Do we need the SR-71?

[C J Campbell]

One of the most important lessons, I think, coming from the war on terrorism
is that poor intelligence is becoming very costly. Satellites are
predictable and are unable to loiter over an area, while drones can cover
only relatively small areas. From Desert Shield up to now we have been
basically blind in our search for WMDs, terrorist and troop concentrations,
mobile Scuds, etc.

I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot, here. The SR-71 is relatively
cheap, there are enough spare parts to last virtually forever, and it would
be enormously effective in giving us better intelligence. The planes are in
pretty good shape; in fact, their airframes are stronger than they were when
first built. I believe these planes should be re-activated.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "C J Campbell" > said:
>is that poor intelligence is becoming very costly. Satellites are
>predictable and are unable to loiter over an area, while drones can cover
>only relatively small areas. From Desert Shield up to now we have been
>basically blind in our search for WMDs, terrorist and troop concentrations,
>mobile Scuds, etc.

I think Predators and Global Hawks would do a better job on almost all of
those jobs.

But what the US really needs is spies on the ground. The biggest problem
in the lead-up to Iraq is that they put too much emphasis on the tales of
one guy, who lied through his teeth trying to get the US to depose Saddam
so he could take over.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
OTOH, the general theme is that lusers should not be allowed to have
computers, cars, guns or genitalia.
-- Anthony DeBoer

[Capt.Doug]

>"C J Campbell" wrote in message I believe these planes should be
re->activated.

Perhaps there is already a newer model plying the upper flight levels.

D. (que music with Rod Sterling's voice)

[John Harlow]

>One of the most important lessons, I think, coming from the war on
terrorism
>is that poor intelligence is becoming very costly.

From "The Simpsons" episode where the FBI enlists Homer as a spy to find a
trillion dollar bill:

"Agent Johnson: We believe Burns still has the bill hidden somewhere in his
house, but all we've ascertained from satellite photos is that it's not on
the roof."

[C J Campbell]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> >"C J Campbell" wrote in message I believe these planes should be
> re->activated.
>
> Perhaps there is already a newer model plying the upper flight levels.
>


If there is such an airplane it is doing a terrible job.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"C J Campbell" > wrote:

> One of the most important lessons, I think, coming from the war on terrorism
> is that poor intelligence is becoming very costly. Satellites are
> predictable and are unable to loiter over an area, while drones can cover
> only relatively small areas. From Desert Shield up to now we have been
> basically blind in our search for WMDs, terrorist and troop concentrations,
> mobile Scuds, etc.
>
> I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot, here. The SR-71 is relatively
> cheap, there are enough spare parts to last virtually forever, and it would
> be enormously effective in giving us better intelligence. The planes are in
> pretty good shape; in fact, their airframes are stronger than they were when
> first built. I believe these planes should be re-activated.

Simply put, we don't need supersonic speeds to loiter over terrorist hot
spots. Their weapons are short-ranged, so an armed TR-2 or Global Hawk
or something else that has a high loiter time will do the job, as the
British say, "spiffily."

[C J Campbell]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "C J Campbell" > wrote:
>
> > One of the most important lessons, I think, coming from the war on
terrorism
> > is that poor intelligence is becoming very costly. Satellites are
> > predictable and are unable to loiter over an area, while drones can
cover
> > only relatively small areas. From Desert Shield up to now we have been
> > basically blind in our search for WMDs, terrorist and troop
concentrations,
> > mobile Scuds, etc.
> >
> > I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot, here. The SR-71 is
relatively
> > cheap, there are enough spare parts to last virtually forever, and it
would
> > be enormously effective in giving us better intelligence. The planes are
in
> > pretty good shape; in fact, their airframes are stronger than they were
when
> > first built. I believe these planes should be re-activated.
>
> Simply put, we don't need supersonic speeds to loiter over terrorist hot
> spots. Their weapons are short-ranged, so an armed TR-2 or Global Hawk
> or something else that has a high loiter time will do the job, as the
> British say, "spiffily."

But an armed TR-2 or Global Hawk are useless for searching for WMDs in a
hostile country. Ascertaining whether such weapons exist can mean the
difference between going to war or not. Some SR-71 overflights of Iraq a
couple of years ago might have meant all the difference in the world. They
would also give us more information as to whether Iran or North Korea
actually have WMDs and where they are located. Besides, even terrorists can
shoot the drones down. It is too easy to hide things from satellites. The
satellites' orbits are known. One reason we were led to believe that Iraq
had WMDs was the evidence of vehicles and people scurrying around to hide
things whenever a satellite came over the horizon.

[C J Campbell]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "C J Campbell"
> said:
> >is that poor intelligence is becoming very costly. Satellites are
> >predictable and are unable to loiter over an area, while drones can cover
> >only relatively small areas. From Desert Shield up to now we have been
> >basically blind in our search for WMDs, terrorist and troop
concentrations,
> >mobile Scuds, etc.
>
> I think Predators and Global Hawks would do a better job on almost all of
> those jobs.
>
> But what the US really needs is spies on the ground. The biggest problem
> in the lead-up to Iraq is that they put too much emphasis on the tales of
> one guy, who lied through his teeth trying to get the US to depose Saddam
> so he could take over.

Maybe he did do that, but Saddam's actions in the period leading up to the
war seem to indicate that Saddam himself believed he had weapons of mass
destruction. He may have been deceived by his own people. Certainly there is
a very lawless element in Iraqi culture. Every two-bit cleric seems willing
to submit to no law but his own, and every one of them seems willing to back
up his threats with force. They out-gun both the Iraqi military and the
police. It is as if we allowed Jesse Jackson or Jerry Fallwell to maintain
their own private armies while declaring the holy cities of New York and
Birmingham off-limits to law enforcement personnel. To paraphrase the quote
attributed to T.E. Lawrence: "So long as the Islamic nations submit to no
law but that of local clerics, they will remain a little people, a silly
people, greedy, barbarous, and cruel."

[Ditch]

>If there is such an airplane it is doing a terrible job.

It wouldn't be the airplane's fault. The blame would go to the intelligence
interpreters.


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> One of the most important lessons, I think, coming from the war on
terrorism
> is that poor intelligence is becoming very costly. Satellites are
> predictable and are unable to loiter over an area, while drones can cover
> only relatively small areas. From Desert Shield up to now we have been
> basically blind in our search for WMDs, terrorist and troop
concentrations,
> mobile Scuds, etc.
>
> I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot, here. The SR-71 is
relatively
> cheap, there are enough spare parts to last virtually forever, and it
would
> be enormously effective in giving us better intelligence. The planes are
in
> pretty good shape; in fact, their airframes are stronger than they were
when
> first built. I believe these planes should be re-activated.
>

I believe that the final nail in the SR71s coffin, after the program costs
and maintenence and all of that stuff, was simply that the information
coming out of the SR71 took too long to get a hold of, and was limited in
scope. It was optical only, so an overcast would ruin a mission, and, the
primary problem, it was not real-time. So it took almost a day or more to
unpack the film, get it developed and scanned, then distribute and analyze
it before it finally got to the decision makers.

In today's everything-real-time battle environment (and especially in the
future) a day may as well be a year. Nobody wants to wait that long. So the
SR71 was seen as simply out of pace with the new way information was
gathered and used.

I suppose that a new sensor package could be designed for it, with a
synthetic apeture radar system, digital optical cameras and a real-time
datalink, but nobody at the Pentagon is going to be willing to spend the
money on it; especially as they are trying to make every penny scream as it
is.

It's a shame though; high speed recon and the ability to be anywhere,
anytime, with no prior notice is a tool that we should definately keep in
our toolbox.

Unless, of course, there already is such a system, and we just don't know
about it. ;)

[Jay Honeck]

> I believe that the final nail in the SR71s coffin, after the program costs
> and maintenence and all of that stuff, was simply that the information
> coming out of the SR71 took too long to get a hold of, and was limited in
> scope.

According to Bill Fox, Lockheed Skunkworks project coordinator for over 30
years (and the guy who donated all the stuff for our Blackbird Suite), the
final nail in the coffin was politics, pure and simple.

Clinton was having trouble cashing the mythic post-Cold War "Peace
Dividend" -- and the system that had over-flown the Soviet Union, China, and
every other hot spot on the planet with complete impunity was viewed as "war
surplus." It was thought that satellites alone could do the job, in a
"safer world."

Although the Air Force and CIA lost 15 (of 31?) Blackbirds, none were lost
to hostile fire. It was an incredibly dangerous plane to fly, but -- when
everything was working properly -- it was completely invulnerable. Even
the vaunted Soviet MiG-25 Foxbat, with all of it's Mach 3.3 muscle, simply
couldn't catch it.

I spent some time talking with Bill about the possibility of resurrecting
the Blackbird, and he sadly shook his head. The incredibly expensive
infrastructure -- a special fuel refinery; special ground and aerial
tankers; special support; special training; special EVERYTHING -- is all
gone. Worse, many of the SR-71s and YF-12s were actually cut up internally
in order to more cheaply transport them to museums.

Thus, although they may *look* intact, many, in fact, are not airworthy.
(One notable exception is the YF-12A at the US Air Force Museum in Dayton.
This plane was flown in to that little-bitty strip alongside the museum.
I've got a great picture of this, thanks to Bill.)

No, the Blackbird is gone forever -- and, from what I've read, so is Aurora,
although Bill would skillfully change the subject whenever asked. As
always, who really knows what's going on out in the desert?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Teacherjh]

>>
Some SR-71 overflights of Iraq a
couple of years ago might have meant
all the difference in the world.
<<

I think the decision to go to war was made long before, and intellegence wasn't
going to change it.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[C J Campbell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:CYonc.57309$kh4.3397705@attbi_s52...
>
> According to Bill Fox, Lockheed Skunkworks project coordinator for over 30
> years (and the guy who donated all the stuff for our Blackbird Suite), the
> final nail in the coffin was politics, pure and simple.
>

There are still intact Blackbirds around. The Air Force has the optical
packages in storage somewhere, too.

The same political forces that killed the SR-71 would also have killed the
Aurora -- they would have hated it for the same reason they hated the
Blackbirds.

The SR-71 was assigned to SAC, which never wanted it. It competed for tanker
resources, did not carry any ordnance, and stole all the glory at airshows.
When it was retired, no high-ranking members of the military or Pentagon
were present at the ceremony.

[Tim Broche]

x-no-archive: yes
Teacherjh wrote:

> >>
> Some SR-71 overflights of Iraq a
> couple of years ago might have meant
> all the difference in the world.
> <<
>
> I think the decision to go to war was made long before, and intellegence wasn't
> going to change it.

I think the interior of the earth is filled with jello.

Really hot jello.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...

> But what the US really needs is spies on the ground.

Pretty much banned by the Tower Commission in 1979.

> The biggest problem
> in the lead-up to Iraq is that they put too much emphasis on the tales of
> one guy, who lied through his teeth trying to get the US to depose Saddam
> so he could take over.

_One_ guy wanted to take over? Slight under-estiamte, I'd say.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> >One of the most important lessons, I think, coming from the war on
> terrorism
> >is that poor intelligence is becoming very costly.
>
> From "The Simpsons" episode where the FBI enlists Homer as a spy to find a
> trillion dollar bill:
>
> "Agent Johnson: We believe Burns still has the bill hidden somewhere in
his
> house, but all we've ascertained from satellite photos is that it's not on
> the roof."
Humorous as it is, one of our presidential candidates has been pushing just
about that scenario for quite a few years.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> But an armed TR-2 or Global Hawk are useless for searching for WMDs in a
> hostile country. Ascertaining whether such weapons exist can mean the
> difference between going to war or not. Some SR-71 overflights of Iraq a
> couple of years ago might have meant all the difference in the world. They
> would also give us more information as to whether Iran or North Korea
> actually have WMDs and where they are located. Besides, even terrorists
can
> shoot the drones down. It is too easy to hide things from satellites. The
> satellites' orbits are known. One reason we were led to believe that Iraq
> had WMDs was the evidence of vehicles and people scurrying around to hide
> things whenever a satellite came over the horizon.
>
Also, when it was "leaked" that the UN inspectors were going to inspect a
certain site, photo recon showed immediate and frantic activity at that
particular site (IOW: there was at least three moles in the UN inspection
teams).

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"C J Campbell" > writes:

> But an armed TR-2 or Global Hawk are useless for searching for WMDs in a
> hostile country.

Why is that?

> Ascertaining whether such weapons exist can mean the difference
> between going to war or not. Some SR-71 overflights of Iraq a couple
> of years ago might have meant all the difference in the world. They
> would also give us more information as to whether Iran or North
> Korea actually have WMDs and where they are located. Besides, even
> terrorists can shoot the drones down. It is too easy to hide things
> from satellites. The satellites' orbits are known. One reason we
> were led to believe that Iraq had WMDs was the evidence of vehicles
> and people scurrying around to hide things whenever a satellite came
> over the horizon.

During the period in question, we had total air superiority over Iraq;
so we could have flown Piper Cubs over the installations to take
pictures if we'd wanted to. If we didn't fly thousands of
reconnaissance missions over Iraq during the period between the two
ways, then everybody involved is an idiot.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Tim Broche > writes:

> Teacherjh wrote:
>
>> >>
>> Some SR-71 overflights of Iraq a
>> couple of years ago might have meant
>> all the difference in the world.
>> <<
>>
>> I think the decision to go to war was made long before, and intellegence wasn't
>> going to change it.
>
> I think the interior of the earth is filled with jello.
>
> Really hot jello.

The difference between these views is that there's a lot of evidence
confirming the first one, and no evidence against it. Whereas there's
quite a lot of evidence *against* the second theory, and little
evidence supporting it.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[John Harper]

Strange that nobody in this thread has mentioned the U2, which
*is* still flying, for all the satellites-not-good-enough reasons
that are mentioned. Surely all the good reasons pro-SR71 are
just as valid for the U2 (except raw speed, but the U2 uses
altitude to avoid being shot down).

But anyway as someone else said, a Piper Cub would have done
the job in Iraq. Aerial reconnaisance is probably a terrible way
to find WMDs, and particularly ineffective when there aren't
any in the first place.

John

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> One of the most important lessons, I think, coming from the war on
terrorism
> is that poor intelligence is becoming very costly. Satellites are
> predictable and are unable to loiter over an area, while drones can cover
> only relatively small areas. From Desert Shield up to now we have been
> basically blind in our search for WMDs, terrorist and troop
concentrations,
> mobile Scuds, etc.
>
> I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot, here. The SR-71 is
relatively
> cheap, there are enough spare parts to last virtually forever, and it
would
> be enormously effective in giving us better intelligence. The planes are
in
> pretty good shape; in fact, their airframes are stronger than they were
when
> first built. I believe these planes should be re-activated.
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
>
>
> If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
>
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> But anyway as someone else said, a Piper Cub would have done
> the job in Iraq. Aerial reconnaisance is probably a terrible way
> to find WMDs, and particularly ineffective when there aren't
> any in the first place.

Actually, the Blackbird, with it's *sideways* looking cameras, was very
effective at finding Scud missiles and similar, hidden-in-caves kinds of
weaponry. Satellites, with their more-or-less straight down photos, can't
"see" that kind of stuff.

I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think the U-2 is actually being used for
recon anymore. High altitude research, yes, but I don't think they've sent
one over a hostile nation in many years.

Of course, as you point out, Iraq is no longer a hostile air environment.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 10:50:12 +0100, John Harper wrote:

> Strange that nobody in this thread has mentioned the U2, which
> *is* still flying, for all the satellites-not-good-enough reasons
> that are mentioned. Surely all the good reasons pro-SR71 are
> just as valid for the U2 (except raw speed, but the U2 uses
> altitude to avoid being shot down).
>
> But anyway as someone else said, a Piper Cub would have done
> the job in Iraq. Aerial reconnaisance is probably a terrible way
> to find WMDs, and particularly ineffective when there aren't
> any in the first place.
>
> John
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>> One of the most important lessons, I think, coming from the war on
> terrorism
>> is that poor intelligence is becoming very costly. Satellites are
>> predictable and are unable to loiter over an area, while drones can cover
>> only relatively small areas. From Desert Shield up to now we have been
>> basically blind in our search for WMDs, terrorist and troop
> concentrations,
>> mobile Scuds, etc.
>>
>> I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot, here. The SR-71 is
> relatively
>> cheap, there are enough spare parts to last virtually forever, and it
> would
>> be enormously effective in giving us better intelligence. The planes are
> in
>> pretty good shape; in fact, their airframes are stronger than they were
> when
>> first built. I believe these planes should be re-activated.
>>
>> --
>> Christopher J. Campbell
>> World Famous Flight Instructor
>> Port Orchard, WA
>>
>>
>> If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
>>
>>
>>

I thought that the CIA still had one or two SR-71's flying and NASA, I
think, still has one (for sure) or two for high atmospheric research
projects. I think you're right, that the general burden was shifted back
to U2s.

Then again, there are always rumors of the Aurora project. ;) High
altitude blimps may (or already are) soon find themselves geosynchronisely
in position. I know that these blimps will be used in
general telecommunications, deployable military field communications, and
rumors exist for low orbit ease dropping and spying.

I guess what I'm saying is, just because the SR-71 isn't commonly flying,
doesn't have to mean that other mechanisms are not already in place. It's
just that we, the common man, may not currently know about it.

Cheers!

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 11:34:34 +0000, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> But anyway as someone else said, a Piper Cub would have done
>> the job in Iraq. Aerial reconnaisance is probably a terrible way
>> to find WMDs, and particularly ineffective when there aren't
>> any in the first place.
>
> Actually, the Blackbird, with it's *sideways* looking cameras, was very
> effective at finding Scud missiles and similar, hidden-in-caves kinds of
> weaponry. Satellites, with their more-or-less straight down photos, can't
> "see" that kind of stuff.
>
> I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think the U-2 is actually being used for
> recon anymore. High altitude research, yes, but I don't think they've sent
> one over a hostile nation in many years.
>
> Of course, as you point out, Iraq is no longer a hostile air environment.

I believe news reports leading up to the current Afgan and Iraqi wars,
cited U2's being used. I know some of the photos that were shown to the
UN where from a U2. So, I think U2's are still in general use. From what
I understand, they are fairly cheap to operate and very reliable. That's
hard to argue with.

[Greg Copeland]

On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:15:41 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Tim Broche > writes:
>
>> Teacherjh wrote:
>>
>>> >>
>>> Some SR-71 overflights of Iraq a
>>> couple of years ago might have meant
>>> all the difference in the world.
>>> <<
>>>
>>> I think the decision to go to war was made long before, and intellegence wasn't
>>> going to change it.
>>
>> I think the interior of the earth is filled with jello.
>>
>> Really hot jello.
>
> The difference between these views is that there's a lot of evidence
> confirming the first one, and no evidence against it. Whereas there's
> quite a lot of evidence *against* the second theory, and little
> evidence supporting it.


Worth noting that it's doubtful we will ever know for sure unless someone
takes us by the hand and presents a WMD site to us. It's pretty much
impossible to prove a negative and there is no proof that their WMD were
actually destroyed. Worth mentioning, several months after the force on
force engagements where over, a friendly Iraqi took some soldiers to where
very modern migs (plus many older planes) were burried in the ground. We
would of never found these planes otherwise. When they were dug up, it
seems Russia had provided their latest and greatest Mig-25 Foxbats. These
were considered to be an intelligence coo as it provided first hand
samples of Russia's latest reconnaissance and electronic warfare devices.

Simple fact remains, chances are high that anything barried in the desert
will likely remain so unless someone points it out to us. No amount
of spy photos are going to discover these items unless they are caught
actually digging the sand up.

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 8 May 2004 20:05:29 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot, here. The SR-71 is relatively
>cheap, there are enough spare parts to last virtually forever, and it would
>be enormously effective in giving us better intelligence. The planes are in
>pretty good shape; in fact, their airframes are stronger than they were when
>first built. I believe these planes should be re-activated.

What do you mean by relatively CJ? My understanding is that every
single aspect of the SR-71 is horrendously expensive: It requires
special fuel, needs to be refueled all the time in air, has unique
engines, requires all kinds of backup and planning for each mission
and doesn't have enough fuel for loiter time.

The U-2 on the other hand, can stay over the target for a long while
and uses normal jet fuel and can be serviced anywhere. They are for
sure a lot less expensive than the SR-71, and a whole lot less
dangerous to fly.

Corky Scott

[John T]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message

>
> When they were dug up, it seems Russia had provided their
> latest and greatest Mig-25 Foxbats. These were considered to be an
> intelligence coo as it provided first hand samples of Russia's latest
> reconnaissance and electronic warfare devices.

"Latest and greatest" Foxbat? :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[John T]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message

>
> I believe news reports leading up to the current Afgan and Iraqi wars,
> cited U2's being used. I know some of the photos that were shown to
> the UN where from a U2. So, I think U2's are still in general use.

I think you'll find that "U-2" these days actually refers to the latest
variant, the TR-1.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Mike Rapoport]

I don't know what you hope to accomplish in the war on terrorism with better
overhead recon. We know where all the training camps were located. It is
very difficult to determine what a couple of people are planning to do by
taking their picture. The new unmanned systems are better in every way.

Mike
MU-2


"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> One of the most important lessons, I think, coming from the war on
terrorism
> is that poor intelligence is becoming very costly. Satellites are
> predictable and are unable to loiter over an area, while drones can cover
> only relatively small areas. From Desert Shield up to now we have been
> basically blind in our search for WMDs, terrorist and troop
concentrations,
> mobile Scuds, etc.
>
> I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot, here. The SR-71 is
relatively
> cheap, there are enough spare parts to last virtually forever, and it
would
> be enormously effective in giving us better intelligence. The planes are
in
> pretty good shape; in fact, their airframes are stronger than they were
when
> first built. I believe these planes should be re-activated.
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
>
>
> If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

Me thinks that you have been reading too many books by ex-blackbird pilots.

Mike
MU-2


"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:CYonc.57309$kh4.3397705@attbi_s52...
> >
> > According to Bill Fox, Lockheed Skunkworks project coordinator for over
30
> > years (and the guy who donated all the stuff for our Blackbird Suite),
the
> > final nail in the coffin was politics, pure and simple.
> >
>
> There are still intact Blackbirds around. The Air Force has the optical
> packages in storage somewhere, too.
>
> The same political forces that killed the SR-71 would also have killed the
> Aurora -- they would have hated it for the same reason they hated the
> Blackbirds.
>
> The SR-71 was assigned to SAC, which never wanted it. It competed for
tanker
> resources, did not carry any ordnance, and stole all the glory at
airshows.
> When it was retired, no high-ranking members of the military or Pentagon
> were present at the ceremony.
>
>

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 14:33:35 +0000, John T wrote:

> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> When they were dug up, it seems Russia had provided their
>> latest and greatest Mig-25 Foxbats. These were considered to be an
>> intelligence coo as it provided first hand samples of Russia's latest
>> reconnaissance and electronic warfare devices.
>
> "Latest and greatest" Foxbat? :)

Equipment gets upgraded over time. You can use phrases like that about
F-16's and F-14's too. Just because they are old doesn't mean they are
not being upgraded. Just the same, I do understand that I'm talking about
an oxymoron here.

Cheers.

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 14:37:54 +0000, John T wrote:

> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> I believe news reports leading up to the current Afgan and Iraqi wars,
>> cited U2's being used. I know some of the photos that were shown to
>> the UN where from a U2. So, I think U2's are still in general use.
>
> I think you'll find that "U-2" these days actually refers to the latest
> variant, the TR-1.

Fair enough. Would you be able to point me at some pictures of that
sucker?

[C J Campbell]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Me thinks that you have been reading too many books by ex-blackbird
pilots.
>

Or maybe looking at too many of their web sites. Still, they seemed to make
some sense.

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 14:37:54 +0000, John T wrote:
>
> > "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> >
> >>
> >> I believe news reports leading up to the current Afgan and Iraqi wars,
> >> cited U2's being used. I know some of the photos that were shown to
> >> the UN where from a U2. So, I think U2's are still in general use.
> >
> > I think you'll find that "U-2" these days actually refers to the latest
> > variant, the TR-1.
>
> Fair enough. Would you be able to point me at some pictures of that
> sucker?
>

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/u-2_pics.htm

And some good info:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/u-2.htm

[Mike Rapoport]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Me thinks that you have been reading too many books by ex-blackbird
> pilots.
> >
>
> Or maybe looking at too many of their web sites. Still, they seemed to
make
> some sense.
>
I don't know. The Blackbird was incredibly expensive to operate, something
like $200k/hr 15 years ago. The recon systems are dated and there is no
need to go M3 if the enemy doesn't have any airplanes. It seems to me that
systems like Global Hawk or Preditor, with their ability to loiter over an
area of interest and even to carry weapons, are far superior to an airplane
that flys by a 2000mph and then has to have its film developed after
returning to one of a very few bases capable of supporting it. Then, the
next day (at the earliest) something can be done about what was seen.

Chemical weapons need to be used in large quantities to be effective in the
open. An effective chemical arsenal would involve thousands or tons of
material. We have had access to the country and the people for a year. A
few guys didn't carry off and bury a million pounds of chemical weapons
unobserved.

Lets face it, we were duped into believing Iraq had WMD by Saddam's bravado
and our own over-willingness to believe. The issue now is how are we going
to extract ourselves from Iraq without looking like we were beaten off (ala
Somalia) or leaving a goverment as brutal as Saddam's to maintain order.
Ultimately, Iraq like Yugoslavia is not a natural country and perhaps only
force can keep it together.

Mike
MU-2

[C J Campbell]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
..
>
>
> We
> would of never found these planes otherwise.

Why not? The tail of one of these airplanes was sticking out of the sand
when it was found. Why didn't the Aurora, the U-2, the satellites, the
drones, the reconnaissance Piper Cub, or anyone on the ground see it?

[C J Campbell]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Lets face it, we were duped into believing Iraq had WMD by Saddam's
bravado
> and our own over-willingness to believe. The issue now is how are we
going
> to extract ourselves from Iraq without looking like we were beaten off
(ala
> Somalia) or leaving a goverment as brutal as Saddam's to maintain order.
> Ultimately, Iraq like Yugoslavia is not a natural country and perhaps only
> force can keep it together.


The issue is also how to bring some sense into how we are doing things
there. Lessee: these clerics are inciting people to throw bombs and missiles
at contractors who are bringing food and medical supplies into the area. The
clerics are so influential that they have enormous private armies that shoot
at anything that moves and whose people are willing to blow themselves up
and who do so on a regular basis. But we don't want to enter Najaf because
it might **** 'em off?

What, they are only a mite irritated right now and we don't want to get them
really mad?

[Mike Rapoport]

Nothing is invulnerable. All that was required to shoot down the Blackbird
is a networked radar system that could track it before it came over the
horizon and a SAM with enough fuel to reach 80,000'. Sooner or later one
would be shot down. The solution is a plane that you are willing to lose,
like a UAV.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:CYonc.57309$kh4.3397705@attbi_s52...
> > I believe that the final nail in the SR71s coffin, after the program
costs
> > and maintenence and all of that stuff, was simply that the information
> > coming out of the SR71 took too long to get a hold of, and was limited
in
> > scope.
>
> According to Bill Fox, Lockheed Skunkworks project coordinator for over 30
> years (and the guy who donated all the stuff for our Blackbird Suite), the
> final nail in the coffin was politics, pure and simple.
>
> Clinton was having trouble cashing the mythic post-Cold War "Peace
> Dividend" -- and the system that had over-flown the Soviet Union, China,
and
> every other hot spot on the planet with complete impunity was viewed as
"war
> surplus." It was thought that satellites alone could do the job, in a
> "safer world."
>
> Although the Air Force and CIA lost 15 (of 31?) Blackbirds, none were lost
> to hostile fire. It was an incredibly dangerous plane to fly, but -- when
> everything was working properly -- it was completely invulnerable. Even
> the vaunted Soviet MiG-25 Foxbat, with all of it's Mach 3.3 muscle, simply
> couldn't catch it.
>
> I spent some time talking with Bill about the possibility of resurrecting
> the Blackbird, and he sadly shook his head. The incredibly expensive
> infrastructure -- a special fuel refinery; special ground and aerial
> tankers; special support; special training; special EVERYTHING -- is all
> gone. Worse, many of the SR-71s and YF-12s were actually cut up
internally
> in order to more cheaply transport them to museums.
>
> Thus, although they may *look* intact, many, in fact, are not airworthy.
> (One notable exception is the YF-12A at the US Air Force Museum in Dayton.
> This plane was flown in to that little-bitty strip alongside the museum.
> I've got a great picture of this, thanks to Bill.)
>
> No, the Blackbird is gone forever -- and, from what I've read, so is
Aurora,
> although Bill would skillfully change the subject whenever asked. As
> always, who really knows what's going on out in the desert?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...

>
> What, they are only a mite irritated right now and we don't want to get
them
> really mad?
>
>

Maybe those guys at Abu Ghraib had it right. If Rumsfeld had any guts at
all, he would have told Congress, "Hey, if you mess with the United States
of America, this is what's going to happen to you."

Actually, the whole situation is so contrived, you have to wonder if that is
not exactly what is being said.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Lets face it, we were duped into believing Iraq had WMD by Saddam's
bravado
> and our own over-willingness to believe.

Either that or Saddam dumped it ALL on the Kurds...and those hundreds of
trucks running into Syria were carrying pomogranites.

> The issue now is how are we going
> to extract ourselves from Iraq without looking like we were beaten off
(ala
> Somalia) or leaving a goverment as brutal as Saddam's to maintain order.

Are we?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Nothing is invulnerable. All that was required to shoot down the
Blackbird
> is a networked radar system that could track it before it came over the
> horizon and a SAM with enough fuel to reach 80,000'. Sooner or later one
> would be shot down.

Yet it never happened.

[Mike Rapoport]

Yes, and when was the last time the Blackbird actually overflew the Soviet
Union? '70s? '60s? It usually flew from Japan up the Kamchatka peninsula
staying out of Soviet airspace.

Mike
MU-2


"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> > Nothing is invulnerable. All that was required to shoot down the
> Blackbird
> > is a networked radar system that could track it before it came over the
> > horizon and a SAM with enough fuel to reach 80,000'. Sooner or later
one
> > would be shot down.
>
> Yet it never happened.
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Yes, and when was the last time the Blackbird actually overflew the Soviet
> Union? '70s? '60s? It usually flew from Japan up the Kamchatka peninsula
> staying out of Soviet airspace.

It also flew directly across the middle of the Soviet Union on many
occasions. And China.

Both countries saw them coming. The Soviets would scramble their MiG-25s,
also capable of Mach 3+ speeds, in an effort to meet the threat.

Because the Blackbird was able to maintain speeds better than Mach 3.3+
without afterburners (I.E.: "Super cruise"), and because it was flying
nearly 20 miles high, the MiGs -- with their inability to fly that fast
without fuel-guzzling afterburners -- would simply run out of fuel, time, or
both before interception.

The Soviets also tried firing radar-guided missiles at them from the
Foxbats, which -- considering they were "only" 20K feet or so below when
fired -- SHOULD have been able to hit the Blackbirds.

However, the stealthy design of the Blackbird made for a very small radar
cross-section, and they had some pretty effective (and still Top Secret)
counter measures on board.

Bottom line: The plane was invulnerable to enemy action for almost 30
years -- a remarkable record.

Of course, we managed to bring 15 of them down ourselves, between mechanical
failures and stupidity. For example, NASA managed to destroy a YF-12A in
flight by trying to see how much side-stress the bottom strake (unique to
the YF-12) could take at high mach numbers.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[David CL Francis]

On Sun, 9 May 2004 at 03:44:29 in message
>,
Orval Fairbairn > wrote:

>Simply put, we don't need supersonic speeds to loiter over terrorist hot
>spots. Their weapons are short-ranged, so an armed TR-2 or Global Hawk
>or something else that has a high loiter time will do the job, as the
>British say, "spiffily."

I am British but, to the best of my knowledge, I have never said
'spiffily' in my entire life. (Except after reading your message - just
to try what it might sound like.)
--
David CL Francis

[Mike Rapoport]

The Blackbird used afterburning in all supersonic flight.

I'm not sure what you mean by fly "across the middle" since the USSR was so
large that mid air refueling would be required while still over hostile
terrain.

I agree with you that there were none lost to enemy action but I think that
would be different now 30yrs later. The Blackbird's basic defense was that
once it was close enough to track, there wasn't enough time for a missle to
climb to altitude and make the intercept. It is soley a targeting problem
since many missles travel faster than M3. I think the Navy's Pheonix is a
M5 missle, about 1000mph faster that the SR-71 for example.


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:yLQnc.64372$0H1.6146627@attbi_s54...
> > Yes, and when was the last time the Blackbird actually overflew the
Soviet
> > Union? '70s? '60s? It usually flew from Japan up the Kamchatka
peninsula
> > staying out of Soviet airspace.
>
> It also flew directly across the middle of the Soviet Union on many
> occasions. And China.
>
> Both countries saw them coming. The Soviets would scramble their MiG-25s,
> also capable of Mach 3+ speeds, in an effort to meet the threat.
>
> Because the Blackbird was able to maintain speeds better than Mach 3.3+
> without afterburners (I.E.: "Super cruise"), and because it was flying
> nearly miles high, the MiGs -- with their inability to fly that fast
> without fuel-guzzling afterburners -- would simply run out of fuel, time,
or
> both before interception.
>
> The Soviets also tried firing radar-guided missiles at them from the
> Foxbats, which -- considering they were "only" 20K feet or so below when
> fired -- SHOULD have been able to hit the Blackbirds.
>
> However, the stealthy design of the Blackbird made for a very small radar
> cross-section, and they had some pretty effective (and still Top Secret)
> counter measures on board.
>
> Bottom line: The plane was invulnerable to enemy action for almost 30
> years -- a remarkable record.
>
> Of course, we managed to bring 15 of them down ourselves, between
mechanical
> failures and stupidity. For example, NASA managed to destroy a YF-12A in
> flight by trying to see how much side-stress the bottom strake (unique to
> the YF-12) could take at high mach numbers.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Dima Volodin]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:yLQnc.64372$0H1.6146627@attbi_s54...
> > Yes, and when was the last time the Blackbird actually overflew the Soviet
> > Union? '70s? '60s? It usually flew from Japan up the Kamchatka peninsula
> > staying out of Soviet airspace.
>
> It also flew directly across the middle of the Soviet Union on many
> occasions.

Which part of its middle? And what's your source, anyway?

> Jay Honeck

Dima

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Jay Honeck" > said:
>> Yes, and when was the last time the Blackbird actually overflew the Soviet
>> Union? '70s? '60s? It usually flew from Japan up the Kamchatka peninsula
>> staying out of Soviet airspace.
>
>It also flew directly across the middle of the Soviet Union on many
>occasions. And China.

As far as I know, the US NEVER disregarded the treaty they signed with the
Soviets to stop recon overflights after Frank Gary Powers was shot down.
So the SR-71 probably never flew directly over the USSR.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
It isn't the volts that kill, it's the missing brain waves.
-- Matt Roberds

[Ron Natalie]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:eNJnc.63251$kh4.3830904@attbi_s52...

> I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think the U-2 is actually being used for
> recon anymore. High altitude research, yes, but I don't think they've sent
> one over a hostile nation in many years.
>
You're incorrect on this one. The U-2 is being heavily used for recon.

[Jay Honeck]

> The Blackbird used afterburning in all supersonic flight.

The Blackbird used afterburners to accelerate for takeoff, and to achieve
supersonic flight, not unlike the Concorde.

At speeds above 2000 mph, however, the J-58 engines became ramjets, and
operated in supercruise, enabling Mach 3+ flight for anywhere from 2500 to
3300 miles without refueling.

The unique thing about the Blackbird was that the faster it went, the faster
it could go. The only thing limiting its top speed was heat -- the engines
and airframe aerodynamics would have allowed even higher speeds, except that
critical things started to melt.

Still, it flew faster than a rifle bullet for hours on end -- a truly
remarkable aircraft.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Which part of its middle? And what's your source, anyway?


--
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Dima Volodin" > wrote in message
news:U1Rnc.23121$iy5.4285@okepread05...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:yLQnc.64372$0H1.6146627@attbi_s54...
> > > Yes, and when was the last time the Blackbird actually overflew the
Soviet
> > > Union? '70s? '60s? It usually flew from Japan up the Kamchatka
peninsula
> > > staying out of Soviet airspace.
> >
> > It also flew directly across the middle of the Soviet Union on many
> > occasions.
>
>
> > Jay Honeck
>
> Dima
>

[Jay Honeck]

> > Which part of its middle? And what's your source, anyway?

Whoops -- shouldn't hit "Send" until you've written something...

Lots of things happened with the A-12, YF-12A, and SR-71 that haven't hit
the history books yet, Dima.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Rapoport]

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here but the air was bled
off the fourth stage compressor section and ducted to the afterburner
section where the fuel came out the afterburner nozzles and all the
combustion took place in the AB. The J58s were not ramjets but more of a
hybred. Pratt called them "dual cycle turbo-ramjets". It isn't true that
"the faster it flew the faster it could go", like all aircraft it has all
sorts of limits only one of which is temperature. I have the flight manual
for the SR-71 minus the recon and defensive systems.

It is my favorite aircraft too but I can't help objecting when someone calls
an aircraft "invulnerable". It is the same as calling a ship "unsinkable".
Most of the unsinkable ships can be found on the bottom of the ocean.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:5fSnc.66286$kh4.3904147@attbi_s52...
> > The Blackbird used afterburning in all supersonic flight.
>
> The Blackbird used afterburners to accelerate for takeoff, and to achieve
> supersonic flight, not unlike the Concorde.
>
> At speeds above 2000 mph, however, the J-58 engines became ramjets, and
> operated in supercruise, enabling Mach 3+ flight for anywhere from 2500 to
> 3300 miles without refueling.
>
> The unique thing about the Blackbird was that the faster it went, the
faster
> it could go. The only thing limiting its top speed was heat -- the
engines
> and airframe aerodynamics would have allowed even higher speeds, except
that
> critical things started to melt.
>
> Still, it flew faster than a rifle bullet for hours on end -- a truly
> remarkable aircraft.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Teacherjh]

>>
The unique thing about the Blackbird was that the faster it went, the faster
it could go.
<<

An intriguing statement, but what does it actually mean?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Lots of things happened with the A-12, YF-12A, and SR-71 that haven't hit
> the history books yet, Dima.

Ok, then where are *you* getting it from?

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Actually, the Blackbird, with it's *sideways* looking cameras, ....

When you're 20 miles up, no recon photo is *sideways*.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[John T]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:yLQnc.64372$0H1.6146627@attbi_s54
>
> Because the Blackbird was able to maintain speeds better than Mach
> 3.3+ without afterburners (I.E.: "Super cruise")'

It just so happens that a former client of mine was a Blackbird pilot and he
gave me an unclassified version of the flight manual. It completely fills a
3-inch 3-ring binder and is sitting in my closet.

Afterburners were used throughout supersonic flight. I think you may be
confusing the fact that roughly 80% of the engines' thrust was derived from
the spike-controlled intake.

The first operational US aircraft with supercruise capability is the F-22
Raptor.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[John T]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message

>
> As far as I know, the US NEVER disregarded the treaty they signed
> with the Soviets to stop recon overflights after Frank Gary Powers
> was shot down. So the SR-71 probably never flew directly over the
> USSR.

Was that a treaty or merely a promise Eisenhower made to Kruschev after the
Powers affair?

The US promoted and continues to promote an "open skies" policy that would
allow both countries to overfly the other (with an escort, of course).

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Jay Honeck]

> The unique thing about the Blackbird was that the faster it went, the
faster
> it could go.
> <<
>
> An intriguing statement, but what does it actually mean?

The faster it went, the more thrust the ramjet engines could produce.

To a point, of course. Eventually, at somewhere around Mach 3.5, the
limits of metallurgy were reached.

Or, at least, that's what Bill TELLS us happened. Methinks he knows a whole
lot more than he can divulge...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> The first operational US aircraft with supercruise capability is the F-22
> Raptor.

The first operational FIGHTER with supercruise capability is the F-22.

I think there is some confusion over what constitutes "using the
afterburner" in high mach cruise flight in the SR-71.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> When you're 20 miles up, no recon photo is *sideways*.

The oblique camera angles shot from a Blackbird were a lot more "sideways"
than the Keyhole photos taken from geosynchronous orbit.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Yes, and when was the last time the Blackbird actually overflew the Soviet
> Union? '70s? '60s?

During the fall of the Soviet Union.

>It usually flew from Japan up the Kamchatka peninsula
> staying out of Soviet airspace.

Not always.

>
> Mike
> MU-2

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Hi Jay,

> I think there is some confusion over what constitutes "using the
> afterburner" in high mach cruise flight in the SR-71.

Could it be, that in fact the afterburners were used in something of a
ramjet operation mode rather than the turbojets combustion chamber?
Ramjet means, that the air is compressed by shock waves at the engine
inlet before combustion, but you have to inject the fuel somewhere. My
guess is, that the combustion in ramjet mode took place in the
afterburners.

That would mean that you both are correct :-)

regards,
Friedrich


--
for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:yLQnc.64372$0H1.6146627@attbi_s54...
> > Yes, and when was the last time the Blackbird actually overflew the
Soviet
> > Union? '70s? '60s? It usually flew from Japan up the Kamchatka
peninsula
> > staying out of Soviet airspace.
>
> It also flew directly across the middle of the Soviet Union on many
> occasions. And China.
>
> Both countries saw them coming. The Soviets would scramble their MiG-25s,
> also capable of Mach 3+ speeds, in an effort to meet the threat.
>
> Because the Blackbird was able to maintain speeds better than Mach 3.3+
> without afterburners (I.E.: "Super cruise"), and because it was flying
> nearly 20 miles high, the MiGs -- with their inability to fly that fast
> without fuel-guzzling afterburners -- would simply run out of fuel, time,
or
> both before interception.

Did MiG25 pilots ahve full space suits that would permit flight above 50,000
feet?

I don't think it was built for that sort of interception.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Jay Honeck" > said:
> >> Yes, and when was the last time the Blackbird actually overflew the
Soviet
> >> Union? '70s? '60s? It usually flew from Japan up the Kamchatka
peninsula
> >> staying out of Soviet airspace.
> >
> >It also flew directly across the middle of the Soviet Union on many
> >occasions. And China.
>
> As far as I know, the US NEVER disregarded the treaty they signed with the
> Soviets to stop recon overflights after Frank Gary Powers was shot down.
> So the SR-71 probably never flew directly over the USSR.
>
Think they'd tell you? Or me? Or us?

[SKYKING195]

> It usually flew from Japan up the Kamchatka peninsula

It also flew out of a base in England according to my hangar neighbor who was a
base commander there.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Tom Sixkiller" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>> As far as I know, the US NEVER disregarded the treaty they signed with the
>> Soviets to stop recon overflights after Frank Gary Powers was shot down.
>> So the SR-71 probably never flew directly over the USSR.
>>
>Think they'd tell you? Or me? Or us?

The Soviets might not have been able to reach it, but their radar could.
If they knew that the US was breaching the agreement, do you think they
would have been silent about it?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more
interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim ."
E. W. Dijkstra

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Tom Sixkiller" > said:
> >"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> As far as I know, the US NEVER disregarded the treaty they signed with
the
> >> Soviets to stop recon overflights after Frank Gary Powers was shot
down.
> >> So the SR-71 probably never flew directly over the USSR.
> >>
> >Think they'd tell you? Or me? Or us?
>
> The Soviets might not have been able to reach it, but their radar could.
> If they knew that the US was breaching the agreement, do you think they
> would have been silent about it?
>
Given all the violations they committed, yes.

[Jay Honeck]

> That would mean that you both are correct :-)

You said it very well -- thanks.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> The Soviets might not have been able to reach it, but their radar could.
> If they knew that the US was breaching the agreement, do you think they
> would have been silent about it?

Would *we* admit that there were aircraft over-flying the United States that
we were unable to intercept?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Rapoport]

For that to be possible, the power would have to increase as the cube of the
speed meaning that the airflow would also have to increase as the cube. The
pressure at the inlet only increases as the square of the speed. If it were
true, it would be very easy to build a M5 airplane with carbon/carbon or
ceramic leading edges.

Mike
MU-2



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:oJXnc.8622$UQ.500187@attbi_s51...
> > The unique thing about the Blackbird was that the faster it went, the
> faster
> > it could go.
> > <<
> >
> > An intriguing statement, but what does it actually mean?
>
> The faster it went, the more thrust the ramjet engines could produce.
>
> To a point, of course. Eventually, at somewhere around Mach 3.5, the
> limits of metallurgy were reached.
>
> Or, at least, that's what Bill TELLS us happened. Methinks he knows a
whole
> lot more than he can divulge...
>
> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:u63oc.70255$kh4.4120996@attbi_s52...
> > The Soviets might not have been able to reach it, but their radar could.
> > If they knew that the US was breaching the agreement, do you think they
> > would have been silent about it?
>
> Would *we* admit that there were aircraft over-flying the United States
that
> we were unable to intercept?

IIRC Russian Spy Ships DOCKED IN OUR PORTS and we did nothing as it was
Politically INcorrect...détente and all.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
link.net...
> For that to be possible, the power would have to increase as the cube of
the
> speed meaning that the airflow would also have to increase as the cube.
The
> pressure at the inlet only increases as the square of the speed. If it
were
> true, it would be very easy to build a M5 airplane with carbon/carbon or
> ceramic leading edges.
>
Oh, God!!! I wish I paid attention during Calculus class!!

[John T]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:6NXnc.66431$0H1.6357735@attbi_s54
>
> The first operational FIGHTER with supercruise capability is the F-22.

No, I said it correctly the first time. :)

> I think there is some confusion over what constitutes "using the
> afterburner" in high mach cruise flight in the SR-71.

Are the afterburners lit on the Blackbird during supersonic flight? Yes.
What's the definition of "supercruise" engines? Supersonic speed without
afterburner. Where's the confusion? :)

Or is there another operational US aircraft that you're thinking of?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[John T]

"SKYKING195" > wrote in message

>
> It also flew out of a base in England according to my hangar neighbor
> who was a base commander there.

Mildenhall, I think.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[John T]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:oJXnc.8622$UQ.500187@attbi_s51
>
> To a point, of course. Eventually, at somewhere around Mach 3.5, the
> limits of metallurgy were reached.
>
> Or, at least, that's what Bill TELLS us happened. Methinks he knows
> a whole lot more than he can divulge...

Those limits may be a good deal higher than Mach 3.5. I only have his word
to go on, but that client of mine claims he "accidentally" got the 'Bird up
to Mach 4.1 once after entering a shallow dive.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Dima Volodin]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:3sSnc.65083$0H1.6177515@attbi_s54...
> > > Which part of its middle? And what's your source, anyway?
>
> Whoops -- shouldn't hit "Send" until you've written something...
>
> Lots of things happened with the A-12, YF-12A, and SR-71 that haven't hit
> the history books yet, Dima.

Every history book I've read, every Discovery and History channel feature I've
seen, and every anecdotal evidence from my friends who used to be on the Soviet
Air Defence force tell me that SR-71 planes wouldn't venture deep into the
Soviet territory (the way U-2, RB-47s and some others did with sometimes
catastrophic results). Instead, all they did were border perimeter flights with,
perhaps, an occasional dash across Kamchatka or Chukotka. So that's why I'm
asking - exactly what do you mean by "the middle of the Soviet Union" and what's
your source that's supposedly better then mine?

> Jay Honeck

Dima

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 15:27:56 +0000, Thomas J. Paladino Jr. wrote:

>
> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 10 May 2004 14:37:54 +0000, John T wrote:
>>
>> > "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I believe news reports leading up to the current Afgan and Iraqi wars,
>> >> cited U2's being used. I know some of the photos that were shown to
>> >> the UN where from a U2. So, I think U2's are still in general use.
>> >
>> > I think you'll find that "U-2" these days actually refers to the latest
>> > variant, the TR-1.
>>
>> Fair enough. Would you be able to point me at some pictures of that
>> sucker?
>>
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/u-2_pics.htm
>
> And some good info:
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/u-2.htm

Thanks. I understand now that he was being pedantic. TR or not, it's a
friggen U-2.

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 16:53:22 +0000, Mike Rapoport wrote:

> Nothing is invulnerable. All that was required to shoot down the Blackbird
> is a networked radar system that could track it before it came over the
> horizon and a SAM with enough fuel to reach 80,000'. Sooner or later one
> would be shot down. The solution is a plane that you are willing to lose,
> like a UAV.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>


I thought these things flew at 80k+. I've heard rumors of 100k plus.

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 15:27:23 +0000, John T wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:oJXnc.8622$UQ.500187@attbi_s51
>>
>> To a point, of course. Eventually, at somewhere around Mach 3.5, the
>> limits of metallurgy were reached.
>>
>> Or, at least, that's what Bill TELLS us happened. Methinks he knows
>> a whole lot more than he can divulge...
>
> Those limits may be a good deal higher than Mach 3.5. I only have his word
> to go on, but that client of mine claims he "accidentally" got the 'Bird up
> to Mach 4.1 once after entering a shallow dive.

I too have heard "rumors" from an ex-blackbird pilot that stated speeds
over mach 4 were within limits. He would not explain further.

[Dima Volodin]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:tOXnc.67372$Ik.5023508@attbi_s53...
> > When you're 20 miles up, no recon photo is *sideways*.
>
> The oblique camera angles shot from a Blackbird were a lot more "sideways"
> than the Keyhole photos taken from geosynchronous orbit.

A Keyhole satellite on a geosynchronous orbit? Jay, you might really, _really_
want to check your sources.

> Jay Honeck

Dima

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 09:21:20 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

>
> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
> .
>>
>>
>> We
>> would of never found these planes otherwise.
>
> Why not? The tail of one of these airplanes was sticking out of the sand
> when it was found. Why didn't the Aurora, the U-2, the satellites, the
> drones, the reconnaissance Piper Cub, or anyone on the ground see it?

Never heard that detail offered before. Just the same, it's doubtful that
a tail barely sticking up is going to show up on anyone's "radar". Having
said that, the soldiers that were there were quoted as saying
(paraphrasing here), "we never would of found it if it had not been
pointed out." Of course, those statements could of been politicized
to support the why-no-WMD arguments. Where did you get the information
saying that the fins were sticking out of the ground? The pictures I'm
looking at *appear* to show, that the top of fins would be at least equal
to ground level.

[Mike Rapoport]

They indeed flew at 80k' and above but the highest credible altitude I have
heard (in level flight) is 86k' That was from a Blackbird pilot at Beale.

Mike
MU-2


"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 16:53:22 +0000, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> > Nothing is invulnerable. All that was required to shoot down the
Blackbird
> > is a networked radar system that could track it before it came over the
> > horizon and a SAM with enough fuel to reach 80,000'. Sooner or later
one
> > would be shot down. The solution is a plane that you are willing to
lose,
> > like a UAV.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
>
>
> I thought these things flew at 80k+. I've heard rumors of 100k plus.
>
>

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:10:17 -0400, Dima Volodin wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:tOXnc.67372$Ik.5023508@attbi_s53...
>> > When you're 20 miles up, no recon photo is *sideways*.
>>
>> The oblique camera angles shot from a Blackbird were a lot more "sideways"
>> than the Keyhole photos taken from geosynchronous orbit.
>
> A Keyhole satellite on a geosynchronous orbit? Jay, you might really, _really_
> want to check your sources.
>
>> Jay Honeck
>
> Dima

Good point. Last I heard, most (none?) of our spy sats were in a
geosynchronous orbit because the orbit would place them too high to be of
intelligence value. Thusly, we have sats in lower orbit which is why the
sat pass duration and frequency is generally known, making it far easier
to hide from the spy sats.

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:19:03 -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:

> On Mon, 10 May 2004 09:21:20 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
>
>>
>> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> .
>>>
>>>
>>> We
>>> would of never found these planes otherwise.
>>
>> Why not? The tail of one of these airplanes was sticking out of the sand
>> when it was found. Why didn't the Aurora, the U-2, the satellites, the
>> drones, the reconnaissance Piper Cub, or anyone on the ground see it?
>
> Never heard that detail offered before. Just the same, it's doubtful that
> a tail barely sticking up is going to show up on anyone's "radar". Having
> said that, the soldiers that were there were quoted as saying
> (paraphrasing here), "we never would of found it if it had not been
> pointed out." Of course, those statements could of been politicized
> to support the why-no-WMD arguments. Where did you get the information
> saying that the fins were sticking out of the ground? The pictures I'm
> looking at *appear* to show, that the top of fins would be at least equal
> to ground level.

Correction here. I found a picture which did show the tail of a plane
above ground. It was covered with cammo netting.

Cheers!

[alexy]

David CL Francis > wrote:

>On Sun, 9 May 2004 at 03:44:29 in message
>,
> Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>
>>Simply put, we don't need supersonic speeds to loiter over terrorist hot
>>spots. Their weapons are short-ranged, so an armed TR-2 or Global Hawk
>>or something else that has a high loiter time will do the job, as the
>>British say, "spiffily."
>
>I am British but, to the best of my knowledge, I have never said
>'spiffily' in my entire life. (Except after reading your message - just
>to try what it might sound like.)

You need to watch more Hollywood movies to learn how to affect a
British accent! <g>

This affectation is brought to you by the same people who use "y'all"
in the singular when trying to imitate an accent from the US South.
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[Dan Luke]

"alexy" wrote:
> This affectation is brought to you by the same people
> who use "y'all" in the singular when trying to imitate an
> accent from the US South.

Yup, it's a pet peeve of mine. Hollywood never gets it right.

It's a "hyper-ruralism," an error caused by trying too hard to sound
country, the opposite of another pet peeve of mine, the "he and I"
hyperurbanism, as in "Jane took John and I to dinner."
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[John T]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message

>
> Thanks. I understand now that he was being pedantic. TR or not,
> it's a friggen U-2.

No, it's a TR-1. Do you call a Skylane a Skyhawk? Same basic airframe,
perhaps, but different capabilities. Calling a TR-1 a U-2 only perpetuates
and reinforces media ignorance - something we all seem to rail against on a
somewhat regular basis.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:14:02 +0000, John T wrote:

> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> Thanks. I understand now that he was being pedantic. TR or not,
>> it's a friggen U-2.
>
> No, it's a TR-1. Do you call a Skylane a Skyhawk? Same basic airframe,
> perhaps, but different capabilities. Calling a TR-1 a U-2 only perpetuates
> and reinforces media ignorance - something we all seem to rail against on a
> somewhat regular basis.

Ya, I can see the news bench breaking their neck for that correction.

"This just in! It seems that even though it doesn't change the story at
all and the plane looks the same, what we previously put forth as a U-2 is
really a TR-1. We realize many of you will have to restart life from
scratch again because of this mistake. We, are, sorry."

The point? No one really cares in this case unless you are a plane buff
or the guy actually flying the mission. People know what a U-2 is. Most
people don't know what a TR-1 is. Like it or not, you can thank Gary
Powers for that.

Like I said, pedantic. It's a friggen "U-2".

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Greg Copeland > said:
>or the guy actually flying the mission. People know what a U-2 is. Most
>people don't know what a TR-1 is. Like it or not, you can thank Gary
>Powers for that.
>
>Like I said, pedantic. It's a friggen "U-2".

Speaking of pedantic - it's "Francis Gary Powers" or sometimes "Frank
Powers". He hated being called "Gary".


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
When C++ is your hammer, everything looks like a thumb.
-- Steven M. Haflich

[Greg Copeland]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:28:25 +0000, Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, Greg Copeland > said:
>>or the guy actually flying the mission. People know what a U-2 is. Most
>>people don't know what a TR-1 is. Like it or not, you can thank Gary
>>Powers for that.
>>
>>Like I said, pedantic. It's a friggen "U-2".
>
> Speaking of pedantic - it's "Francis Gary Powers" or sometimes "Frank
> Powers". He hated being called "Gary".

Hehe. I didn't know that. I just couldn't remember his first name and
too lazy to do a quick search. I guess he was stuck with "Gary" because he
didn't take his pill as instructed. :O ;-)

[John T]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message

>
> "This just in! It seems that even though it doesn't change the story
> at all and the plane looks the same, what we previously put forth as
> a U-2 is really a TR-1. We realize many of you will have to restart
> life from scratch again because of this mistake. We, are, sorry."

You can exercise your privilege to be a smart-ass, if you'd like, but they
are different planes. The TR-1 has equipment pods under the wings and an
elongated nose cone. This isn't quite the same thing as arguing over the
difference between a 737-100 vs a 737-400. The military calls it a TR-1.
The manufacturer calls it a TR-1.

> No one really cares in this case unless you are a plane buff...

I thought that was why we were all here. Oh, and plane buffs call it a
TR-1, too.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Greg Copeland]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 01:51:06 +0000, John T wrote:

> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> "This just in! It seems that even though it doesn't change the story
>> at all and the plane looks the same, what we previously put forth as
>> a U-2 is really a TR-1. We realize many of you will have to restart
>> life from scratch again because of this mistake. We, are, sorry."
>
> You can exercise your privilege to be a smart-ass,

I think I did. ;)

> if you'd like, but they
> are different planes.

I think that was established.

> The TR-1 has equipment pods under the wings and an
> elongated nose cone.

Which is really neither here nor there considering pictures nor accurate
identification of the planes were in question.

> This isn't quite the same thing as arguing over the
> difference between a 737-100 vs a 737-400. The military calls it a TR-1.
> The manufacturer calls it a TR-1.

Considering the dispute originated from news media that stated "U-2
photographs" as a source for some of the pictures. At that point in time,
arguing over a plane that was never shown is pretty silly.

>
>> No one really cares in this case unless you are a plane buff...
>
> I thought that was why we were all here. Oh, and plane buffs call it a
> TR-1, too.

So are you saying that all U-2s have been replaced by TR-1s? And yes, the
plane buff in me is asking. I wonder if I still have my copy of Embedded
Linux which I believe states a U-2 was being used.

Aside from the technical differences, the point remains, as it relates to
the thread at hand, there is no difference that is germane. In other
words, calling it a U-2 or TR-1, doesn't change anything and I had already
accepted the fact that technically, it may well be a TR-1.

[alexy]

"Dan Luke" > wrote:

>
>"alexy" wrote:
> > This affectation is brought to you by the same people
>> who use "y'all" in the singular when trying to imitate an
>> accent from the US South.
>
>Yup, it's a pet peeve of mine. Hollywood never gets it right.
>
>It's a "hyper-ruralism," an error caused by trying too hard to sound
>country, the opposite of another pet peeve of mine, the "he and I"
>hyperurbanism, as in "Jane took John and I to dinner."

Yikes! I think I just heard fingernails scraping across a chalk board!
(Guess I'm dating myself there<g>.)
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[John Godwin]

Greg Copeland > wrote in
:

> Fair enough. Would you be able to point me at some pictures of
> that sucker?

I was fortunate enough to have a NASA negative enlarged into a 30x40
picture of a TR-1 which is prominently displayed in my home. Sometime
ago, NASA allowed enlargments to be purchased through NASA contractors;
dunno if they still do that.

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT from email address)

[Jay Beckman]

"alexy" > wrote in message
...
> David CL Francis > wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 9 May 2004 at 03:44:29 in message
> >,
> > Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> >
> >>Simply put, we don't need supersonic speeds to loiter over terrorist hot
> >>spots. Their weapons are short-ranged, so an armed TR-2 or Global Hawk
> >>or something else that has a high loiter time will do the job, as the
> >>British say, "spiffily."
> >
> >I am British but, to the best of my knowledge, I have never said
> >'spiffily' in my entire life. (Except after reading your message - just
> >to try what it might sound like.)
>
> You need to watch more Hollywood movies to learn how to affect a
> British accent! <g>
>
> This affectation is brought to you by the same people who use "y'all"
> in the singular when trying to imitate an accent from the US South.
> --
> Alex

Sorry Alex,

But the boys I work with on the NASCAR tour say:

"Y'All" is singular...

"All Y'All" is plural...

Jay Beckman
Student Pilot - KCHD
18.6 Hrs
Freelance Technician
NASCAR on FOX/NBC

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "alexy" wrote:
> > This affectation is brought to you by the same people
> > who use "y'all" in the singular when trying to imitate an
> > accent from the US South.
>
> Yup, it's a pet peeve of mine. Hollywood never gets it right.
>
> It's a "hyper-ruralism," an error caused by trying too hard to sound
> country, the opposite of another pet peeve of mine, the "he and I"
> hyperurbanism, as in "Jane took John and I to dinner."
> --


I use the 'he and I' all the time. Never thought *that* would be anyone's
pet peeve!

What other way is there to say it? I honestly can't imagine speaking any
other way.

(I did grow up in Manhattan)

[John T]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message

>
> So are you saying that all U-2s have been replaced by TR-1s? And
> yes, the plane buff in me is asking. I wonder if I still have my
> copy of Embedded Linux which I believe states a U-2 was being used.

It's my understanding that NASA still flies one or two U-2's, but the Air
Force flies TR-1's.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[John T]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message

>
> I use the 'he and I' all the time. ...
>
> What other way is there to say it?

Drop the "he" and say the sentence. "Jane took I to dinner" just doesn't
sound right no matter what part of the country you're from. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[alexy]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote:

>"alexy" > wrote in message
...
>> David CL Francis > wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 9 May 2004 at 03:44:29 in message
>> >,
>> > Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Simply put, we don't need supersonic speeds to loiter over terrorist hot
>> >>spots. Their weapons are short-ranged, so an armed TR-2 or Global Hawk
>> >>or something else that has a high loiter time will do the job, as the
>> >>British say, "spiffily."
>> >
>> >I am British but, to the best of my knowledge, I have never said
>> >'spiffily' in my entire life. (Except after reading your message - just
>> >to try what it might sound like.)
>>
>> You need to watch more Hollywood movies to learn how to affect a
>> British accent! <g>
>>
>> This affectation is brought to you by the same people who use "y'all"
>> in the singular when trying to imitate an accent from the US South.
>> --
>> Alex
>
>Sorry Alex,
>
>But the boys I work with on the NASCAR tour say:
>
>"Y'All" is singular...
>
>"All Y'All" is plural...
>
>Jay Beckman
>Student Pilot - KCHD

Never heard that in my 50+ years in the south. But I don't run with
the NASCAR crowd. Maybe it's unique to them.
>18.6 Hrs
>Freelance Technician
>NASCAR on FOX/NBC
>

--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[Greg Copeland]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 12:21:26 +0000, alexy wrote:

>>
>>But the boys I work with on the NASCAR tour say:
>>
>>"Y'All" is singular...
>>
>>"All Y'All" is plural...
>>
>>Jay Beckman
>>Student Pilot - KCHD
>
> Never heard that in my 50+ years in the south. But I don't run with
> the NASCAR crowd. Maybe it's unique to them.

I'm in Texas and he's got it nailed. Though I have seen Y'All used for
both singual and plural too.

[Greg Copeland]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:37:13 +0000, John T wrote:

> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> So are you saying that all U-2s have been replaced by TR-1s? And
>> yes, the plane buff in me is asking. I wonder if I still have my
>> copy of Embedded Linux which I believe states a U-2 was being used.
>
> It's my understanding that NASA still flies one or two U-2's, but the Air
> Force flies TR-1's.

Thanks.

[Bill Denton]

I'm sure most of you remember that wonderful collection of Communist
ingenuity and tin cans known as the "Yugo" automobile?

But since it was never imported into the US, I doubt if many of you know
they also produced a mini-van model. It was called the "Y'all-go"!



"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 12:21:26 +0000, alexy wrote:
>
> >>
> >>But the boys I work with on the NASCAR tour say:
> >>
> >>"Y'All" is singular...
> >>
> >>"All Y'All" is plural...
> >>
> >>Jay Beckman
> >>Student Pilot - KCHD
> >
> > Never heard that in my 50+ years in the south. But I don't run with
> > the NASCAR crowd. Maybe it's unique to them.
>
> I'm in Texas and he's got it nailed. Though I have seen Y'All used for
> both singual and plural too.
>
>

[alexy]

"Bill Denton" > wrote:

>I'm sure most of you remember that wonderful collection of Communist
>ingenuity and tin cans known as the "Yugo" automobile?
>
>But since it was never imported into the US, I doubt if many of you know
>they also produced a mini-van model. It was called the "Y'all-go"!
ROTFL!
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote:
>
> > It's a "hyper-ruralism," an error caused by trying too hard to sound
> > country, the opposite of another pet peeve of mine, the "he and I"
> > hyperurbanism, as in "Jane took John and I to dinner."
> > --
>
> I use the 'he and I' all the time. Never thought *that* would be anyone's
> pet peeve!
>
> What other way is there to say it? I honestly can't imagine speaking any
> other way.

The proper usage in the example provided is "Jane took John and me to dinner." If
you're unsure, mentally remove the other person from the sentence. You would never
say "Jane took I to dinner". "He and I" would be correct usage as the subject of a
sentence.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Beckman wrote:
>
> But the boys I work with on the NASCAR tour say:
>
> "Y'All" is singular...
>
> "All Y'All" is plural...

They're playing tricks on the Yankee.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Bill Denton" > writes:

> I'm sure most of you remember that wonderful collection of Communist
> ingenuity and tin cans known as the "Yugo" automobile?
>
> But since it was never imported into the US, I doubt if many of you know
> they also produced a mini-van model. It was called the "Y'all-go"!

I heard there was a stretch limo version, custom-built for Bill Cosby
-- the Yugo Long!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 08:41:38 -0500, "Bill Denton"
> wrote:

>But since it was never imported into the US, I doubt if many of you know
>they also produced a mini-van model. It was called the "Y'all-go"!

But it was. I remember seeing it here and there and considered it a
sighting coup, due to the tiny number of them.

Corky Scott

[Dan Luke]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
> You would never
> say "Jane took I to dinner".

You and I wouldn't, but an ex-jock commentator on ESPN definitely would;
I've heard him do it.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Beckman" wrote:
>
> "Y'All" is singular...
>
> "All Y'All" is plural...

Baloney. No native Southern speaker uses ya'll in the singular unless
he's been corrupted. "All ya'll" is a redundancy for emphasis, common
in Southern speech.

"Ya'll" is a perfectly good word, IMO, that makes up for the lack of a
distinct second person pleural pronoun in English. It's time everyone
adopted it and used it properly!
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[alexy]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:

>
>
>Jay Beckman wrote:
>>
>> But the boys I work with on the NASCAR tour say:
>>
>> "Y'All" is singular...
>>
>> "All Y'All" is plural...
>
>They're playing tricks on the Yankee.

Yeah, I think so, too. Probably planning to take him out to pick grits
next time they see him! <g>

--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[Ron Natalie]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:tOXnc.67372$Ik.5023508@attbi_s53...
> > When you're 20 miles up, no recon photo is *sideways*.
>
> The oblique camera angles shot from a Blackbird were a lot more "sideways"
> than the Keyhole photos taken from geosynchronous orbit.

Very few satellite shots are right at nadir either. We have special code in our software
to compute the "up" angle that the squints like to have their images rotated.

Keyhole is not in geosynchronous orbit. They are in (undisclosed) polar elliptical orbits.

[Dima Volodin]

Bill Denton wrote:
>
> I'm sure most of you remember that wonderful collection of Communist
> ingenuity and tin cans known as the "Yugo" automobile?
>
> But since it was never imported into the US, I doubt if many of you know
> they also produced a mini-van model. It was called the "Y'all-go"!

The word "Yugo" is (not quite directly) derived from the common Slavic
root for "south". Not that it's got anything to do with anything. :-)


Dima

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote:
> >
> > > It's a "hyper-ruralism," an error caused by trying too hard to sound
> > > country, the opposite of another pet peeve of mine, the "he and I"
> > > hyperurbanism, as in "Jane took John and I to dinner."
> > > --
> >
> > I use the 'he and I' all the time. Never thought *that* would be
anyone's
> > pet peeve!
> >
> > What other way is there to say it? I honestly can't imagine speaking any
> > other way.
>
> The proper usage in the example provided is "Jane took John and me to
dinner." If
> you're unsure, mentally remove the other person from the sentence. You
would never
> say "Jane took I to dinner". "He and I" would be correct usage as the
subject of a
> sentence.
>

The instructors at Pierce would surely disagree with you; I was taught that
it was supremely poor grammar to use 'me' in that way. "Only philllistenes
speak in such a manner" I can clearly remember my third grade teacher
explaining when a student used poor grammar.

"Jane took John and I to dinner." or "Jane took John and myself to dinner."
are the two ways we specifically learned that sentence. Any insertion of
'me' into those sentences would have earned us a scolding.

[Journeyman]

In article >, Thomas J. Paladino Jr. wrote:
>>
>> The proper usage in the example provided is "Jane took John and me to
> dinner." If
>> you're unsure, mentally remove the other person from the sentence. You
> would never
>> say "Jane took I to dinner". "He and I" would be correct usage as the
> subject of a
>> sentence.
>>
>
> The instructors at Pierce would surely disagree with you; I was taught that
> it was supremely poor grammar to use 'me' in that way. "Only philllistenes
> speak in such a manner" I can clearly remember my third grade teacher
> explaining when a student used poor grammar.
>
> "Jane took John and I to dinner." or "Jane took John and myself to dinner."
> are the two ways we specifically learned that sentence. Any insertion of
> 'me' into those sentences would have earned us a scolding.

If true, said instructors are idiots. It's "Jane took John and me to
dinner", but "John and I went to dinner with Jane". The difference
between using "I" and "me" is the difference between the subject and
object of a sentence. It's the same error people have using "who" and
"whom" (who is doing what to whom).

This happens to be one of my pet peeves. People have been corrected
so often for saying "me and John", they just blindly say "John and I"
without understanding the underlying grammatical rule.


ObAviation: why is it, when I'm flying solo, I still tell controllers
"we're going to do <something>"?


Morris

[Gary Drescher]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's a "hyper-ruralism," an error caused by trying too hard to sound
> > > > country, the opposite of another pet peeve of mine, the "he and I"
> > > > hyperurbanism, as in "Jane took John and I to dinner."
> > > > --
> > >
> > > I use the 'he and I' all the time. Never thought *that* would be
> anyone's
> > > pet peeve!
> > >
> > > What other way is there to say it? I honestly can't imagine speaking
any
> > > other way.
> >
> > The proper usage in the example provided is "Jane took John and me to
> dinner." If
> > you're unsure, mentally remove the other person from the sentence. You
> would never
> > say "Jane took I to dinner". "He and I" would be correct usage as the
> subject of a
> > sentence.
> >
>
> The instructors at Pierce would surely disagree with you; I was taught
that
> it was supremely poor grammar to use 'me' in that way. "Only philllistenes
> speak in such a manner" I can clearly remember my third grade teacher
> explaining when a student used poor grammar.
>
> "Jane took John and I to dinner." or "Jane took John and myself to
dinner."
> are the two ways we specifically learned that sentence. Any insertion of
> 'me' into those sentences would have earned us a scolding.

Either you're mis-remembering what your third grade teacher said, or you're
entitled to a tuition refund from Pierce. :) Are you sure the teacher wasn't
just objecting to sentences such as "John and me took Jane to dinner"? In
*that* sentence, "I" is correct, not "me". But people often overgeneralize
that correction; instead of learning to use "I" instead of "me" as a
subject, they end up using "I" instead of "me" even as an object.

See, for example, Strunk and White's _The Elements of Style_, Chapter 1,
Elementary Rules of Usage.

--Gary

[Flyin'[email protected]]

> > The instructors at Pierce would surely disagree with you; I was taught
> that
> > it was supremely poor grammar to use 'me' in that way. "Only
> > philllistenes speak in such a manner" I can clearly remember my third
> > grade teacher explaining when a student used poor grammar.
> >
> > "Jane took John and I to dinner." or "Jane took John and myself to
> dinner."
> > are the two ways we specifically learned that sentence. Any insertion
> > of 'me' into those sentences would have earned us a scolding.
>
> Either you're mis-remembering what your third grade teacher said, or
> you're entitled to a tuition refund from Pierce. :) Are you sure the
> teacher wasn't just objecting to sentences such as "John and me took Jane
> to dinner"? In *that* sentence, "I" is correct, not "me". But people
> often overgeneralize that correction; instead of learning to use "I"
> instead of "me" as a subject, they end up using "I" instead of "me" even
> as an object.
> --Gary

A quick rule of thumb, If you can remove the first part of the sentence,
and it still makes sense, you have the correct pronoun.

For example in the abve metioned sentence, "Jane took John and (I/me) to
dinner."

"Jane took I to dinner." or "Jane took me to dinner."

So in the sentence, the proper word is 'me', "Jane took John and me to
dinner."

or

"Jane and (I/me) went to dinner."

"I went to dinner." or "Me went to dinner."

--
Mike Flyin'8

[Gary Drescher]

> wrote in message
...
> > > The instructors at Pierce would surely disagree with you; I was taught
> > that
> > > it was supremely poor grammar to use 'me' in that way. "Only
> > > philllistenes speak in such a manner" I can clearly remember my third
> > > grade teacher explaining when a student used poor grammar.
> > >
> > > "Jane took John and I to dinner." or "Jane took John and myself to
> > dinner."
> > > are the two ways we specifically learned that sentence. Any insertion
> > > of 'me' into those sentences would have earned us a scolding.
> >
> > Either you're mis-remembering what your third grade teacher said, or
> > you're entitled to a tuition refund from Pierce. :) Are you sure the
> > teacher wasn't just objecting to sentences such as "John and me took
Jane
> > to dinner"? In *that* sentence, "I" is correct, not "me". But people
> > often overgeneralize that correction; instead of learning to use "I"
> > instead of "me" as a subject, they end up using "I" instead of "me" even
> > as an object.
> > --Gary
>
> A quick rule of thumb, If you can remove the first part of the sentence,
> and it still makes sense, you have the correct pronoun.
>
> For example in the abve metioned sentence, "Jane took John and (I/me) to
> dinner."
>
> "Jane took I to dinner." or "Jane took me to dinner."
>
> So in the sentence, the proper word is 'me', "Jane took John and me to
> dinner."
>
> or
>
> "Jane and (I/me) went to dinner."
>
> "I went to dinner." or "Me went to dinner."

Yup. I mentioned that trick in a post a several hours ago that has yet to
show up on the servers, even though my later posts have appeared. Oh well,
it'll come through eventually. :)

--Gary



>
> --
> Mike Flyin'8

[alexy]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote:


>The instructors at Pierce would surely disagree with you; I was taught that
>it was supremely poor grammar to use 'me' in that way. "Only philllistenes
>speak in such a manner" I can clearly remember my third grade teacher
>explaining when a student used poor grammar.
>
>"Jane took John and I to dinner." or "Jane took John and myself to dinner."
>are the two ways we specifically learned that sentence. Any insertion of
>'me' into those sentences would have earned us a scolding.

Wow! You should really see if you could get a partial refund of
tuition due to this!

"I" is subjective, "me" is objective, and "myself" is reflexive.
And the rules don't change for singular versus plural.

I went to dinner, or Bob and I went to dinner
Jane took me to dinner, or Jane took Bob and me to dinner
I drove myself to the restaurant or I drove Bob and myself to the
restaurant.

I am the only one who can take myself to dinner, just as you are the
only one who can take yourself, she is the only one who can take
herself, etc.
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[alexy]

Journeyman > wrote:



>ObAviation: why is it, when I'm flying solo, I still tell controllers
>"we're going to do <something>"?

The plane is going to be doing it with you, right? <g>

--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[alexy]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote:



>See, for example, Strunk and White's _The Elements of Style_, Chapter 1,
>Elementary Rules of Usage.
The bible of English usage. How can so much info be in such a tiny
book?!
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 16:50:06 -0400, Ron Natalie wrote:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:eNJnc.63251$kh4.3830904@attbi_s52...
>
>> I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think the U-2 is actually being used for
>> recon anymore. High altitude research, yes, but I don't think they've sent
>> one over a hostile nation in many years.
>>
> You're incorrect on this one. The U-2 is being heavily used for recon.

Jonh T assures me that only TR-1s are being used. He even took me to task
to make sure I didn't forget it. So, which is it?

[Greg Copeland]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 20:14:08 +0000, Flyin'8 wrote:

>> > The instructors at Pierce would surely disagree with you; I was taught
>> that
>> > it was supremely poor grammar to use 'me' in that way. "Only
>> > philllistenes speak in such a manner" I can clearly remember my third
>> > grade teacher explaining when a student used poor grammar.
>> >
>> > "Jane took John and I to dinner." or "Jane took John and myself to
>> dinner."
>> > are the two ways we specifically learned that sentence. Any insertion
>> > of 'me' into those sentences would have earned us a scolding.
>>
>> Either you're mis-remembering what your third grade teacher said, or
>> you're entitled to a tuition refund from Pierce. :) Are you sure the
>> teacher wasn't just objecting to sentences such as "John and me took Jane
>> to dinner"? In *that* sentence, "I" is correct, not "me". But people
>> often overgeneralize that correction; instead of learning to use "I"
>> instead of "me" as a subject, they end up using "I" instead of "me" even
>> as an object.
>> --Gary
>
> A quick rule of thumb, If you can remove the first part of the sentence,
> and it still makes sense, you have the correct pronoun.
>
> For example in the abve metioned sentence, "Jane took John and (I/me) to
> dinner."
>
> "Jane took I to dinner." or "Jane took me to dinner."
>
> So in the sentence, the proper word is 'me', "Jane took John and me to
> dinner."
>
> or
>
> "Jane and (I/me) went to dinner."
>
> "I went to dinner." or "Me went to dinner."


That's the way I was taught it.

Funny how we're getting a grammer lesson in rec.aviation.piloting.

Hehe...

[Teacherjh]

>>
ObAviation: why is it, when I'm flying solo, I still tell controllers
"we're going to do <something>"?
<<

Because you're going to take the airplane with you, and airplanes are female.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Flyin'[email protected]]

Dunno if that way is correct, but at least I remember something from those
days long ago in school. Guess the tax dollars learned me something. :-)

> That's the way I was taught it.
>
> Funny how we're getting a grammer lesson in rec.aviation.piloting.
>
> Hehe...

--
Mike Flyin'8

[Flyin'[email protected]]

(Teacherjh) wrote:
> >>
> ObAviation: why is it, when I'm flying solo, I still tell controllers
> "we're going to do <something>"?
> <<
>
> Because you're going to take the airplane with you, and airplanes are
> female.
>
> Jose


Ah haha, well I always thought the airplane was taking me with it!

Mike

--
Mike Flyin'8

[alexy]

Greg Copeland > wrote:


>I'm in Texas and he's got it nailed. Though I have seen Y'All used for
>both singual and plural too.

But we are talking about the South, not Texas! Heck, I even hear that
you Texans think meat for barbecue comes from a steer, so what do you
know? <g>

(That should stir the pot!)
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[G.R. Patterson III]

alexy wrote:
>
> But we are talking about the South, not Texas! Heck, I even hear that
> you Texans think meat for barbecue comes from a steer, so what do you
> know? <g>

Naw! Anyone who's tasted Texas barbeque knows they don't use steers for that. Beef
would taste better than that. They must use polecats.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[Margy Natalie]

>
>
> This affectation is brought to you by the same people who use "y'all"
> in the singular when trying to imitate an accent from the US South.
> --

I know of at least one northerner who learned "y'all" when she moved to GA and
it was singular as "all y'all" was the plural in that region.

Margy

[alexy]

Margy Natalie > wrote:

>>
>>
>> This affectation is brought to you by the same people who use "y'all"
>> in the singular when trying to imitate an accent from the US South.
>> --
>
>I know of at least one northerner who learned "y'all" when she moved to GA and
>it was singular as "all y'all" was the plural in that region.

Someone was pulling her leg.

Alex (18 years in Birmingham, 4 in Memphis, and 24 in Atlanta, and
never once heard y'all as singular, except by people trying to fake a
Southern accent)

--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[Gary Drescher]

"alexy" > wrote in message
...
> Margy Natalie > wrote:
> >> This affectation is brought to you by the same people who use "y'all"
> >> in the singular when trying to imitate an accent from the US South.
> >> --
> >
> >I know of at least one northerner who learned "y'all" when she moved to
GA and
> >it was singular as "all y'all" was the plural in that region.
>
> Someone was pulling her leg.
>
> Alex (18 years in Birmingham, 4 in Memphis, and 24 in Atlanta, and
> never once heard y'all as singular, except by people trying to fake a
> Southern accent)

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines y'all as "YOU--usually used in
addressing two or more persons or sometimes one person as representing also
another or others".

--Gary

>
> --
> Alex
> Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[tony]

>
>> But we are talking about the South, not Texas! Heck, I even hear that
>> you Texans think meat for barbecue comes from a steer, so what do you

Sspeaking of U2s, I have a distinct memory of my first trip to Houston, where
the hotel was advertising that their beef was corn fed from Kansas.

CLEAR!

[alexy]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote:

>"alexy" > wrote in message
...
>> Margy Natalie > wrote:
>> >> This affectation is brought to you by the same people who use "y'all"
>> >> in the singular when trying to imitate an accent from the US South.
>> >> --
>> >
>> >I know of at least one northerner who learned "y'all" when she moved to
>GA and
>> >it was singular as "all y'all" was the plural in that region.
>>
>> Someone was pulling her leg.
>>
>> Alex (18 years in Birmingham, 4 in Memphis, and 24 in Atlanta, and
>> never once heard y'all as singular, except by people trying to fake a
>> Southern accent)
>
>The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines y'all as "YOU--usually used in
>addressing two or more persons or sometimes one person as representing also
>another or others".
>
>--Gary
>
That matches my experience. An example of the "sometimes" phrase is
when a non-southerner might say "all of you". Example:
You finish a meal in a diner, and the family goes off to use the
restrooms before hitting the road. The Southern witress comes up to
you alone and asks "Are y'all through" meaning "are all of you
through, so I can clear your places."
>> Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.
>

--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[Greg Copeland]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:53:53 +0000, Gary Drescher wrote:

> "alexy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Margy Natalie > wrote:
>> >> This affectation is brought to you by the same people who use "y'all"
>> >> in the singular when trying to imitate an accent from the US South.
>> >> --
>> >
>> >I know of at least one northerner who learned "y'all" when she moved to
> GA and
>> >it was singular as "all y'all" was the plural in that region.
>>
>> Someone was pulling her leg.
>>
>> Alex (18 years in Birmingham, 4 in Memphis, and 24 in Atlanta, and
>> never once heard y'all as singular, except by people trying to fake a
>> Southern accent)
>
> The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines y'all as "YOU--usually used in
> addressing two or more persons or sometimes one person as representing also
> another or others".
>


Exactly. So, if you stepped over to see a neighbor, and the neighbor
asked, "how y'all do'n?", he would be asking one of two things. He is
wanting to know how I'm doing or, how me and my family are doing. A
response which addresses either yourself and/or yourself and your family
is accepted. So, you can see it's being used either singularly or in the
plural (one person as presenting another or others). Your answer would
more than likely be guided by how long it had been since you last spoke
and by how much time you have to chew the fat.

Cheers!

[alexy]

Greg Copeland > wrote:

>On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:53:53 +0000, Gary Drescher wrote:

>> The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines y'all as "YOU--usually used in
>> addressing two or more persons or sometimes one person as representing also
>> another or others".
>>
>
>
>Exactly. So, if you stepped over to see a neighbor, and the neighbor
>asked, "how y'all do'n?", he would be asking one of two things. He is
>wanting to know how I'm doing
Not according to the definition posted above. He is clearly not
addressing two or more persons. Instead he is addressing one person as
representing also another (e.g. your wife) or others (e.g, your
family). So he might be asking how you and your wife are doing, or how
you and your family are doing, but not how just you are doing.
>or, how me and my family are doing. A
>response which addresses either yourself and/or yourself and your family
>is accepted. So, you can see it's being used either singularly or in the
>plural (one person as presenting another or others). Your answer would
>more than likely be guided by how long it had been since you last spoke
>and by how much time you have to chew the fat.

Just curious -- any experience communicating in the South? I'd guess
not much.<g>

--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[alexy]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote:


>The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines y'all as "YOU--usually used in
>addressing two or more persons or sometimes one person as representing also
>another or others".

Here's more of the entry from the online dictionary, which will
hopefully put to rest this silly notion that some GDYs have that y'all
can be singular:

:Regional Note: The single most famous feature of Southern United States
:dialects is the pronoun y'all, sometimes heard in its variant you-all.
:You-all functions with perfect grammatical regularity as a second person
:plural pronoun, taking its own possessive you-all's (or less frequently,
:your-all's, where both parts of the word are inflected for possession):
:You-all's voices sound alike.

NOTE WELL:
************************************************** ********
:Southerners do not, as is sometimes believed, use you-all or y'all for
:both singular and plural you. A single person may only be addressed as
:you-all if the speaker implies in the reference other persons not present:
:Did you-all [you and others] have dinner yet?
************************************************** ********

:You and you-all preserve the singular/plural distinction that English used to have
:in thou and ye, the subject forms of singular and plural you, respectively
:(thee and you were the singular and plural object forms).

--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[Dan Luke]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote:
> The instructors at Pierce would surely disagree with you; I was
> taught that it was supremely poor grammar to use 'me' in that way.

Were they P. E. instructors?

>"Only philllistenes speak in such a manner" I can clearly remember
> my third grade teacher explaining when a student used poor grammar.

I respectfully suggest he or she may have been referring to something
like "John and me went to dinner."

> "Jane took John and I to dinner." or "Jane took John and myself to
dinner."
> are the two ways we specifically learned that sentence. Any insertion
of
> 'me' into those sentences would have earned us a scolding.

I still think you have this confused with improper use of "me" as the
subject. See:

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_proncase.html
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"alexy" wrote:
> Not according to the definition posted above. He
> is clearly not addressing two or more persons.
> Instead he is addressing one person as
> representing also another (e.g. your wife)
> or others (e.g, your family).

You're doing great, alexy: keep fightin'.

[BllFs6]

Here is a REAL test for you southerners.....


What does the word "fin" mean and how is it used in a sentence?

Note, this may only be a southern Georgia thing though....

take care

Blll

[Dan Luke]

"alexy" wrote:
> But we are talking about the South, not Texas! Heck,
> I even hear that you Texans think meat for barbecue
> comes from a steer, so what do you
> know? <g>

Philistine!!!

Any moron can make pig taste good. The art of barbeque is taking a
cheap cut of tough beef and turning it into something wonderful to eat.
The icky, vinegary mess sold as "barbeque" east of the Mississippi is
unworthy of the name. Ya'll fly over to Houston sometime and land at
Weiser Air Park, then walk over to Carl's for some of the real thing.
--
Dan
Native Texan starving in exile in Alabama

[Dan Luke]

"BllFs6" wrote:
> Here is a REAL test for you southerners.....
>
>
> What does the word "fin" mean and how is it used
> in a sentence?

It's a drastic contraction of "fixing," as in: "I'm fi'n' to go to
dinner."
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[BllFs6]

>> What does the word "fin" mean and how is it used
>> in a sentence?
>
>It's a drastic contraction of "fixing," as in: "I'm fi'n' to go to
>dinner."

Its more drastic than you think...

When someone (at least in southern rural Georgia) wants to go to say the
store...they wont say for example...

I am fixing to go to the store.

or even

I am fixin to go to the store.

or even

I am fin to go the the store.

They just say this:

I am fin store.

And I even heard just this:

Fin store.

Now THATS some contractionating :)

Think of it as the rural version of verbal jpeg.

take care

Blll

[Teacherjh]

>>
>...Texans think meat for barbecue
> comes from a steer, so what do you
> know? <g>

Any moron can make pig taste good. The art of barbeque is taking a
cheap cut of tough beef and turning it into...
<<

Pig? I was thinking Gator. Now that's a barbacue.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Bill Denton]

As a Southerner "born and bred", I can tell you that while all of this
conversatin' was going on, the neighbor would have drunk up all the man's
Jack, humped his wife, stole his dawg, and headed out the door.

Then, in true Southern fashion, the man would have told his neighbor: "Well,
ya'll come again, ya hear?"



"alexy" > wrote in message
...
> Greg Copeland > wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:53:53 +0000, Gary Drescher wrote:
>
> >> The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines y'all as "YOU--usually
used in
> >> addressing two or more persons or sometimes one person as representing
also
> >> another or others".
> >>
> >
> >
> >Exactly. So, if you stepped over to see a neighbor, and the neighbor
> >asked, "how y'all do'n?", he would be asking one of two things. He is
> >wanting to know how I'm doing
> Not according to the definition posted above. He is clearly not
> addressing two or more persons. Instead he is addressing one person as
> representing also another (e.g. your wife) or others (e.g, your
> family). So he might be asking how you and your wife are doing, or how
> you and your family are doing, but not how just you are doing.
> >or, how me and my family are doing. A
> >response which addresses either yourself and/or yourself and your family
> >is accepted. So, you can see it's being used either singularly or in the
> >plural (one person as presenting another or others). Your answer would
> >more than likely be guided by how long it had been since you last spoke
> >and by how much time you have to chew the fat.
>
> Just curious -- any experience communicating in the South? I'd guess
> not much.<g>
>
> --
> Alex
> Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Margy Natalie wrote:
>
> I know of at least one northerner who learned "y'all" when she moved to GA and
> it was singular as "all y'all" was the plural in that region.

Well, it wasn't in Atlanta during the nine years I lived there.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[Jay Honeck]

> I am fin to go the the store.

That's a common contraction in Black English, too.

Which, of course, is just an offshoot of Southern English, with sprinklings
of Cajun and African.

When I worked in the inner city, it was like learning a new foreign
language.

Had to learn the gang hand signals, too....
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Greg Copeland]

On Thu, 13 May 2004 08:32:20 -0500, Bill Denton wrote:

> As a Southerner "born and bred", I can tell you that while all of this
> conversatin' was going on, the neighbor would have drunk up all the man's
> Jack, humped his wife, stole his dawg, and headed out the door.
>
> Then, in true Southern fashion, the man would have told his neighbor: "Well,
> ya'll come again, ya hear?"
>

LOL!

In Kentucky and Alabama, it's sometimes a little different. There, they
drink all the Jack, jump his dawg and steal his wife. Worse, he then has
to explain the presence of the women he stole to his sister. ;) And for
sure, the sister is going to complain about there being three in the bed!
:O ;)

[Greg Copeland]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 20:55:24 +0000, alexy wrote:

> Greg Copeland > wrote:
>
>
>>I'm in Texas and he's got it nailed. Though I have seen Y'All used for
>>both singual and plural too.
>
> But we are talking about the South, not Texas! Heck, I even hear that
> you Texans think meat for barbecue comes from a steer, so what do you
> know? <g>
>
> (That should stir the pot!)

LOL!

At least Texas has it figured out that you don't base your BBQ on
mustard! Or worse, mostly vinegar! Ack!

[Greg Copeland]

On Thu, 13 May 2004 03:44:17 +0000, alexy wrote:

> Greg Copeland > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:53:53 +0000, Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>>> The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines y'all as "YOU--usually used in
>>> addressing two or more persons or sometimes one person as representing also
>>> another or others".
>>>
>>
>>
>>Exactly. So, if you stepped over to see a neighbor, and the neighbor
>>asked, "how y'all do'n?", he would be asking one of two things. He is
>>wanting to know how I'm doing
> Not according to the definition posted above. He is clearly not
> addressing two or more persons. Instead he is addressing one person as
> representing also another (e.g. your wife) or others (e.g, your
> family). So he might be asking how you and your wife are doing, or how
> you and your family are doing, but not how just you are doing.
>>or, how me and my family are doing. A
>>response which addresses either yourself and/or yourself and your family
>>is accepted. So, you can see it's being used either singularly or in the
>>plural (one person as presenting another or others). Your answer would
>>more than likely be guided by how long it had been since you last spoke
>>and by how much time you have to chew the fat.
>
> Just curious -- any experience communicating in the South? I'd guess
> not much.<g>

I've lived in the South most of my life.

[alexy]

Greg Copeland > wrote:

>On Wed, 12 May 2004 20:55:24 +0000, alexy wrote:
>
>> Greg Copeland > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm in Texas and he's got it nailed. Though I have seen Y'All used for
>>>both singual and plural too.
>>
>> But we are talking about the South, not Texas! Heck, I even hear that
>> you Texans think meat for barbecue comes from a steer, so what do you
>> know? <g>
>>
>> (That should stir the pot!)
>
>LOL!
>
>At least Texas has it figured out that you don't base your BBQ on
>mustard! Or worse, mostly vinegar! Ack!
>
I tend to like tomato-based sauces, as well, but I do enjoy one of the
Carolinas' barbecues for a change of pace.
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[alexy]

Greg Copeland > wrote:


>
>I've lived in the South most of my life.
>

My apologies, then. What part? I'm curious, since I have never heard
of this concept of singular "y'all" except from those faking the
accent. And Webster clearly agrees. Did you or your parents learn the
dialect rather than growing up in it? Maybe someone taught them wrong!
<g>
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[Dan Luke]

"BllFs6" wrote:
> They just say this:
>
> I am fin store.
>
> And I even heard just this:
>
> Fin store.
>
> Now THATS some contractionating :)

I'll say. I've lived in the South all my life and never heard those.
Southern dialects may sound quaint but they at least have an internal
grammatical consistency. Those don't even make sense.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[BllFs6]

>> They just say this:
>>
>> I am fin store.
>>
>> And I even heard just this:
>>
>> Fin store.
>>
>> Now THATS some contractionating :)
>
>I'll say. I've lived in the South all my life and never heard those.
>Southern dialects may sound quaint but they at least have an internal
>grammatical consistency. Those don't even make sense.
>--
>Dan
>C172RG at BFM
>

Well...they "sorta" make sense...

The only place Ive heard it is in southwest georgia...

And I must admit the first few times I did I had NO idea what the heck those
folks were talking about....and the funny part is most of the other sentences
they uttered were fairly consistent and understandable....but then they would
plop a "fin sentence" in and all of sudden it was like they spoke Zulu or
something....

And as an aside, the worst (best?) accents I've ever heard was from a group of
Georgia cheerleaders....their grammar was fine, but the accent was so thick you
almost couldnt understand what they were saying...and I live/grew up in the
south!

take care

Blll

[Dan Luke]

"BllFs6" wrote:
> And as an aside, the worst (best?) accents I've ever heard
> was from a group of Georgia cheerleaders....their grammar
> was fine, but the accent was so thick you almost couldnt
> understand what they were saying...

I love a strong Cajun/New Orleans accent above all. It's a joy to
listen to a real South Louisiana homeboy talk.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Big John]

Dan

Here's one for you :o)

John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``

Cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg


THE PAOMNNEHAL PWEOR OF THE HMUAN MNID


Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer
in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is
taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be
a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is
bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the
wrod as a wlohe.

Amzanig huh?



On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:45:49 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>
>"alexy" wrote:
> > This affectation is brought to you by the same people
>> who use "y'all" in the singular when trying to imitate an
>> accent from the US South.
>
>Yup, it's a pet peeve of mine. Hollywood never gets it right.
>
>It's a "hyper-ruralism," an error caused by trying too hard to sound
>country, the opposite of another pet peeve of mine, the "he and I"
>hyperurbanism, as in "Jane took John and I to dinner."

[Gerry Caron]

"alexy" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote:
>
>
> >The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines y'all as "YOU--usually used
in
> >addressing two or more persons or sometimes one person as representing
also
> >another or others".
>
> Here's more of the entry from the online dictionary, which will
> hopefully put to rest this silly notion that some GDYs have that y'all
> can be singular:
>
> :Regional Note: The single most famous feature of Southern United States
> :dialects is the pronoun y'all, sometimes heard in its variant you-all.
> :You-all functions with perfect grammatical regularity as a second person
> :plural pronoun, taking its own possessive you-all's (or less frequently,
> :your-all's, where both parts of the word are inflected for possession):
> :You-all's voices sound alike.

A different regional note: In Texas, y'all (NEVER you-all) is singular. No
self-respecting Texan would use y'all when talking to more than one person.
The plural form of "y'all" is "all y'all."

Gerry

[Jay Honeck]

> Amzanig huh?

Tahts' colo!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> A Keyhole satellite on a geosynchronous orbit? Jay, you might really,
_really_
> want to check your sources.

Whoops. You're right, of course.

No source to check -- just my own faulty finger/brain connection!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan Luke]

"Gerry Caron" wrote:
> A different regional note: In Texas, y'all (NEVER you-all) is
singular.
> No self-respecting Texan would use y'all when talking to more
> than one person. The plural form of "y'all" is "all y'all."

Sorry, Gerry, it just ain't so. If I ever say "y'all" to you, I mean you
and your family/friends/company, etc.

"Y'all" is NEVER singular (except on TV). It is short for "you all,"
used to make up for the absence of a distinct second person *plural*
pronoun in English. "All y'all" is just a redundancy, as in "refer
back."

It may be that Hollywood is corrupting the use of "y'all" among younger
Texans, but I haven't heard it yet.
--
Dan
Native Texan

[alexy]

"Dan Luke" > wrote:

>
>"Gerry Caron" wrote:
>> A different regional note: In Texas, y'all (NEVER you-all) is
>singular.
>> No self-respecting Texan would use y'all when talking to more
>> than one person. The plural form of "y'all" is "all y'all."
>
>Sorry, Gerry, it just ain't so. If I ever say "y'all" to you, I mean you
>and your family/friends/company, etc.
>
>"Y'all" is NEVER singular (except on TV). It is short for "you all,"
>used to make up for the absence of a distinct second person *plural*
>pronoun in English.

And I might point out that we Southerners are not the only ones to
compensate for this lack of a distinct 2nd person plural, and at least
we do it without any gender confusion! Took me a while in the midwest
to accept their inability to tell guys from gals, as in when they
asked a bunch of women "are you guys ready to leave?"
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[BllFs6]

>>"Y'all" is NEVER singular (except on TV). It is short for "you all,"
>>used to make up for the absence of a distinct second person *plural*
>>pronoun in English.

What about the word "youis" (how the heck do you "spell" that anyways?)

Would "youis" be second person plural?

take care

Blll

[tony]

>
>What about the word "youis" (how the heck do you "spell" that anyways?)
>
>Would "youis" be second person plural?
>
>take care
>
>Blll
>
In the ceter part of Pennsylvania youse is 2nd person plural, as in "Youse guys
ready to go?" As a Pennsylvanian who lives in the south, my contibution to 2nd
person plural is 'yousell."

So, should I say "Yousall get ya cahs off the street befa the sno plahs come"
to my neighbors, you might correctly guess the middle part of my life was spent
in Massachusetts.

[Jay Honeck]

> Very few satellite shots are right at nadir either.

Shoot, if you're bringing presidential politics into this, I'm leaving...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> So, should I say "Yousall get ya cahs off the street befa the sno plahs
come"
> to my neighbors, you might correctly guess the middle part of my life was
spent
> in Massachusetts.

Or you are a real Jar-Jar Binks fan...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Paul Sengupta]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
> Did MiG25 pilots ahve full space suits that would permit flight above
50,000
> feet?

Yes. In fact, a Mig-25 holds the altitude record of 123,524 ft for
an atmospheric air breathing machine.

If you want to fly one to 80k feet:
http://www.flymig.com/packages/MiG-25.flight.htm

Paul

[G.R. Patterson III]

alexy wrote:
>
> And I might point out that we Southerners are not the only ones to
> compensate for this lack of a distinct 2nd person plural, and at least
> we do it without any gender confusion!

And in NJ, it's "youse guys", or sometimes just "youse".

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[John Clonts]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gerry Caron" wrote:
> > A different regional note: In Texas, y'all (NEVER you-all) is
> singular.
> > No self-respecting Texan would use y'all when talking to more
> > than one person. The plural form of "y'all" is "all y'all."
>
> Sorry, Gerry, it just ain't so. If I ever say "y'all" to you, I mean you
> and your family/friends/company, etc.
>
> "Y'all" is NEVER singular (except on TV). It is short for "you all,"
> used to make up for the absence of a distinct second person *plural*
> pronoun in English. "All y'all" is just a redundancy, as in "refer
> back."
>
> It may be that Hollywood is corrupting the use of "y'all" among younger
> Texans, but I haven't heard it yet.
> --
> Dan
> Native Texan
>
>

I agree with Dan. Only place I heard y'all singular is on TV or in movies.

Cheers,
John Clonts
Texan born and raised

[JerryK]

Your right. I equate these clerics with feudal war lords. Each with a
private army and each trying to consolidate power.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In a previous article, "C J Campbell"
> > said:
> > >is that poor intelligence is becoming very costly. Satellites are
> > >predictable and are unable to loiter over an area, while drones can
cover
> > >only relatively small areas. From Desert Shield up to now we have been
> > >basically blind in our search for WMDs, terrorist and troop
> concentrations,
> > >mobile Scuds, etc.
> >
> > I think Predators and Global Hawks would do a better job on almost all
of
> > those jobs.
> >
> > But what the US really needs is spies on the ground. The biggest
problem
> > in the lead-up to Iraq is that they put too much emphasis on the tales
of
> > one guy, who lied through his teeth trying to get the US to depose
Saddam
> > so he could take over.
>
> Maybe he did do that, but Saddam's actions in the period leading up to the
> war seem to indicate that Saddam himself believed he had weapons of mass
> destruction. He may have been deceived by his own people. Certainly there
is
> a very lawless element in Iraqi culture. Every two-bit cleric seems
willing
> to submit to no law but his own, and every one of them seems willing to
back
> up his threats with force. They out-gun both the Iraqi military and the
> police. It is as if we allowed Jesse Jackson or Jerry Fallwell to maintain
> their own private armies while declaring the holy cities of New York and
> Birmingham off-limits to law enforcement personnel. To paraphrase the
quote
> attributed to T.E. Lawrence: "So long as the Islamic nations submit to no
> law but that of local clerics, they will remain a little people, a silly
> people, greedy, barbarous, and cruel."
>
>