can perform
most of the recon mission, at much lower cost and exposure.

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
...
>I recall attending the Rancho Murietta Air Show several years ago. One
> of the highlights of the show (for me, anyway) was the SR-71 from Beale
> coming into to the field at about 1000 AGL. When he crossed the
> runway, he went to full power and pulled up; fortunately I had my
> camcorder running. I got to admit it was absolutely awsome.

Is there a way you could share that video with us?

I don't think I have ever seen a link with a video of a flying 71.

On the same subject, I remember reading that the huffer to start a 71 had a
Chevy 350 powering it, and that it took every bit of it.

Anyone? True, or not/details?
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

> Is there a way you could share that video with us?

I'll try. You'll have to give me a little time.

--

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
...
> "Morgans" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Is there a way you could share that video with us?
>
> I'll try. You'll have to give me a little time.

Great! Let me know, if/when you get it pulled together. I'm sure I am not
alone in saying I look forward to it!
--
Jim in NC

On 1-Nov-2007, "Morgans" > wrote:

> On the same subject, I remember reading that the huffer to start a 71 had
> a
> Chevy 350 powering it, and that it took every bit of it.
>
> Anyone? True, or not/details?
> --

Sort of true. Quoting again from Rich Graham's wonderful book: "Starting the
huge engine was accomplished by a direct mechanical drive to initiate engine
rotation. The large starting cart used to turn the engine over was called a
"Buick" because it originally had two large block Buick V-8 engines, mounted
beside each other, providing over 600 horsepower to rotate the J-58 engine.
When Buick engine parts became scarce, maintenance converted over to using
large block Chevrolet V-8 engines. The "Buick" engines didn't have mufflers,
just 16 straight pipes coming off the exhaust manifold. Through a series of
gears, the two Buick engines drove a vertical shaft, extending upward and
connecting directly to the bottom of the J-58 engine.
The "Buick" start cart was wheeled into position just inside the wingtips
with the vertical shaft directly beneath the engine. An engine access
panel was removed, allowing the vertical shaft to connect directly to the
engine. When the pilot called for engine start, the crew chief gave the
signal to his assistant, standing under the engine, to pull out the manual
throttle on the "Buick" control panel. Applying full throttle to the
"Buick," the noise reverberating inside the hangar sounded like a 3000
horsepower dragster revving up, and at night flames could be seen shooting
out of each exhaust pipe. A sight and sound to behold! The "Buick" turned
the engine over slowly at first, then faster and faster, until the J-58
was ignited and stabilized at idle, about 4000 rpm.
The reason for a direct-drive starter was because their (sic) were no air
starting carts capable of supplying a sufficient volume of air to rotate
the huge J-58 engine. The special lubricating oil used throughout the
engine was so thicjk that it had to be preheated to a minimum of 70
degrees C before the engines could be rotated. Whenever the SR-71 landed
somewhere other than a home base, it was a major task to transport large
and cumbersome "Buick" (about 4 feet by 10 feet) just to start the
engines, thus a portable air start system was developed in the late 1970s.
Eventually the SR-71 shelters (hangars) at Beale were equipped with large
air tanks to store compressed air to rotate the started adapter. Soon
"Buicks" were becoming extinct, and eventually the air start method became
preferred by maintenance."

I saw this air start adapter at Ramstein. 61-7974 flew in for a static
display in January 1984 for a former SR-71 aircrew member's retirement
ceremony. When the Blackbird was ready to leave, they put four AM32A-60
start carts on each side of the jet, eight carts altogether. The four
-60s' bleed air hoses on each side were coupled to a round unit that
obviously contained a turbine that was mounted on the bottom of the engine
nacelle. The turbine evidently drove a starter shaft connected to the same
place the "Buick" would have been. One -60 was sufficient to start an
F-4E, so my friends and I were duly impressed. I got a few nice photos of
974 being started and taking off, if anyone wants to see them I could post
a couple of them on alt.binaries.pictures.aviation. Let me know. 974
later on was the last SR-71 to crash before the program was cancelled. By
the way, there were 49 Blackbirds built, including the A-12, YF-12A, M-21,
and SR-71A and B. There were 20 losses altogether, the majority occuring
early in the program.
Scott Wilson

> wrote a bunch of great stuff, but snipped for length>


> Sort of true. Quoting again from Rich Graham's wonderful book: "Starting
> the
> huge engine was accomplished by a direct mechanical drive to initiate
> engine
> rotation. The large starting cart used to turn the engine over was called
> a
> "Buick" because it originally had two large block Buick V-8 engines,
> mounted
> beside each other, providing over 600 horsepower to rotate the J-58
> engine.
>
> I got a few nice photos of
> 974 being started and taking off, if anyone wants to see them I could
> post
> a couple of them on alt.binaries.pictures.aviation. Let me know.

Yeah, post em up, if you will. I for one, would love to see them.

How will you title them, so they will be easy to find?
--
Jim in NC

>> On the same subject, I remember reading that the huffer to start a 71 had
>> a
>> Chevy 350 powering it, and that it took every bit of it.
>>
>> Anyone? True, or not/details?
>> --
>
> Sort of true. Quoting again from Rich Graham's wonderful book: "Starting
> the
> huge engine was accomplished by a direct mechanical drive to initiate
> engine
> rotation. The large starting cart used to turn the engine over was called
> a
> "Buick" because it originally had two large block Buick V-8 engines,

Even more impressive than what I remembered.

Also, what was the mechanism to turn all that HP into rotation, starting
from such a low speed, up to top speed? Torque converter, hydraulic pump,
transmission shifting progressively, or what?

Thanks on taking the time to do the write-up.
--
Jim in NC

On 1-Nov-2007, "Morgans" > wrote:

> > I got a few nice photos of
> > 974 being started and taking off, if anyone wants to see them I could
> > post
> > a couple of them on alt.binaries.pictures.aviation. Let me know.
>
> Yeah, post em up, if you will. I for one, would love to see them.
>
> How will you title them, so they will be easy to find?
> --
> Jim in NC

I don't know any more about the "Buick" than what I quoted from Rich
Graham's book. If you make it to Oshkosh, he's usually at the Virginia Bader
Aviation Art booth in one of the four display hangars up from AeroShell
Square. He'll autograph a copy of his two books for you, and is a most
interesting fellow to talk to.
My photos will be titled "61-7974, Ramstein AB, Jan 16, 1984, Scott R
Wilson.jpg" and similar. I'll post them right away.
Scott Wilson

My photos are posted on a.b.p.a. Unfortunately you can't see the air starter
the dash 60s fed that cranked the engines on the jet. I have some more
slides still in boxes, I'll dig through them and see if I can find one that
shows it. I wasn't allowed to get very close during the start, but I did the
best I could.
Scott Wilson

> wrote in message
. net...
> My photos are posted on a.b.p.a. Unfortunately you can't see the air
> starter
> the dash 60s fed that cranked the engines on the jet. I have some more
> slides still in boxes, I'll dig through them and see if I can find one
> that
> shows it. I wasn't allowed to get very close during the start, but I did
> the
> best I could.

Fantastic, so far.

I LOVE the mach diamonds in the afterburner exhaust. I can't decide if it
is art, or physics. Or math, or music.

It is everything. All rolled up into one. Add in a couple parts hot and
sexy.

You know, as much as the new birds are hot, and do so many things better
than the 71, none of them have half the sex appeal, to me. That plane just
sits there now, wanting to fly. So sad that it doesn't.

So sad.

Did you say that you had a video of it flying? I would really love to see
that. Anyone know of any around?

There are only a few that came up on a search, and about half won't play on
my system..I gotta get that figured out.
--
Jim in NC

In article >,
says...
>
> "John Godwin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Morgans" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> >> Is there a way you could share that video with us?
> >
> > I'll try. You'll have to give me a little time.
>
> Great! Let me know, if/when you get it pulled together. I'm sure I am not
> alone in saying I look forward to it!

You bet!

--
Duncan

> wrote in message
. net...
> My photos are posted on a.b.p.a. Unfortunately you can't see the air
> starter
> the dash 60s fed that cranked the engines on the jet. I have some more
> slides still in boxes, I'll dig through them and see if I can find one
> that
> shows it. I wasn't allowed to get very close during the start, but I did
> the
> best I could.
> Scott Wilson

Thanks.

Al G

Morgans schrieb:


> Yeah, post em up, if you will. I for one, would love to see them.


I have one older (about 10 years old) picture of one SR-71:
http://www.hotze.priv.at/album/pima/pimasupersonicfront.jpg

location: Pima Air and Space Museum in Tucson, AZ.

#m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 04:18:56 -0000, John Godwin
> wrote:

>I recall attending the Rancho Murietta Air Show several years ago. One
>of the highlights of the show (for me, anyway) was the SR-71 from Beale
>coming into to the field at about 1000 AGL. When he crossed the
>runway, he went to full power and pulled up; fortunately I had my
>camcorder running. I got to admit it was absolutely awsome.

Back on the 50th anniversary of the braking of the sound barrier we
had one fly from California to OSH. They first made a pass East To
West right over mid field (just south of the Homebuilder's Center) in
formation with a tanker and an F-18.

I shot a series of images through the pass and a couple came out with
the flag, sun, and aircraft in a couple of nice shots. I'll try to
find them. I'll bet there were 100's of videos shot of that, but none
from that position. They then made a series of low passes down 18
followed by a run out over Lake Michigan to refuel. I don't remember
the time from California to OSH but as I recall it was just over an
hour. Unfortunately the refueling turned out to be a de fueling and
led to an emergency landing at the Greater Milwaukee Airport.

The plan had bee to head back to California and break the sound
barrier at 50,000 right over OSH.

I'd like to see your photos. I was there that year but my camera was broken
so I didn't get any photos. The Blackbird broke a fuel line while it was air
refueling as I recall. I could see it and the tanker orbiting way southeast
of OSH after the low passes (which I wish could've been lower) and saw a
huge vapor trail coming from the Blackbird. I knew something was wrong, I'd
seen enough air-to-air refuelings of A-10s, F-16s and F-4Es during my USAF
days that I knew she souldn't be venting that much fuel. When they later
announced the supersonic pass wouldn't be happening I wasn't surprised.
Scott Wilson

> wrote in message
et...

> When they later announced the supersonic pass wouldn't be happening I
> wasn't surprised.

I was monitoring tower and the air boss at Nellis for the 50th anniversary
airshow. Tower told the Blackbird pilot not to exceed 250 kts and to make
right traffic (to stay clear of the city.)

The pilot's response was completely acidic. On the third and final pass he
turned on the afterburners, but one of them failed, so the airplane yawed
suddenly over the runway centerline before climbing out to the east. I
still have the conversation recorded somewhere.

c

I finally came across my VCR Tape of the Airshow at Rancho Murietta. I
couldn't believe that it was August 1986 (21 years ago) and had several
aircraft at low level passes (U-2, SR-71, C-5, A-10, Bede-5J, Bob
Hoover's Aero Commander, Canadian Snow Birds).

It was, what I considered, one of the best air shows that I attended.

--

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
...
>I finally came across my VCR Tape of the Airshow at Rancho Murietta. I
> couldn't believe that it was August 1986 (21 years ago) and had several
> aircraft at low level passes (U-2, SR-71, C-5, A-10, Bede-5J, Bob
> Hoover's Aero Commander, Canadian Snow Birds).
>
> It was, what I considered, one of the best air shows that I attended.

OK, gang. Anyone know of a place or a way to put this video online, so we
all can view it in its entirety?

I, for one, would love to see it all. Anyone else?
--
Jim in NC

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:41:27 GMT, wrote:

>I'd like to see your photos. I was there that year but my camera was broken

I'm still huntin'. Looks like I'm going to have to dig into the
archives on the second computer in the shop. I have about 37,000
images and unfortunately they are in order of scan number and date,
not the original date. "I'm positive" they are in a directory by
themselves.

Roger (K8RI)
>so I didn't get any photos. The Blackbird broke a fuel line while it was air
>refueling as I recall. I could see it and the tanker orbiting way southeast
>of OSH after the low passes (which I wish could've been lower) and saw a
>huge vapor trail coming from the Blackbird. I knew something was wrong, I'd
>seen enough air-to-air refuelings of A-10s, F-16s and F-4Es during my USAF
>days that I knew she souldn't be venting that much fuel. When they later
>announced the supersonic pass wouldn't be happening I wasn't surprised.
>Scott Wilson

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:29:54 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote in >:

> Anyone know of a place or a way to put this video online, so we
>all can view it in its entirety?

Mail me a VHS copy of the tape, and I'll encode it into MPEG format,
and put it on a server.

> > Anyone know of a place or a way to put this video online, so we
> >all can view it in its entirety?
>
> Mail me a VHS copy of the tape, and I'll encode it into MPEG format,
> and put it on a server.

Send it my way once complete, Larry, and we'll host it here:
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm

(With never-ending thanks to this group's own Jav Henderson, for
providing unlimited server space for all those videos!)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"