SR-71

[Big John]

Been lurking and not posting but think this will be of interest to
all.

Wheee. Look at the numbers :o)

Big John
************************************************** ********


FLYING THE SR-71 AT A "LEISURELY CRUISE" OF M3.0+ AT FL800

An SR-71 flight in the 1973 Yom Kippur War
by Col. Jim Wilson, USAF (ret.)

On Oct 6th 1973, the armies of Egypt and Syria opened an offensive
against Israel on two fronts, launching a coordinated series of air,
armored and artillery attacks across the Suez Canal into the Sinai and
on the Golan Heights. The preemptive strike came as a result of a
failure to resolve territorial disputes arising from the Arab-Israeli
War of 1967.
These disputes involved the return of the Sinai to Egypt and the
return of the Golan Heights to Syria. UN Resolution 242 and Egyptian
President Sadat's peace initiative failed to bring peace. Sadat
wanted to sign an agreement with Israel provided the Israelis returned
all the occupied territories, but Israel refused to withdraw to the
pre-1967 armistice lines. Since no diplomatic progress was being made
toward peace, Sadat was convinced that to change things and gain
legitimacy at home, he must initiate a war with limited objectives.

Along the Suez Canal, 80,000 well-equipped members of the Egyptian
army who had crossed the Suez on rapidly constructed pontoon bridges
attacked fewer than 500 Israeli defenders. In the Golan Heights
approximately 180 Israeli tanks faced an onslaught of 1,400 Syrian
tanks. Initial Israeli military losses were significant and assistance
was requested from the USA.
National reconnaissance satellites did not have the capability at the
time to provide the intelligence that was needed to sufficiently
assess the situation. The 9th SRW at Beale AFB, CA was alerted to
prepare to fly SR-71 missions from Beale AFB, over the area of
conflict and recover at Royal Air Force Base Mildenhall, England, a
mission within the design capability of the aircraft, although a long
and logistically difficult mission never accomplished before in an
operational environment.

Within the first few days of the conflict the supporting Arab nations
initiated an oil embargo, making oil a weapon of war and contributing
to a decision by the British government to deny approval to use
Mildenhall as a recovery base.

Plan B was rapidly drawn up to fly the SR-71 out of Griffiss AFB New
York, through the area of conflict and recover back at Griffiss. These
never before accomplished 12,000 mile missions would require five air
to air refuelings, the deployment of sixteen KC-135Q supporting
tankers with special JP-7 fuel to Spain and a specialized maintenance,
intelligence and operational support planning staff to Griffiss. The
9th SRW was well prepared and in utmost secrecy the forces were
mobilized and deployed. The first mission was successfully completed
on Oct 13th.
I was a fairly young pilot in the squadron at the time, with only one
operational tour and about 120 hours of SR-71 time under my belt. On
Oct 20th I was assigned to fly a backup SR-71 from Beale to Griffiss
and to stay at Griffiss in an alert posture, prepared to fly follow-on
missions. We flew successful missions on Oct 25th and Nov 2 where I
served as backup pilot.

My turn as primary came up on Nov 11th. The excitement level was
high, as I certainly wanted to be part of the Air Force and the Wing
success in completing the mission as tasked.
Takeoff was at 2AM on a brisk and clear autumn night with about
fifteen inches of snow already on the ground. It was peacefully
calm---until I lit each of the 34,000 lb thrust afterburners. The
first 450 miles had to be flown subsonic at .9 Mach, since we had to
clear the commercial aircraft flight tracks out of Boston and New York
to Europe before we could safely conduct air-refueling operations.
Radio silent electronic rendezvous with three tankers, 250 miles out
over the North Atlantic at 3AM went well, as did the 70,000 lb (10,600
gallons) fuel offload.
You don't know the true meaning of dark until you've been in a
situation like this. We likened it to refueling in an inkwell. After
completing a few post refueling checks, I lit the afterburners and
started my acceleration to a leisurely Mach 3 cruise across the
Atlantic. The airplane performed flawlessly, thanks to the extra
special effort by the maintenance guys. About 2000 miles across the
Atlantic on an easterly heading I watched with excitement as the sun
peeked over the horizon and came up right in my face, in about a
minute and a half, a nice vantage point for viewing this daily event.

The second refueling was conducted in daylight, a couple hundred miles
north of the Azores. This was another 70,000 lb offload, 35,000 lbs
from each of two tankers while the airborne spare tanker was not
needed. I started my second acceleration and headed for the straits
of Gibraltar. Cruising through the center of the narrow straits at
80,000 feet with clear weather 100 miles on both sides providing quite
a spectacular view.

As we proceeded down the Mediterranean toward the mid-east the weather
grew gradually worse, as forecast. The third air refueling south of
Crete, although in poor weather, went as scheduled. After packing in a
full load of 80,000 lbs of JP-7 fuel, I lit the afterburners and
started the acceleration toward the target area.

At .98 Mach, just prior to going supersonic, maximum fuel flow in full
afterburner, a red engine oil quantity low light illuminated steady on
my emergency warning annunciator panel. I stared at it in almost
disbelief, while scanning engine instruments, oil pressure, rpm,
exhaust gas temperature, nozzle position for other indications of
trouble. Although there were no confirming indications of problems, I
couldn't just ignore the situation and continue on into the target
area with the possibility of an engine failure at supersonic speed
over the Sinai. We had no viable emergency airfields and I did not
want to be a no-notice, no-flight plan, single engine emergency
arrival at David Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv, especially since the
Israeli government had not been informed in advance about the missions
and they were in a battle for survival.

To my pleasant surprise, a few seconds after coming out of afterburner
the red emergency warning light went out. I was by now fairly well
convinced that it was a false momentary indication, but it had cost me
2500 lbs of critically needed fuel. My tankers were now 80 miles
behind me heading further away. Getting rejoined to top off with fuel
would present a new set of problems. I decided to light the burners
and press on. Except for a 5 second flash during acceleration I never
saw the light again.

My flight track went down the Suez canal past Cairo before making a
left turn at Mach 3.15 to the north across the battle lines in the
Sinai. I continued on a northerly course across the Dead Sea and over
the center of the Golan Heights with the panoramic and point cameras
providing imagery of hundreds of targets on both sides of the
aircraft. Approaching the Lebanon border I made a sweeping right turn
out over Syria and then back into the Sinai on a parallel flight path
for maximum coverage. The airplane was running well and I pushed it up
a bit to Mach 3.2 before exiting the area near Port Said.

Once out over the Mediterranean I started a descent to 25,000 feet for
my fourth refueling. As fate would have it, not only was I low on fuel
because of my previous oil low warning problem, but also a
thunderstorm had moved in over the scheduled air refueling contact
point. My Reconnaissance Systems Officer (RSO) using electronic
azimuth and distance measuring equipment got me to within less than a
mile behind my tanker, but the visibility was so poor that I couldn't
see the tanker. We continued 20 miles down track in lousy weather with
only one half-mile and 1000 feet separation before a small break in
the clouds permitted hookup. When we made contact and started
transferring fuel I had less than 15 minutes of fuel remaining and was
75 miles from the closest straight in emergency-landing runway on
Crete.

We completed a fifth 70,000lb air refueling near the Azores before the
leisurely Mach 3 flight across the mid Atlantic with a landing at
Seymour Johnson AFB North Carolina. We were met by 9th SRW download
crews who had the photo and electronic intelligence equipment
downloaded and on a dedicated AF courier flight to Washington DC and
the National Photo Interpretation Center within twenty minutes. The
flight covered 12,181 miles in 10 hours 49 minutes and included 6
hours 41 minutes of supersonic time and 5 air refuelings. After
landing, I remember wondering what Charles Lindberg would have thought
about the advancement of aviation technology in less than 50 years.
The 9th SRW was tasked to fly nine missions of this type and completed
them all successfully.

The missions were not declassified until the early 1990's when the
SR-71 program was closed as a result of the end of the Cold War. The
airplanes are all in museums now, with tail number 964, the one I flew
that day, as the centerpiece at the Strategic Air and Space museum
near Omaha, Nebraska.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(This article originally appeared in the McClellan Aviation Museum
Foundations newsletter 'CONTACT' and appears again here with
permission of Colonel Jim Wilson, USAF (retired), former Blackbird
pilot and now a member of the Board of Directors of that Museum. The
photograph of his aircraft appears courtesy of Lockheed-Martin
Aircraft).

[Jim Macklin]

If you do some simple algebra, the SR-71 is much faster than
the published data. As the story below shows, only about
60% of the flight time is spent at supersonic speed. Yet
the speed for the flights are in the 2,000 mph range even
counting the subsonic time into the average.

I would expect that the maximum speed was 4,000-6,000 mph.


"Big John" > wrote in message
...
| Been lurking and not posting but think this will be of
interest to
| all.
|
| Wheee. Look at the numbers :o)
|
| Big John
| ************************************************** ********
|
|
| FLYING THE SR-71 AT A "LEISURELY CRUISE" OF M3.0+ AT FL800
|
| An SR-71 flight in the 1973 Yom Kippur War
| by Col. Jim Wilson, USAF (ret.)
|
| On Oct 6th 1973, the armies of Egypt and Syria opened an
offensive
| against Israel on two fronts, launching a coordinated
series of air,
| armored and artillery attacks across the Suez Canal into
the Sinai and
| on the Golan Heights. The preemptive strike came as a
result of a
| failure to resolve territorial disputes arising from the
Arab-Israeli
| War of 1967.
| These disputes involved the return of the Sinai to Egypt
and the
| return of the Golan Heights to Syria. UN Resolution 242
and Egyptian
| President Sadat's peace initiative failed to bring peace.
Sadat
| wanted to sign an agreement with Israel provided the
Israelis returned
| all the occupied territories, but Israel refused to
withdraw to the
| pre-1967 armistice lines. Since no diplomatic progress
was being made
| toward peace, Sadat was convinced that to change things
and gain
| legitimacy at home, he must initiate a war with limited
objectives.
|
| Along the Suez Canal, 80,000 well-equipped members of the
Egyptian
| army who had crossed the Suez on rapidly constructed
pontoon bridges
| attacked fewer than 500 Israeli defenders. In the Golan
Heights
| approximately 180 Israeli tanks faced an onslaught of
1,400 Syrian
| tanks. Initial Israeli military losses were significant
and assistance
| was requested from the USA.
| National reconnaissance satellites did not have the
capability at the
| time to provide the intelligence that was needed to
sufficiently
| assess the situation. The 9th SRW at Beale AFB, CA was
alerted to
| prepare to fly SR-71 missions from Beale AFB, over the
area of
| conflict and recover at Royal Air Force Base Mildenhall,
England, a
| mission within the design capability of the aircraft,
although a long
| and logistically difficult mission never accomplished
before in an
| operational environment.
|
| Within the first few days of the conflict the supporting
Arab nations
| initiated an oil embargo, making oil a weapon of war and
contributing
| to a decision by the British government to deny approval
to use
| Mildenhall as a recovery base.
|
| Plan B was rapidly drawn up to fly the SR-71 out of
Griffiss AFB New
| York, through the area of conflict and recover back at
Griffiss. These
| never before accomplished 12,000 mile missions would
require five air
| to air refuelings, the deployment of sixteen KC-135Q
supporting
| tankers with special JP-7 fuel to Spain and a specialized
maintenance,
| intelligence and operational support planning staff to
Griffiss. The
| 9th SRW was well prepared and in utmost secrecy the forces
were
| mobilized and deployed. The first mission was successfully
completed
| on Oct 13th.
| I was a fairly young pilot in the squadron at the time,
with only one
| operational tour and about 120 hours of SR-71 time under
my belt. On
| Oct 20th I was assigned to fly a backup SR-71 from Beale
to Griffiss
| and to stay at Griffiss in an alert posture, prepared to
fly follow-on
| missions. We flew successful missions on Oct 25th and Nov
2 where I
| served as backup pilot.
|
| My turn as primary came up on Nov 11th. The excitement
level was
| high, as I certainly wanted to be part of the Air Force
and the Wing
| success in completing the mission as tasked.
| Takeoff was at 2AM on a brisk and clear autumn night with
about
| fifteen inches of snow already on the ground. It was
peacefully
| calm---until I lit each of the 34,000 lb thrust
afterburners. The
| first 450 miles had to be flown subsonic at .9 Mach, since
we had to
| clear the commercial aircraft flight tracks out of Boston
and New York
| to Europe before we could safely conduct air-refueling
operations.
| Radio silent electronic rendezvous with three tankers, 250
miles out
| over the North Atlantic at 3AM went well, as did the
70,000 lb (10,600
| gallons) fuel offload.
| You don't know the true meaning of dark until you've been
in a
| situation like this. We likened it to refueling in an
inkwell. After
| completing a few post refueling checks, I lit the
afterburners and
| started my acceleration to a leisurely Mach 3 cruise
across the
| Atlantic. The airplane performed flawlessly, thanks to the
extra
| special effort by the maintenance guys. About 2000 miles
across the
| Atlantic on an easterly heading I watched with excitement
as the sun
| peeked over the horizon and came up right in my face, in
about a
| minute and a half, a nice vantage point for viewing this
daily event.
|
| The second refueling was conducted in daylight, a couple
hundred miles
| north of the Azores. This was another 70,000 lb offload,
35,000 lbs
| from each of two tankers while the airborne spare tanker
was not
| needed. I started my second acceleration and headed for
the straits
| of Gibraltar. Cruising through the center of the narrow
straits at
| 80,000 feet with clear weather 100 miles on both sides
providing quite
| a spectacular view.
|
| As we proceeded down the Mediterranean toward the mid-east
the weather
| grew gradually worse, as forecast. The third air refueling
south of
| Crete, although in poor weather, went as scheduled. After
packing in a
| full load of 80,000 lbs of JP-7 fuel, I lit the
afterburners and
| started the acceleration toward the target area.
|
| At .98 Mach, just prior to going supersonic, maximum fuel
flow in full
| afterburner, a red engine oil quantity low light
illuminated steady on
| my emergency warning annunciator panel. I stared at it in
almost
| disbelief, while scanning engine instruments, oil
pressure, rpm,
| exhaust gas temperature, nozzle position for other
indications of
| trouble. Although there were no confirming indications of
problems, I
| couldn't just ignore the situation and continue on into
the target
| area with the possibility of an engine failure at
supersonic speed
| over the Sinai. We had no viable emergency airfields and I
did not
| want to be a no-notice, no-flight plan, single engine
emergency
| arrival at David Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv,
especially since the
| Israeli government had not been informed in advance about
the missions
| and they were in a battle for survival.
|
| To my pleasant surprise, a few seconds after coming out of
afterburner
| the red emergency warning light went out. I was by now
fairly well
| convinced that it was a false momentary indication, but it
had cost me
| 2500 lbs of critically needed fuel. My tankers were now 80
miles
| behind me heading further away. Getting rejoined to top
off with fuel
| would present a new set of problems. I decided to light
the burners
| and press on. Except for a 5 second flash during
acceleration I never
| saw the light again.
|
| My flight track went down the Suez canal past Cairo before
making a
| left turn at Mach 3.15 to the north across the battle
lines in the
| Sinai. I continued on a northerly course across the Dead
Sea and over
| the center of the Golan Heights with the panoramic and
point cameras
| providing imagery of hundreds of targets on both sides of
the
| aircraft. Approaching the Lebanon border I made a sweeping
right turn
| out over Syria and then back into the Sinai on a parallel
flight path
| for maximum coverage. The airplane was running well and I
pushed it up
| a bit to Mach 3.2 before exiting the area near Port Said.
|
| Once out over the Mediterranean I started a descent to
25,000 feet for
| my fourth refueling. As fate would have it, not only was I
low on fuel
| because of my previous oil low warning problem, but also a
| thunderstorm had moved in over the scheduled air refueling
contact
| point. My Reconnaissance Systems Officer (RSO) using
electronic
| azimuth and distance measuring equipment got me to within
less than a
| mile behind my tanker, but the visibility was so poor that
I couldn't
| see the tanker. We continued 20 miles down track in lousy
weather with
| only one half-mile and 1000 feet separation before a small
break in
| the clouds permitted hookup. When we made contact and
started
| transferring fuel I had less than 15 minutes of fuel
remaining and was
| 75 miles from the closest straight in emergency-landing
runway on
| Crete.
|
| We completed a fifth 70,000lb air refueling near the
Azores before the
| leisurely Mach 3 flight across the mid Atlantic with a
landing at
| Seymour Johnson AFB North Carolina. We were met by 9th SRW
download
| crews who had the photo and electronic intelligence
equipment
| downloaded and on a dedicated AF courier flight to
Washington DC and
| the National Photo Interpretation Center within twenty
minutes. The
| flight covered 12,181 miles in 10 hours 49 minutes and
included 6
| hours 41 minutes of supersonic time and 5 air refuelings.
After
| landing, I remember wondering what Charles Lindberg would
have thought
| about the advancement of aviation technology in less than
50 years.
| The 9th SRW was tasked to fly nine missions of this type
and completed
| them all successfully.
|
| The missions were not declassified until the early 1990's
when the
| SR-71 program was closed as a result of the end of the
Cold War. The
| airplanes are all in museums now, with tail number 964,
the one I flew
| that day, as the centerpiece at the Strategic Air and
Space museum
| near Omaha, Nebraska.
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| (This article originally appeared in the McClellan
Aviation Museum
| Foundations newsletter 'CONTACT' and appears again here
with
| permission of Colonel Jim Wilson, USAF (retired), former
Blackbird
| pilot and now a member of the Board of Directors of that
Museum. The
| photograph of his aircraft appears courtesy of
Lockheed-Martin
| Aircraft).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

[Mxsmanic]

Brian Shul (also a SR-71 pilot) has written some good material on the
SR-71, and he also happens to be a good photographer, so he has a lot
of one-of-a-kind shots of the SR-71 and flights at cruise. His book
_Sled Driver_ is excellent, well written and visually stunning.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Darkwing]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> If you do some simple algebra, the SR-71 is much faster than
> the published data.

<SNIP>

You mean the Goobermint hasn't told us all the dirt on the true performance
of the SR-71? I'm shocked. Nnnnoooooot.

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

[[email protected]]

On 6-Nov-2006, "Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> I would expect that the maximum speed was 4,000-6,000 mph.

You'd be wrong. Mary Shafer, formally NASA's SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead
Engineer at Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, posted a reply to
"Yeff" back on February 23, 1999 on rec.aviation.military:
"Yeff" wrote:
> The story I always heard was that if any plane ever beat
> the Blackbirds speed record we'd just take a bird up and
> move the throttles forward a bit more and take it back.
> Sooth or myth? Has an SR-71 ever flown at max speed?
> (hoping against hope that Mary imparts more wisdom...)

Yes. But it required permission of the Commander on a per-flight
basis. The SR-71's usual limit is Mach 3.2, but flight at Mach 3.3
was allowed, and flown, with prior permission. There's no evidence
that anyone has ever flown faster than Mach 3.3 (although it's
possible that someone may have briefly dashed above 3.3, not cruised,
but it's not documented).
The cruise speed on the SR-71 is limited by CIT, compressor inlet
temperature. The limit is 427 degC, per the Dash-1. Since the SR-71
is designed to fly Mach 3.2 (standard atmosphere), this temperature is
reached at Mach 3.3, offering a fairly standard margin of safety. If
operational conditions require going Mach 3.3 it's possible. Rather
than flying Mach number, we fly CIT, cruising just a bit below the
limit. This usually works out to Mach 3.23 but that's because the
real atmosphere isn't the same as the standard atmosphere. Everything
about the airplane is designed for Mach 3.2, including the inlet spike
operation, etc. I've always assumed that the extra 0.1 Mach was a
bonus, discovered in flight test, because the calculations were on the
conservative side.
If you'll check in Deja News, you'll find that Lednicer worked it out
that the absolute airframe maximum is around Mach 3.5, because you get
the bow shock impinging on the wing above that. Unfortunately, this
can't be tested because the CIT limit is reached first.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA

[Darkwing]

> wrote in message
...
>
> On 6-Nov-2006, "Jim Macklin" >
> wrote:
>
>> I would expect that the maximum speed was 4,000-6,000 mph.
>
> You'd be wrong. Mary Shafer, formally NASA's SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead
> Engineer at Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, posted a reply to
> "Yeff" back on February 23, 1999 on rec.aviation.military:
> "Yeff" wrote:
>> The story I always heard was that if any plane ever beat
>> the Blackbirds speed record we'd just take a bird up and
>> move the throttles forward a bit more and take it back.
>> Sooth or myth? Has an SR-71 ever flown at max speed?
>> (hoping against hope that Mary imparts more wisdom...)
>
> Yes. But it required permission of the Commander on a per-flight
> basis. The SR-71's usual limit is Mach 3.2, but flight at Mach 3.3
> was allowed, and flown, with prior permission. There's no evidence
> that anyone has ever flown faster than Mach 3.3 (although it's
> possible that someone may have briefly dashed above 3.3, not cruised,
> but it's not documented).
> The cruise speed on the SR-71 is limited by CIT, compressor inlet
> temperature. The limit is 427 degC, per the Dash-1. Since the SR-71
> is designed to fly Mach 3.2 (standard atmosphere), this temperature is
> reached at Mach 3.3, offering a fairly standard margin of safety. If
> operational conditions require going Mach 3.3 it's possible. Rather
> than flying Mach number, we fly CIT, cruising just a bit below the
> limit. This usually works out to Mach 3.23 but that's because the
> real atmosphere isn't the same as the standard atmosphere. Everything
> about the airplane is designed for Mach 3.2, including the inlet spike
> operation, etc. I've always assumed that the extra 0.1 Mach was a
> bonus, discovered in flight test, because the calculations were on the
> conservative side.
> If you'll check in Deja News, you'll find that Lednicer worked it out
> that the absolute airframe maximum is around Mach 3.5, because you get
> the bow shock impinging on the wing above that. Unfortunately, this
> can't be tested because the CIT limit is reached first.
> --
> Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
> SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA


What a cool plane. I seen one in person at the Dayton Air Museum, it was
smaller than I thought. But they had the Valkyrie there to and that thing is
HUGE!

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

[Kyle Boatright]

Looking at the data as presented and assuming 500 mph for the average speed
in non-supersonic flight, I get:

4 hours(approx) @ 500 mph = 2000 miles.

Leaving 10,200 miles for the 6:41 of supersonic flight, which is a
"supersonic" average of just over 1,500 mph.

The overall average speed for the 12k miles was 1125 mph or thereabouts.

KB




"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> If you do some simple algebra, the SR-71 is much faster than
> the published data. As the story below shows, only about
> 60% of the flight time is spent at supersonic speed. Yet
> the speed for the flights are in the 2,000 mph range even
> counting the subsonic time into the average.
>
> I would expect that the maximum speed was 4,000-6,000 mph.
>
>
> "Big John" > wrote in message
> ...
> | Been lurking and not posting but think this will be of
> interest to
> | all.
> |
> | Wheee. Look at the numbers :o)
> |
> | Big John
> | ************************************************** ********
> |
> |
> | FLYING THE SR-71 AT A "LEISURELY CRUISE" OF M3.0+ AT FL800
> |
> | An SR-71 flight in the 1973 Yom Kippur War
> | by Col. Jim Wilson, USAF (ret.)
> |
> | On Oct 6th 1973, the armies of Egypt and Syria opened an
> offensive
> | against Israel on two fronts, launching a coordinated
> series of air,
> | armored and artillery attacks across the Suez Canal into
> the Sinai and
> | on the Golan Heights. The preemptive strike came as a
> result of a
> | failure to resolve territorial disputes arising from the
> Arab-Israeli
> | War of 1967.
> | These disputes involved the return of the Sinai to Egypt
> and the
> | return of the Golan Heights to Syria. UN Resolution 242
> and Egyptian
> | President Sadat's peace initiative failed to bring peace.
> Sadat
> | wanted to sign an agreement with Israel provided the
> Israelis returned
> | all the occupied territories, but Israel refused to
> withdraw to the
> | pre-1967 armistice lines. Since no diplomatic progress
> was being made
> | toward peace, Sadat was convinced that to change things
> and gain
> | legitimacy at home, he must initiate a war with limited
> objectives.
> |
> | Along the Suez Canal, 80,000 well-equipped members of the
> Egyptian
> | army who had crossed the Suez on rapidly constructed
> pontoon bridges
> | attacked fewer than 500 Israeli defenders. In the Golan
> Heights
> | approximately 180 Israeli tanks faced an onslaught of
> 1,400 Syrian
> | tanks. Initial Israeli military losses were significant
> and assistance
> | was requested from the USA.
> | National reconnaissance satellites did not have the
> capability at the
> | time to provide the intelligence that was needed to
> sufficiently
> | assess the situation. The 9th SRW at Beale AFB, CA was
> alerted to
> | prepare to fly SR-71 missions from Beale AFB, over the
> area of
> | conflict and recover at Royal Air Force Base Mildenhall,
> England, a
> | mission within the design capability of the aircraft,
> although a long
> | and logistically difficult mission never accomplished
> before in an
> | operational environment.
> |
> | Within the first few days of the conflict the supporting
> Arab nations
> | initiated an oil embargo, making oil a weapon of war and
> contributing
> | to a decision by the British government to deny approval
> to use
> | Mildenhall as a recovery base.
> |
> | Plan B was rapidly drawn up to fly the SR-71 out of
> Griffiss AFB New
> | York, through the area of conflict and recover back at
> Griffiss. These
> | never before accomplished 12,000 mile missions would
> require five air
> | to air refuelings, the deployment of sixteen KC-135Q
> supporting
> | tankers with special JP-7 fuel to Spain and a specialized
> maintenance,
> | intelligence and operational support planning staff to
> Griffiss. The
> | 9th SRW was well prepared and in utmost secrecy the forces
> were
> | mobilized and deployed. The first mission was successfully
> completed
> | on Oct 13th.
> | I was a fairly young pilot in the squadron at the time,
> with only one
> | operational tour and about 120 hours of SR-71 time under
> my belt. On
> | Oct 20th I was assigned to fly a backup SR-71 from Beale
> to Griffiss
> | and to stay at Griffiss in an alert posture, prepared to
> fly follow-on
> | missions. We flew successful missions on Oct 25th and Nov
> 2 where I
> | served as backup pilot.
> |
> | My turn as primary came up on Nov 11th. The excitement
> level was
> | high, as I certainly wanted to be part of the Air Force
> and the Wing
> | success in completing the mission as tasked.
> | Takeoff was at 2AM on a brisk and clear autumn night with
> about
> | fifteen inches of snow already on the ground. It was
> peacefully
> | calm---until I lit each of the 34,000 lb thrust
> afterburners. The
> | first 450 miles had to be flown subsonic at .9 Mach, since
> we had to
> | clear the commercial aircraft flight tracks out of Boston
> and New York
> | to Europe before we could safely conduct air-refueling
> operations.
> | Radio silent electronic rendezvous with three tankers, 250
> miles out
> | over the North Atlantic at 3AM went well, as did the
> 70,000 lb (10,600
> | gallons) fuel offload.
> | You don't know the true meaning of dark until you've been
> in a
> | situation like this. We likened it to refueling in an
> inkwell. After
> | completing a few post refueling checks, I lit the
> afterburners and
> | started my acceleration to a leisurely Mach 3 cruise
> across the
> | Atlantic. The airplane performed flawlessly, thanks to the
> extra
> | special effort by the maintenance guys. About 2000 miles
> across the
> | Atlantic on an easterly heading I watched with excitement
> as the sun
> | peeked over the horizon and came up right in my face, in
> about a
> | minute and a half, a nice vantage point for viewing this
> daily event.
> |
> | The second refueling was conducted in daylight, a couple
> hundred miles
> | north of the Azores. This was another 70,000 lb offload,
> 35,000 lbs
> | from each of two tankers while the airborne spare tanker
> was not
> | needed. I started my second acceleration and headed for
> the straits
> | of Gibraltar. Cruising through the center of the narrow
> straits at
> | 80,000 feet with clear weather 100 miles on both sides
> providing quite
> | a spectacular view.
> |
> | As we proceeded down the Mediterranean toward the mid-east
> the weather
> | grew gradually worse, as forecast. The third air refueling
> south of
> | Crete, although in poor weather, went as scheduled. After
> packing in a
> | full load of 80,000 lbs of JP-7 fuel, I lit the
> afterburners and
> | started the acceleration toward the target area.
> |
> | At .98 Mach, just prior to going supersonic, maximum fuel
> flow in full
> | afterburner, a red engine oil quantity low light
> illuminated steady on
> | my emergency warning annunciator panel. I stared at it in
> almost
> | disbelief, while scanning engine instruments, oil
> pressure, rpm,
> | exhaust gas temperature, nozzle position for other
> indications of
> | trouble. Although there were no confirming indications of
> problems, I
> | couldn't just ignore the situation and continue on into
> the target
> | area with the possibility of an engine failure at
> supersonic speed
> | over the Sinai. We had no viable emergency airfields and I
> did not
> | want to be a no-notice, no-flight plan, single engine
> emergency
> | arrival at David Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv,
> especially since the
> | Israeli government had not been informed in advance about
> the missions
> | and they were in a battle for survival.
> |
> | To my pleasant surprise, a few seconds after coming out of
> afterburner
> | the red emergency warning light went out. I was by now
> fairly well
> | convinced that it was a false momentary indication, but it
> had cost me
> | 2500 lbs of critically needed fuel. My tankers were now 80
> miles
> | behind me heading further away. Getting rejoined to top
> off with fuel
> | would present a new set of problems. I decided to light
> the burners
> | and press on. Except for a 5 second flash during
> acceleration I never
> | saw the light again.
> |
> | My flight track went down the Suez canal past Cairo before
> making a
> | left turn at Mach 3.15 to the north across the battle
> lines in the
> | Sinai. I continued on a northerly course across the Dead
> Sea and over
> | the center of the Golan Heights with the panoramic and
> point cameras
> | providing imagery of hundreds of targets on both sides of
> the
> | aircraft. Approaching the Lebanon border I made a sweeping
> right turn
> | out over Syria and then back into the Sinai on a parallel
> flight path
> | for maximum coverage. The airplane was running well and I
> pushed it up
> | a bit to Mach 3.2 before exiting the area near Port Said.
> |
> | Once out over the Mediterranean I started a descent to
> 25,000 feet for
> | my fourth refueling. As fate would have it, not only was I
> low on fuel
> | because of my previous oil low warning problem, but also a
> | thunderstorm had moved in over the scheduled air refueling
> contact
> | point. My Reconnaissance Systems Officer (RSO) using
> electronic
> | azimuth and distance measuring equipment got me to within
> less than a
> | mile behind my tanker, but the visibility was so poor that
> I couldn't
> | see the tanker. We continued 20 miles down track in lousy
> weather with
> | only one half-mile and 1000 feet separation before a small
> break in
> | the clouds permitted hookup. When we made contact and
> started
> | transferring fuel I had less than 15 minutes of fuel
> remaining and was
> | 75 miles from the closest straight in emergency-landing
> runway on
> | Crete.
> |
> | We completed a fifth 70,000lb air refueling near the
> Azores before the
> | leisurely Mach 3 flight across the mid Atlantic with a
> landing at
> | Seymour Johnson AFB North Carolina. We were met by 9th SRW
> download
> | crews who had the photo and electronic intelligence
> equipment
> | downloaded and on a dedicated AF courier flight to
> Washington DC and
> | the National Photo Interpretation Center within twenty
> minutes. The
> | flight covered 12,181 miles in 10 hours 49 minutes and
> included 6
> | hours 41 minutes of supersonic time and 5 air refuelings.
> After
> | landing, I remember wondering what Charles Lindberg would
> have thought
> | about the advancement of aviation technology in less than
> 50 years.
> | The 9th SRW was tasked to fly nine missions of this type
> and completed
> | them all successfully.
> |
> | The missions were not declassified until the early 1990's
> when the
> | SR-71 program was closed as a result of the end of the
> Cold War. The
> | airplanes are all in museums now, with tail number 964,
> the one I flew
> | that day, as the centerpiece at the Strategic Air and
> Space museum
> | near Omaha, Nebraska.
> | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | (This article originally appeared in the McClellan
> Aviation Museum
> | Foundations newsletter 'CONTACT' and appears again here
> with
> | permission of Colonel Jim Wilson, USAF (retired), former
> Blackbird
> | pilot and now a member of the Board of Directors of that
> Museum. The
> | photograph of his aircraft appears courtesy of
> Lockheed-Martin
> | Aircraft).
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
>
>

[J. Severyn]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> If you do some simple algebra, the SR-71 is much faster than
> the published data. As the story below shows, only about
> 60% of the flight time is spent at supersonic speed. Yet
> the speed for the flights are in the 2,000 mph range even
> counting the subsonic time into the average.
>
> I would expect that the maximum speed was 4,000-6,000 mph.
>

Much of the SR71 POH is available on-line at:
http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/

Section 5-8 (Flight Envelop Limits) is a good read. The whole POH is very
interesting.

John Severyn
KLVK

[Kingfish]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> If you do some simple algebra, the SR-71 is much faster than
> the published data. As the story below shows, only about
> 60% of the flight time is spent at supersonic speed. Yet
> the speed for the flights are in the 2,000 mph range even
> counting the subsonic time into the average.
>
> I would expect that the maximum speed was 4,000-6,000 mph.
>

<snip *really* long & cool Blackbird story>

Jim, you GOTTA start editing out yer replies. My monitor isn't big
enough... : )

[Big John]

John

What made this interesting was the first hand account of mission.

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


On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 19:01:30 -0800, "J. Severyn"
> wrote:

>
>"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>> If you do some simple algebra, the SR-71 is much faster than
>> the published data. As the story below shows, only about
>> 60% of the flight time is spent at supersonic speed. Yet
>> the speed for the flights are in the 2,000 mph range even
>> counting the subsonic time into the average.
>>
>> I would expect that the maximum speed was 4,000-6,000 mph.
>>
>
>Much of the SR71 POH is available on-line at:
>http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/
>
>Section 5-8 (Flight Envelop Limits) is a good read. The whole POH is very
>interesting.
>
>John Severyn
>KLVK
>

[Ron Natalie]

Darkwing wrote:
> cool plane. I seen one in person at the Dayton Air Museum, it was
> smaller than I thought. But they had the Valkyrie there to and that thing is
> HUGE!
>
When the Smithsonian had there's in it's own temporary hangar it looked
small. Now that I've had to walk around that thing a gazillion times
it seems a lot larger.

[Bob Moore]

Ron Natalie wrote
> When the Smithsonian had there's in it's own temporary hangar it
> looked small.

RON!! I don't believe it! "their's".....:-)

Bob Moore

[Alan Gerber]

Bob Moore > wrote:
> Ron Natalie wrote
> > When the Smithsonian had there's in it's own temporary hangar it
> > looked small.

> RON!! I don't believe it! "their's".....:-)

I hate spelling flames, but I guess I can handle an apostrophe flame.

It's "theirs" and "its", as in "had theirs in its own temporary hangar".

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> Ron Natalie wrote
>> When the Smithsonian had there's in it's own temporary hangar it
>> looked small.
>
> RON!! I don't believe it! "their's".....:-)

Or, if you actually want to get it correct, "theirs".

The word "their" is already possessive, so the apostrophe isn't used to
indicate possessive in that case.

[Bob Moore]

Alan Gerber wrote

> It's "theirs" and "its", as in "had theirs in its own temporary hangar".

Whoops!

Bob

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Bob Moore > writes:

> > When the Smithsonian had there's in it's own temporary hangar [...]
> RON!! I don't believe it! "their's".....:-)

Oy, the curse of erroneous corrections. It should have said "theirs".

- FChE

[Skywise]

"J. Severyn" > wrote in
:

<Snipola>
> Much of the SR71 POH is available on-line at:
> http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/
>
> Section 5-8 (Flight Envelop Limits) is a good read. The whole POH is very
> interesting.

Excellent link!

I like 5-10, "Prohibited Maneuvers",

"Stalls, spins, inverted flight, and intentional
inlet unstarts are prohibited."

Geee...ya think? :)

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[[email protected]]

Bob Moore wrote:
>
> Whoops!
>
> Bob

whoops or oops? I can never get totally comfortable with this language
:)

Ramapriya

[Jim Macklin]

If you are in Kansas at Hutchinson KHUT, the Kansas
Cosmosphere and Space Center is worth a visit. They have an
SR-71 in the lobby and you can touch it and even walk under
it. They also have a huge collection or real space
artifacts.

http://www.cosmo.org/



"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
| Ron Natalie wrote
| > When the Smithsonian had there's in it's own temporary
hangar it
| > looked small.
|
| RON!! I don't believe it! "their's".....:-)
|
| Bob Moore

[Kingfish]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> If you are in Kansas at Hutchinson KHUT, the Kansas
> Cosmosphere and Space Center is worth a visit. They have an
> SR-71 in the lobby and you can touch it and even walk under
> it.

Ditto the Intrepid Air & Space Museum in Manhattan. The Blackbird is
spotted right on the flight deck. There's also one at the Pima Air
Museum in AZ. Great acft collection there.

[Jim Macklin]

Have they gotten the Intrepid unstuck yet?

I was an early visitor many years ago, before they added
most of the planes and support ships. It should look ship
shape when they get done with the refurb in two years.



"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > If you are in Kansas at Hutchinson KHUT, the Kansas
| > Cosmosphere and Space Center is worth a visit. They
have an
| > SR-71 in the lobby and you can touch it and even walk
under
| > it.
|
| Ditto the Intrepid Air & Space Museum in Manhattan. The
Blackbird is
| spotted right on the flight deck. There's also one at the
Pima Air
| Museum in AZ. Great acft collection there.
|

[Blanche]

Alan Gerber > wrote:
>Bob Moore > wrote:
>> Ron Natalie wrote
>> > When the Smithsonian had there's in it's own temporary hangar it
>> > looked small.
>
>> RON!! I don't believe it! "their's".....:-)
>
>I hate spelling flames, but I guess I can handle an apostrophe flame.
>
>It's "theirs" and "its", as in "had theirs in its own temporary hangar".

Had "its" in "its" hangar.

The Smithsonian is considered a singular entity.

I spent too many years with Strunk & White's "Elements of Style".

*sigh*

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Blanche > wrote:

> The Smithsonian is considered a singular entity.

Unless you're British :-)

[RomeoMike]

Then you would know that periods always go inside quotation marks. :-)

Blanche wrote:

>
> I spent too many years with Strunk & White's "Elements of Style".
>
> *sigh*

[Ron Natalie]

Blanche wrote:
> Alan Gerber > wrote:
>> Bob Moore > wrote:
>>> Ron Natalie wrote
>>>> When the Smithsonian had there's in it's own temporary hangar it
>>>> looked small.
>>> RON!! I don't believe it! "their's".....:-)
>> I hate spelling flames, but I guess I can handle an apostrophe flame.
>>
>> It's "theirs" and "its", as in "had theirs in its own temporary hangar".
>
> Had "its" in "its" hangar.
>
> The Smithsonian is considered a singular entity.
>
Yes, I should have known better about the apostrophe use, I concede.

The Smithsonian here was used as a collective noun for the people
working there. "Theirs" would have been appropriate.

And yes, I do know when anal retentive has a hyphen.

[gatt]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...

> I spent too many years with Strunk & White's "Elements of Style".

Not possible.


-c

[gatt]

Trivia: This is why periods always go inside the quotation marks (helps me
remember): In the old days of mechanical printing presses and manual
typesetting, the letter pieces looked similar to the strikers on old
typewriters; rectangular pieces of metal. A period piece [.] was only half
as wide as a double-quote [' '] and if it was at the end of a line, which is
common at the end of quotes or paragraphs, the half-width, full-heighth
period piece could lean just a little and eventually wiggle lose. As the
inking/printing mechanism moved over the wayward period, the piece could
snap off and monkey up the works.

To compensate for this, printing press operators and typesetters ignored the
editors made a command decision: They started tucking the [.] inside the
square [' '] piece in order to secure it and hold it still. According to
an old typesetter at the Oregon State printing press, that's why the period
goes inside the quote as such: [.][' '] (end of line)

-c

"RomeoMike" > wrote in message
...


> Then you would know that periods always go inside quotation marks. :-)


>> I spent too many years with Strunk & White's "Elements of Style".
>>
>> *sigh*

[Jose[_1_]]

> As the inking/printing mechanism
> moved over the wayward period, the piece could
> snap off and monkey up the works.

.... except that the last piece of type is also held in place by
something. We had a discussion here some time ago about this very
thing, and I think the conclusion was that this was an OWT.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Trivia: This is why periods always go inside the quotation marks (helps me
> remember): In the old days of mechanical printing presses and manual
> typesetting, the letter pieces looked similar to the strikers on old
> typewriters; rectangular pieces of metal. A period piece [.] was only half
> as wide as a double-quote [' '] and if it was at the end of a line, which is
> common at the end of quotes or paragraphs, the half-width, full-heighth
> period piece could lean just a little and eventually wiggle lose. As the
> inking/printing mechanism moved over the wayward period, the piece could
> snap off and monkey up the works.
>
> To compensate for this, printing press operators and typesetters ignored the
> editors made a command decision: They started tucking the [.] inside the
> square [' '] piece in order to secure it and hold it still. According to
> an old typesetter at the Oregon State printing press, that's why the period
> goes inside the quote as such: [.][' '] (end of line)

Urban legend. This would not explain why the period goes outside
quotation marks in British typography.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[gatt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> As the inking/printing mechanism
>> moved over the wayward period, the piece could snap off and monkey up the
>> works.
>
> ... except that the last piece of type is also held in place by something.

Not always. The printer that demonstrated this was setting type on an
actual printing press when he showed me, so I saw it first-hand. FWIW, the
printing press was at 15th and Washington in Corvallis, OR., in the spring
of 1991.

-c

[Jose[_1_]]

>>... except that the last piece of type is also held in place by something.
>
>
> Not always. The printer that demonstrated this was setting type on an
> actual printing press when he showed me, so I saw it first-hand.

So, how was that last piece of type held in place?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[gatt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>> To compensate for this, printing press operators and typesetters ignored
>> the editors made a command decision: They started tucking the [.] inside
>> the
>> square [' '] piece in order to secure it and hold it still. According
>> to an old typesetter at the Oregon State printing press, that's why the
>> period
>> goes inside the quote as such: [.][' '] (end of line)
>
> Urban legend. This would not explain why the period goes outside
> quotation marks in British typography.

As I mentioned in the previous message, this -fact- was demonstrated to me
by a printer while he was setting type on an old printing press on the
university campus where I studied Journalism. The British typography
statement assumes that British printers used the same equipment, which may
not be the case.

Similar to the way people prefer to gather their flying knowledge from those
who fly, I prefer to get my printing press history from a printing press
operator, especially while he's in the process of operating a vintage
printing press.

Strange thing to create an urban legend about, by the way.

-c

[gatt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
>>>... except that the last piece of type is also held in place by
>>>something.
>>
>> Not always. The printer that demonstrated this was setting type on an
>> actual printing press when he showed me, so I saw it first-hand.
>
> So, how was that last piece of type held in place?

If I remember correctly, it was supposed to snap in and sit snug against the
previous text. The completed plate sat up not quite vertically, but near it.
I don't know what they used to fill the space between the end of the type
and the end of the line, but I have no particular reason to think the guy
was making it up when he told me--while he was setting the type--or why he
would spread such an "urban legend" if the press he was demonstrating
contradicted it.

-c

[Jose[_1_]]

> I don't know what they used to fill the space between the end of the type
> and the end of the line, but I have no particular reason to think the guy
> was making it up when he told me--while he was setting the type--or why he
> would spread such an "urban legend" if the press he was demonstrating
> contradicted it.

I thought he actually demonstrated it to you, rather than just told you.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> As I mentioned in the previous message, this -fact- was demonstrated to me
> by a printer while he was setting type on an old printing press on the
> university campus where I studied Journalism.

History is not subject to demonstration. The fact that a printer
might be able to cause the event in question does not mean that it was
the motivation for placing periods inside quotation marks.

The placement of other punctuation inside or outside quotation marks
has long been a matter of style that differs between the U.S. and the
U.K.

> The British typography statement assumes that British printers used
> the same equipment, which may not be the case.

Movable type was universal at one time, in the not so distant past.

People like to have explanations for things, even if they have to
invent them. This explanation reminds me of the Latin teacher's
explanation for _porta_ that I heard. Supposedly the teacher said
that the word came from the fact that ancient Romans had to lift the
plow creating the foundations wherever there was a door. Same
principle.

> Similar to the way people prefer to gather their flying knowledge from those
> who fly, I prefer to get my printing press history from a printing press
> operator, especially while he's in the process of operating a vintage
> printing press.

Unless he was there originally, he wouldn't know any more than I
would.

> Strange thing to create an urban legend about, by the way.

Strange things are especially prone to produce urban legends. It's
like water spiraling down a drain or the curved shape of a wing
producing lift (to get back to general aviation).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[gatt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> I don't know what they used to fill the space between the end of the type
>> and the end of the line, but I have no particular reason to think the guy
>> was making it up when he told me--while he was setting the type--or why
>> he would spread such an "urban legend" if the press he was demonstrating
>> contradicted it.
>
> I thought he actually demonstrated it to you, rather than just told you.

No, he didn't break the production equipment anymore than a professional
pilot damages his airplane to demonstrate that it can happen.

Are you REALLY this interested in it? If so, then I'll downshift:

The typesetter was setting up a print job on a vintage printing press. As
he was doing it and describing the process, he explained that the quotes go
on the outside of the period so the period doesn't lean outward and
potentially snap off during the printing process. That's all I know about
it. If you think he was underqualified to explain such a thing or was
somehow being dishonest, or you think I just pulled all of this out of my
ass for the sheer hell of it, then show me what you have to the contrary.

This incident happened at the OSU Printing Press on the southwest corner of
15th and Washington in Corvallis, OR in the spring of 1991 The building
burned down in the summer of 1991 so unfortunately the geological
coordinates won't do any good if you wanted to try to Google Earth down the
building's vent pipe or something. I toured the facility and spoke with
the press operator as part of a senior-level journalism studies class.

Any other questions?

-c

[Jose[_1_]]

> If you think he was underqualified to explain such a thing or was
> somehow being dishonest, or you think I just pulled all of this out of my
> ass for the sheer hell of it, then show me what you have to the contrary.

I use Microsoft Word, which simulates a printing press. So there. :)

Actually, old wives tales persist even among the qualified. Ask ten
pilots about lean-of-peak operations and you'll get twelve incompatible
replies.

I suppose that if the type were held together by a block that was not as
high as the letters, this outward bending could occur (and would be more
severe for a printing character because of the contact with the rollers
and paper). I've actually worked at a hand printing press with movable
type, but it was so long ago I don't remember enough details for that to
be very useful. (It was in the Dominican Republic, I was eight.)

I remember a prior discussion (here even) about this very point, and the
arguments brought up then convinced me that it was probably an OWT. I
could be wrong about that... I haven't been wrong at all this year and
I'm probably due for an error. This could be the one. :)

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Are you REALLY this interested in it?

Interested, but not in an aviation forum.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> I thought he actually demonstrated it to you, rather than just told you.

It's hard to demonstrate urban legends.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[gatt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>> As I mentioned in the previous message, this -fact- was demonstrated to
>> me
>> by a printer while he was setting type on an old printing press on the
>> university campus where I studied Journalism.
>
> History is not subject to demonstration.

Nor is it subject to some usenet geek deciding without supporting evidence
what's urban legend and not.

If you think it's an urban legend, than show me what you have. Otherwise,
as a graduate of the School of Journalism, I'll give folks the same advice
the pilots have been giving you out here; don't stick your nose in stuff
you don't know unless you've got something to demonstrate that you do, in
fact, know it. I'll take an actual printing press operator's word over
yours as quickly as I'll take an pilot's. Sorry. Experience and credential
still mean more to me than something you might have read on the internet.

>The fact that a printer might be able to cause the event in question does
>not mean that it was
> the motivation for placing periods inside quotation marks.

Thanks. If I need your analysis of American grammar and print history, I'll
ask for it.


-c

[gatt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> gatt writes:
>
>> Are you REALLY this interested in it?
>
> Interested, but not in an aviation forum.

THEN STOP NITPICKING AT IT HERE AND MOVE ON. YEESH!

-c

[gatt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jose writes:
>
>> I thought he actually demonstrated it to you, rather than just told you.
>
> It's hard to demonstrate urban legends.

It should be easy even for a chair-pilot to demonstrate urban legends:
http://www.snopes.com.

I've been pretty polite about taking your flying questions here at face
value, and have retreatedly tried to defend you from people here who
repeatedly attack you. Apologies to them for not paying attention; it's
clear now why.

Apparently this is what I get for sticking up for you. The body of people
interested in your words has just decreased by one more. Enjoy your flight
simulators.

*plonk*

-c

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> I've been pretty polite about taking your flying questions here at face
> value, and have retreatedly tried to defend you from people here who
> repeatedly attack you.

I've been pretty polite all my life, and I plan to stay that way.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> If you think it's an urban legend, than show me what you have.

The burden of proof is on the person who makes the original claim.
I'm not required to prove that there are no pink elephants.

> Otherwise, as a graduate of the School of Journalism, I'll give
> folks the same advice the pilots have been giving you out here;
> don't stick your nose in stuff you don't know unless you've got
> something to demonstrate that you do, in fact, know it.

What does journalism have to do with printing and typesetting (or
aviation, for that matter)?

> I'll take an actual printing press operator's word over yours
> as quickly as I'll take an pilot's. Sorry.

That is your prerogative; you need not apologize for it.

> Experience and credential still mean more to me than something
> you might have read on the internet.

Well, hopefully nothing will ever happen that will force you to change
your mind. It has happened to me, though, and so I'm not quite so
trusting today.

> Thanks. If I need your analysis of American grammar and print history, I'll
> ask for it.

I don't recall discussing grammar, but I'll be happy to give analyses
in any area that I know something about. But grammar and print don't
really belong in this group.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Blanche]

RomeoMike > wrote:
>Then you would know that periods always go inside quotation marks. :-)
>
>Blanche wrote:
>
>> I spent too many years with Strunk & White's "Elements of Style".
>>
>> *sigh*

My bad. Oddly enough, the examples in the book show the period inside
the quotes, yet the only explanation relates to the use of a comma.
I think I need to get a new copy, too. Mine is dated 1979.

[Blanche]

Ron Natalie > wrote:
>Blanche wrote:
>> Alan Gerber > wrote:
>>> Bob Moore > wrote:
>>>> Ron Natalie wrote
>>>>> When the Smithsonian had there's in it's own temporary hangar it
>>>>> looked small.
>>>> RON!! I don't believe it! "their's".....:-)
>>> I hate spelling flames, but I guess I can handle an apostrophe flame.
>>>
>>> It's "theirs" and "its", as in "had theirs in its own temporary hangar".
>>
>> Had "its" in "its" hangar.
>>
>> The Smithsonian is considered a singular entity.
>>
>Yes, I should have known better about the apostrophe use, I concede.
>
>The Smithsonian here was used as a collective noun for the people
>working there. "Theirs" would have been appropriate.
>
>And yes, I do know when anal retentive has a hyphen.

Ah...the pronomial posessive "theirs". I had to go look that one up.
Learned something new today!

[RomeoMike]

Blanche wrote:
> RomeoMike > wrote:
>> Then you would know that periods always go inside quotation marks. :-)
>>
>> Blanche wrote:
>>
>>> I spent too many years with Strunk & White's "Elements of Style".
>>>
>>> *sigh*
>
> My bad. Oddly enough, the examples in the book show the period inside
> the quotes, yet the only explanation relates to the use of a comma.
> I think I need to get a new copy, too. Mine is dated 1979.
>

Yeh, period and comma inside the quotation mark, colon and semicolon
outside, and the question mark and exclamation mark... it varies. Go
figure! :-)

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> gatt writes:
>
>> I've been pretty polite about taking your flying questions here at face
>> value, and have retreatedly tried to defend you from people here who
>> repeatedly attack you.
>
> I've been pretty polite all my life, and I plan to stay that way.


Sorry, this is an aviation newsgroup. Unless you've actually flown a real
airplane you can't know anything about "polite." Once you have taken one 15
minute lesson you will then suddenly obtain all the collective knowledge of
the "real men" pilots here.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

[James Robinson]

RomeoMike > wrote:

> Then you would know that periods always go inside quotation marks. :-)
>

Not always. If the quote is a single letter or number at the end of the
sentence, then the period goes outside of the quotation marks, as in:

Mark your choice in the box with an "X".
or,
Jessica is a "10".

While the general approach in the US is to put commas or periods inside the
quotation marks, the rest of the English speaking world tends to use a more
logical approach depending on context: If the comma or period is part of
the quotation, then the punctuation is placed inside the quotation marks.
If the comma or period is not part of the quotation, then it is placed
outside the quotation marks.

The lore is that the US approach to placement of the punctuation marks had
its origins with mechanical typesetting. If a comma, or more particularly
a period, was placed outside of the quotation marks, it was more exposed.
Being relatively small, the small punctuation marks tended to break off
during the printing run. They were more protected if placed inside the
quotation marks, hence the origin of the US practice.

[RomeoMike]

James Robinson wrote:
> RomeoMike > wrote:
>
>> Then you would know that periods always go inside quotation marks. :-)
>>
>
> Not always. If the quote is a single letter or number at the end of the
> sentence, then the period goes outside of the quotation marks, as in:
>
> Mark your choice in the box with an "X".
> or,
> Jessica is a "10".
>
> While the general approach in the US is to put commas or periods inside the
> quotation marks, the rest of the English speaking world tends to use a more
> logical approach depending on context: If the comma or period is part of
> the quotation, then the punctuation is placed inside the quotation marks.
> If the comma or period is not part of the quotation, then it is placed
> outside the quotation marks.
>
> The lore is that the US approach to placement of the punctuation marks had
> its origins with mechanical typesetting. If a comma, or more particularly
> a period, was placed outside of the quotation marks, it was more exposed.
> Being relatively small, the small punctuation marks tended to break off
> during the printing run. They were more protected if placed inside the
> quotation marks, hence the origin of the US practice.

I am not an expert, but I offer:
http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/qmarks.html

If you have a reference for your "X". example, I am interested just for
my own edification.

[James Robinson]

RomeoMike > wrote:

>
>
> James Robinson wrote:
>> RomeoMike > wrote:
>>
>>> Then you would know that periods always go inside quotation marks.
>>> :-)
>>>
>>
>> Not always. If the quote is a single letter or number at the end of
>> the sentence, then the period goes outside of the quotation marks, as
>> in:
>>
>> Mark your choice in the box with an "X".
>> or,
>> Jessica is a "10".
>>
>> While the general approach in the US is to put commas or periods
>> inside the quotation marks, the rest of the English speaking world
>> tends to use a more logical approach depending on context: If the
>> comma or period is part of the quotation, then the punctuation is
>> placed inside the quotation marks. If the comma or period is not
>> part of the quotation, then it is placed outside the quotation marks.
>>
> I am not an expert, but I offer:
> http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/qmarks.html
>
> If you have a reference for your "X". example, I am interested just
> for my own edification.

Canadians have somewhat of a schizothymic existence regarding language.
Being close to the US, many US spellings and pronunciations get picked up
from magazines and over-the-border television broadcasts. As an example,
one of their major newspapers, the Globe and Mail, at one time adopted a
style manual that dropped the "U" in words such as honour, neighbour, and
flavour. Their readers convinced them to return to the more traditional
spellings - at least more traditional for Canada.

Here is a link to a discussion about punctuation around single letters:

http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/inside.html

As with anything involving language, there are no absolutes. Language
evolves, and many things that your grade school teacher told you were
wrong are now accepted in normal writing. Anyone who speaks English as
good as I knows there are no hard rules regarding grammar.

(Yes, I know there are mistakes in that last sentence, before anyone
jumps on it. I was simply demonstrating that many won't see a problem
with it.)

[RomeoMike]

James Robinson wrote:
> RomeoMike > wrote:
>
>>
>> James Robinson wrote:
>>> RomeoMike > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Then you would know that periods always go inside quotation marks.
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>> Not always. If the quote is a single letter or number at the end of
>>> the sentence, then the period goes outside of the quotation marks, as
>>> in:
>>>
>>> Mark your choice in the box with an "X".
>>> or,
>>> Jessica is a "10".
>>>
>>> While the general approach in the US is to put commas or periods
>>> inside the quotation marks, the rest of the English speaking world
>>> tends to use a more logical approach depending on context: If the
>>> comma or period is part of the quotation, then the punctuation is
>>> placed inside the quotation marks. If the comma or period is not
>>> part of the quotation, then it is placed outside the quotation marks.
>>>
>> I am not an expert, but I offer:
>> http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/qmarks.html
>>
>> If you have a reference for your "X". example, I am interested just
>> for my own edification.
>
> Canadians have somewhat of a schizothymic existence regarding language.
> Being close to the US, many US spellings and pronunciations get picked up
> from magazines and over-the-border television broadcasts. As an example,
> one of their major newspapers, the Globe and Mail, at one time adopted a
> style manual that dropped the "U" in words such as honour, neighbour, and
> flavour. Their readers convinced them to return to the more traditional
> spellings - at least more traditional for Canada.
>
> Here is a link to a discussion about punctuation around single letters:
>
> http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/inside.html
>
> As with anything involving language, there are no absolutes. Language
> evolves, and many things that your grade school teacher told you were
> wrong are now accepted in normal writing. Anyone who speaks English as
> good as I knows there are no hard rules regarding grammar.
>
> (Yes, I know there are mistakes in that last sentence, before anyone
> jumps on it. I was simply demonstrating that many won't see a problem
> with it.)

Interesting. Here's an American reference that says to put all periods
within the quotation marks except for a parenthetical reference. It
doesn't mention the "X". example.

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_quote.html

As you say, there are no absolutes, and exceptions can always be found.
Additionally, this is an international forum, and I have no idea what
the rules are in Great Britain or Australia, etc.

[Skywise]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> I've been pretty polite about taking your flying questions here at face
>> value, and have retreatedly tried to defend you from people here who
>> repeatedly attack you.
>
> I've been pretty polite all my life, and I plan to stay that way.

Being polite and being an idiot are not mutually exclusive.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[gatt]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>> gatt writes:
>>
>>> I've been pretty polite about taking your flying questions here at face
>>> value, and have retreatedly tried to defend you from people here who
>>> repeatedly attack you.
>>
>> I've been pretty polite all my life, and I plan to stay that way.

> Being polite and being an idiot are not mutually exclusive.

Correct. A problem that people have with the internet/usenet is the belief
that there's a Wikipedia site for everything and that anybody who can't
prove something they say with a URL is either dishonest or clueless.

Just because I don't want to waste a few hours convincing some usenet
****-ant that something I said is true doesn't make it false. There are
many more interesting and useful people here to waste my time with. :>

-c