SR-71

[Glenn[_2_]]

[HEMI-Powered[_4_]]

Glenn added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

> Attachment decoded: Sr-71 copy.jpg

Glenn, is this plane just not painted or is a one-off of some sort?
Also, what are the window-looking things on the right engine
nacelle? They look like passenger windows but that can't be right.
Thanks.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

[John Szalay]

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in news:Xns9B1A4A55032ADReplyScoreID@
216.196.97.136:

> Glenn added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>> Attachment decoded: Sr-71 copy.jpg
>
> Glenn, is this plane just not painted or is a one-off of some sort?
> Also, what are the window-looking things on the right engine
> nacelle? They look like passenger windows but that can't be right.
> Thanks.
>

Its painted, very flat black ( IIRC: its called Ironball Black ).
the lighting conditions indoors is the reason it looks that way.

The "windows" are the engine airflow bypass doors. fore & aft
thier function and controls and controls are detailed in the flight manual.
Page 1-31 thru 1-47

Here is an paragraph taken from the Manual on the bypass function.

[HEMI-Powered[_4_]]

John Szalay added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>> Glenn, is this plane just not painted or is a one-off of some
>> sort? Also, what are the window-looking things on the right
>> engine nacelle? They look like passenger windows but that
>> can't be right. Thanks.
>
> Its painted, very flat black ( IIRC: its called Ironball Black
> ). the lighting conditions indoors is the reason it looks that
> way.

Thanks, John. I agree that these openings would be much less
apparent with the black paint.

> The "windows" are the engine airflow bypass doors. fore & aft
> thier function and controls and controls are detailed in the
> flight manual. Page 1-31 thru 1-47
>
> Here is an paragraph taken from the Manual on the bypass
> function.
>
Interesting. I would've thought that the flight manual was still
classified but this makes most interesting reading. I suppose you
knew it was already there or it'd be a daunting task to find it in
what I would think is a thick book.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

[John Szalay]

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in
> Interesting. I would've thought that the flight manual was still
> classified but this makes most interesting reading. I suppose you
> knew it was already there or it'd be a daunting task to find it in
> what I would think is a thick book.
>

Long story on the manual, but a "sanitised" version is available on CD or
printed copy can be ordered if you want. its also available on-line IF
you have a broadband connection. PDF version 108Meg download..

http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works/sr71flt.pdf


IIRC: long version, guy "Borrowed" copy of NASA's DASH1
with a story, and managed to make a copy of it, now hes selling
copies at . (last time I checked anyway) $95.00 apiece.
I didn,t want a hardcopy , takes to long to search for info
so I got a copy offline couples of years ago, for reference.
computer version makes for quick access to facts..

[Clive[_3_]]

John Szalay wrote :

> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in
>> Interesting. I would've thought that the flight manual was still
>> classified but this makes most interesting reading. I suppose you
>> knew it was already there or it'd be a daunting task to find it in
>> what I would think is a thick book.
>>
>
> Long story on the manual, but a "sanitised" version is available on
> CD or printed copy can be ordered if you want. its also available
> on-line IF you have a broadband connection. PDF version 108Meg
> download..
>
> http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works/sr71flt.pdf
>
>
> IIRC: long version, guy "Borrowed" copy of NASA's DASH1
> with a story, and managed to make a copy of it, now hes selling
> copies at . (last time I checked anyway) $95.00 apiece.
> I didn,t want a hardcopy , takes to long to search for info
> so I got a copy offline couples of years ago, for reference.
> computer version makes for quick access to facts..

There used to be a page called "Inventing the SR71 engines" or similar, not
there any more.
http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Supp/FM99/oxcart.html
The wayback machine has a partial cache, but no diagrams :-(

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

John Szalay added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in
>> Interesting. I would've thought that the flight manual was
>> still classified but this makes most interesting reading. I
>> suppose you knew it was already there or it'd be a daunting
>> task to find it in what I would think is a thick book.
>>
>
> Long story on the manual, but a "sanitised" version is
> available on CD or printed copy can be ordered if you want.
> its also available on-line IF you have a broadband connection.
> PDF version 108Meg download..
>
> http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works/sr71flt.pdf
>
>
> IIRC: long version, guy "Borrowed" copy of NASA's DASH1
> with a story, and managed to make a copy of it, now hes
> selling copies at . (last time I checked anyway) $95.00
> apiece. I didn,t want a hardcopy , takes to long to search for
> info so I got a copy offline couples of years ago, for
> reference. computer version makes for quick access to facts..
>
I'll just take your word for this neat story, John! Like I
suspected, the size of the manual is formidable so either you
already knew where to look or they have a damn good index.

I've seen a couple of SR-71's, I'm going way out on a limb here but
I think one was at the Air Force Museum at Wright-Pat and the other
is in the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum. Either/both may be off-
base but I do recall seeing a couple of these very interesting
aircraft that still hold the record for both speed and ceiling for
an air-breathing aircraft, at least what has been de-classified.

You'd know, I imagine, but I've heard that a few of these can be
put back into service reasonably quickly if neither satellites nor
UAV can do a special job. I remember an interesting statistic that
dates back to, I think, the 1980s that claimed that it cost over
$55,000 per hour to fly these beasts.

--
HP, aka Jerry

[John Szalay]

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in news:Xns9B1CABA0CD3AFReplyScoreID@
69.16.186.8:
> You'd know, I imagine, but I've heard that a few of these can be
> put back into service reasonably quickly if neither satellites nor
> UAV can do a special job.


Not anymore, the last 2, were given to NASA, and for a while they were
kept for research flights, when the project ended they are kept in flyable
storage, but a short time ago, they too were sent to museums,

the days for the Blackbird, free in the sky are over..

[John Szalay]

[John Szalay]

[John Szalay]

[John Szalay]

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

John Szalay added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>> You'd know, I imagine, but I've heard that a few of these can
>> be put back into service reasonably quickly if neither
>> satellites nor UAV can do a special job.

> Not anymore, the last 2, were given to NASA, and for a while
> they were
> kept for research flights, when the project ended they are
> kept in flyable storage, but a short time ago, they too were
> sent to museums,
>
> the days for the Blackbird, free in the sky are over..
>
Thanks, John. Well, one urban legend put to rest. So, for the
foreseeable future until Aurora becomes reality (if ever) the
Blackbird's speed record will stand.

Redirect question: is it at all possible when special aircraft are
given to major museums that they can be kept in reasonable flying
condition sort of analogous to the way even really old Navy ships
in mothballs can be recommissioned?

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, the enemy of my friend is my
enemy, but the friend of my enemy is also my enemy" - variant of
Middle East Maxim

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

John Szalay added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

> Attachment decoded: HEADON.JPG

This is a good view of the Blackbird showing Kelly Johnson's genius
in that it's shape is clearly a very early form of stealth
technology, but more along the lines of the B-2 rather than the
very angular F-117.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, the enemy of my friend is my
enemy, but the friend of my enemy is also my enemy" - variant of
Middle East Maxim

[John Szalay]

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in n
> Redirect question: is it at all possible when special aircraft are
> given to major museums that they can be kept in reasonable flying
> condition sort of analogous to the way even really old Navy ships
> in mothballs can be recommissioned?
>

Nice thought, but not really practical, who has the budget ?

Seals dry out, tires dryrot, wiring degrades.


the last operational SR-71 last flew in 1999 for NASA, and it sits
outdoors as a gateguard at Dryden now.

Last two..

http://www.sr-71.org/photogallery/blackbird/17980/

http://www.sr-71.org/photogallery/blackbird/17956/


Related

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/2006/06-30.html

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

John Szalay added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>> Redirect question: is it at all possible when special
>> aircraft are given to major museums that they can be kept in
>> reasonable flying condition sort of analogous to the way even
>> really old Navy ships in mothballs can be recommissioned?
>>
>
> Nice thought, but not really practical, who has the budget ?
>
> Seals dry out, tires dryrot, wiring degrades.

Very, very true. Even when in fully flyable condition the fuel
tank seals leaked on the ground because Lockheed factored in
titanium expansion at the speeds the Blackbird was intended to
fly and needed room the fuel tank joints and seals.
>
> the last operational SR-71 last flew in 1999 for NASA, and it
> sits outdoors as a gateguard at Dryden now.
>
> Last two..
>
> http://www.sr-71.org/photogallery/blackbird/17980/
>
> http://www.sr-71.org/photogallery/blackbird/17956/
>
>
> Related
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/2006/06-30
> .html

Thanks muchly for all the great info, John. Beating a horse
simply to death here, I have at least a rudimentary idea of what
it might take to return an old museum relic back into Mach 3+
flying condition but isn't that also true of, say, one of the
last WWII battleships or even smaller vessels that have been
almost completely rebuilt on the inside with the except of the
really large systems?

Back to aircraft, it is said that the Buff will still be flying
past 2040, making it nearly 100 years since it's maiden flight.
Of course, except for the basic airframe, there ain't much left
of the old girl from the 1950s or even much later. But, again, I
vaguely recall reading about Blackbirds requiring over
$50,000/hour to fly over 20 years ago, so the cost of restoring
one would be truly staggering. Does make you wonder, though, what
the modern Skunk Works isn't showing us yet.

Have a good one!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, the enemy of my friend is my
enemy, but the friend of my enemy is also my enemy" - variant of
Middle East Maxim

[Charlie[_4_]]

HEMI-Powered wrote:
> John Szalay added these comments in the current discussion du jour
> ...
>
>> Attachment decoded: HEADON.JPG
>
> This is a good view of the Blackbird showing Kelly Johnson's genius
> in that it's shape is clearly a very early form of stealth
> technology, but more along the lines of the B-2 rather than the
> very angular F-117.
>

Aside of the community of aviation enthusiasts, I don't think that Kelly
Johnson and the Skunkworks get anywhere near enough recognition for the
amazing work they did.

Charlie

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

Charlie added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

>> This is a good view of the Blackbird showing Kelly Johnson's
>> genius in that it's shape is clearly a very early form of
>> stealth technology, but more along the lines of the B-2
>> rather than the very angular F-117.
>
> Aside of the community of aviation enthusiasts, I don't think
> that Kelly Johnson and the Skunkworks get anywhere near enough
> recognition for the amazing work they did.
>
I'd certainly agree with that! Lots of stuff the Skunk Works put
out, though, was at least partially classified for all the
important stuff.

I'm really rusty on the chronology for the U-2 and SR-71, but I
vaguely recall that the Blackbird was started about the day after
Francis Gary Powers got shot down in 1960. A quick Google reveals
that the engine design was started in 1957 and Lockheed signed the
contract to build the first planes in December, 1962. Maiden flight
was in December, 1964.

http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/sr-71/

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, the enemy of my friend is my
enemy, but the friend of my enemy is also my enemy" - variant of
Middle East Maxim

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:19:36 -0500, John Szalay
> wrote:

Does anybody know where these were taken? (not Beale or Burbank)
------------------------------------------

[Lee[_2_]]

John Szalay >
42:

>
> begin 644 PARKED1.JPG
>
> Attachment decoded: PARKED1.JPG
> `
> end
>



Back when white walls were still cool! ;-)

[Bob]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:52:12 GMT, "HEMI-Powered" > wrote:

>John Szalay added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in
>>> Interesting. I would've thought that the flight manual was
>>> still classified but this makes most interesting reading. I
>>> suppose you knew it was already there or it'd be a daunting
>>> task to find it in what I would think is a thick book.
>>>
>>
>> Long story on the manual, but a "sanitised" version is
>> available on CD or printed copy can be ordered if you want.
>> its also available on-line IF you have a broadband connection.
>> PDF version 108Meg download..
>>
>> http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works/sr71flt.pdf
>>
>>
>> IIRC: long version, guy "Borrowed" copy of NASA's DASH1
>> with a story, and managed to make a copy of it, now hes
>> selling copies at . (last time I checked anyway) $95.00
>> apiece. I didn,t want a hardcopy , takes to long to search for
>> info so I got a copy offline couples of years ago, for
>> reference. computer version makes for quick access to facts..
>>
>I'll just take your word for this neat story, John! Like I
>suspected, the size of the manual is formidable so either you
>already knew where to look or they have a damn good index.
>
>I've seen a couple of SR-71's, I'm going way out on a limb here but
>I think one was at the Air Force Museum at Wright-Pat and the other
>is in the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum. Either/both may be off-
>base but I do recall seeing a couple of these very interesting
>aircraft that still hold the record for both speed and ceiling for
>an air-breathing aircraft, at least what has been de-classified.
>
>You'd know, I imagine, but I've heard that a few of these can be
>put back into service reasonably quickly if neither satellites nor
>UAV can do a special job. I remember an interesting statistic that
>dates back to, I think, the 1980s that claimed that it cost over
>$55,000 per hour to fly these beasts.

Whodathunk we'd reach a point where a Hummer would cost about the same
to operate... ;^}

[HEMI-Powered[_3_]]

Bob added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

[snip]
>>You'd know, I imagine, but I've heard that a few of these can
>>be put back into service reasonably quickly if neither
>>satellites nor UAV can do a special job. I remember an
>>interesting statistic that dates back to, I think, the 1980s
>>that claimed that it cost over $55,000 per hour to fly these
>>beasts.
>
> Whodathunk we'd reach a point where a Hummer would cost about
> the same to operate... ;^}
>
I don't think it's quite this high. <grin> B-2's and F-117's have
high maintence costs, but don't know they cost to fly. Back to the
HUMVEE. the one that's really out of control is the new fully
armored one that goes by some acronym I can't remember. Also fuzzy
on the price, but it's in the half-million range.

This is an aviation NG, but to go nautical for just a minute, I
remember touring the USS Massachusetts once maybe 20 years ago and
was looking in on the working end of the engine room. They had a
sign describing it's rate of fuel usage per given speed in knots.
Can't remember any of the numbers clearly, and my pictures are on
35mm slides in the basement, but I vaguely recall that it had a
VERY short "range" at full speed. Just looking at the numbers for a
minute, it seems obvious that the fleet would be traveling well
below 20 knots to save fuel. That's also be necessary to slow down
to the transport's speeds. Point is that I'd bet that those things,
and even more so, the non-nuclear CVs, might burn more than
$55,000/hour but I've never researched it at all.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, the enemy of my friend is my
enemy, but the friend of my enemy is also my enemy" - variant of
Middle East Maxim

[John Szalay]

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in
> I don't think it's quite this high. <grin> B-2's and F-117's have
> high maintence costs, but don't know they cost to fly.


BTW: the F-117s are gone now too !
Wings removed and stored somewhere off Highway 6, near Tonopah Nv.

[John Szalay]

wrote in :

> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:19:36 -0500, John Szalay
> > wrote:
>
> Does anybody know where these were taken? (not Beale or Burbank)
> ------------------------------------------

the engine runup was Beale
the others were Lakenheath UK,
the guy I got them from was a SR groundcrewman.

[John Szalay]

Lee > wrote in
6.89:

> John Szalay >
> 42:
>
>>
>> begin 644 PARKED1.JPG
>>
>> Attachment decoded: PARKED1.JPG
>> `
>> end
>>
>
>
>
> Back when white walls were still cool! ;-)

Aluminum actually,

"The SR-71 has 6 main BF Goodrich 32-ply tires, each filled with 415 PSI of
nitrogen. Impregnated with aluminum powder to reduce heat"

[HEMI-Powered[_3_]]

John Szalay added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>> I don't think it's quite this high. <grin> B-2's and F-117's
> have high maintence costs, but don't know they cost to fly.
>
> BTW: the F-117s are gone now too !
> Wings removed and stored somewhere off Highway 6, near
> Tonopah Nv.
>
Really?! Didn't know that. Guess they really were stealthy, huh?
What killed them, high maintenence costs for the paint, mission has
changed so much it is no longer effective, emphasis shifting to
UAVs, what, John.

The F-22 is, I think, an air superiority fighter/bomber, but isn't
100% stealth. Aurora, if it really exists, would be such a high
flier it presumeable won't need it. Which makes me curious about
the F-117.

Tell you one thing, John, I would not want to be on a B-2 crew.
Stationed at Whitmon in Missouri, fly 26 hour missions with 6 or
more air-to-air refuelings, yada, yada. And, all they have is a
porta potty and a bunk bed to catch some Zs on. I guess I
understand why they were never deployed overseas, probably to
protect them and also because nobody know exactly where they might
be needed in a hurry. And, I might speculate that they're in the
middle of the country instead of on one of the coasts for the same
reason, plus if there ever was going to be a for-real Missiles of
October, you wouldn't want the B-2 within range.

Interesting discussion. Now, if I could only remember where I've
seen this fantastic bird up close ...

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, the enemy of my friend is my
enemy, but the friend of my enemy is also my enemy" - variant of
Middle East Maxim

[HEMI-Powered[_3_]]

John Szalay added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>
>> Back when white walls were still cool! ;-)
>
> Aluminum actually,
>
> "The SR-71 has 6 main BF Goodrich 32-ply tires, each filled
> with 415 PSI of nitrogen. Impregnated with aluminum powder to
> reduce heat"
>
Them's one helluva lot of psi's! Never thought of using a metallic
powder as a heat sink for the "rubber" tires.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, the enemy of my friend is my
enemy, but the friend of my enemy is also my enemy" - variant of
Middle East Maxim

[Maple1]

And it will be very expensive to rebuild them soon



http://gizmodo.com/5052279/f+117-stealth-fighter-%252B-caterpillar-crusher--pile-of-sadness



John Szalay wrote:
> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in
>
>>I don't think it's quite this high. <grin> B-2's and F-117's have
>>high maintence costs, but don't know they cost to fly.
>
>
>
> BTW: the F-117s are gone now too !
> Wings removed and stored somewhere off Highway 6, near Tonopah Nv.

[John Szalay]

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in n
>> BTW: the F-117s are gone now too !
>> Wings removed and stored somewhere off Highway 6, near
>> Tonopah Nv.
>>
> Really?! Didn't know that. Guess they really were stealthy, huh?
> What killed them, high maintenence costs for the paint, mission has
> changed so much it is no longer effective, emphasis shifting to
> UAVs, what, John.
>

F-22, the F-117 is OLD, the F-22 according to the Brass, is just as
stealthy, without the high maint.



> The F-22 is, I think, an air superiority fighter/bomber, but isn't
> 100% stealth. Aurora, if it really exists, would be such a high
> flier it presumeable won't need it. Which makes me curious about
> the F-117.
>
Aurora , IMHO: does not exist, except in some tect writers mind..

> Tell you one thing, John, I would not want to be on a B-2 crew.
> Stationed at Whitmon in Missouri, fly 26 hour missions with 6 or
> more air-to-air refuelings, yada, yada. And, all they have is a
> porta potty and a bunk bed to catch some Zs on. I guess I
> understand why they were never deployed overseas,


B-2 are rotated out to Diego Garcia and to Guam, both bases
have hangers built to protect them..
The one that was lost several months ago, was one of a flight of four
that was forward deployed to guam, another B-2 flight took their place
and it was time for them to go back to Whiteman AFB...

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

Maple1 added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

> And it will be very expensive to rebuild them soon
>
>
> http://gizmodo.com/5052279/f+117-stealth-fighter-%252B-caterpil
> lar-crusher--pile-of-sadness
>
I watched a History Channel episode on stealth a while back where
they discussed the ultra-high cost of just maintaining the special
black coating for the F-117. I suggested in an earlier post that
this might've led to the demise of this very interesting aircraft.
Now, the speculation will be what aircraft design(s), manned or
unmanned, will take the place of a stealth fighter - if any.

>>
>> BTW: the F-117s are gone now too !
>> Wings removed and stored somewhere off Highway 6, near
>> Tonopah Nv.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, the enemy of my friend is my
enemy, but the friend of my enemy is also my enemy" - variant of
Middle East Maxim

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

John Szalay added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>> BTW: the F-117s are gone now too !
>>> Wings removed and stored somewhere off Highway 6, near
>>> Tonopah Nv.
>>>
>> Really?! Didn't know that. Guess they really were stealthy,
>> huh? What killed them, high maintenence costs for the paint,
>> mission has changed so much it is no longer effective,
>> emphasis shifting to UAVs, what, John.
>
> F-22, the F-117 is OLD, the F-22 according to the Brass, is
> just as
> stealthy, without the high maint.
>
Hmmm. My rather limited knowledge on the F-22 suggests that it's
stealh is in the 50-70% range, not the nearly 100% of the F-117.
Has there been a significant upgrade to the stealthiness of the
F-22? There seems to be scientific barriers that make higher
stealth and higher performance mutually exclusive, e.g., the F-
117 and B-2 are sub-sonic. Also, isn't the F-22 a multi-Mach air
superiority fighter/bomber by basic design? If yes, would it have
to drop to sub-sonic to be stealthy?
>
>> The F-22 is, I think, an air superiority fighter/bomber, but
>> isn't 100% stealth. Aurora, if it really exists, would be
>> such a high flier it presumeable won't need it. Which makes
>> me curious about the F-117.
>>
> Aurora , IMHO: does not exist, except in some tect writers
> mind..

I tend to agree, John. I think it is a masterful piece of post-
Cold War dis-information intended to keep our new enemies as well
as our old enemies guessing. The evidence of its existance
borders on that of UFO sightings in Area 57, yet those who
believe there is some middle ground between ordinary supersonic
aircraft and rockets or satellites might be driving a modern day
Skunk Works under deep cover on Aurora.

>> Tell you one thing, John, I would not want to be on a B-2
>> crew. Stationed at Whitmon in Missouri, fly 26 hour missions
>> with 6 or more air-to-air refuelings, yada, yada. And, all
>> they have is a porta potty and a bunk bed to catch some Zs
>> on. I guess I understand why they were never deployed
>> overseas,
>
> B-2 are rotated out to Diego Garcia and to Guam, both bases
> have hangers built to protect them..
> The one that was lost several months ago, was one of a flight
> of four that was forward deployed to guam, another B-2 flight
> took their place and it was time for them to go back to
> Whiteman AFB...
>
I didn't know we deployed these aircraft to any overseas bases. I
asssume you mean that the hangars are super hardened in some ways
to protect the aircraft as much as is fiscally reasonable. So, it
seems that Guam still has a place as a AFB after doing so well as
a B-29 airfield in WWII. Thanks, John.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, the enemy of my friend is my
enemy, but the friend of my enemy is also my enemy" - variant of
Middle East Maxim

[John Szalay]

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in news:Xns9B1F4EE0E99EFReplyScoreID@6
> I didn't know we deployed these aircraft to any overseas bases. I
> asssume you mean that the hangars are super hardened in some ways
> to protect the aircraft as much as is fiscally reasonable.
>


No actually, the main reason for the hangers is protection from
the rain. Strange as it may seem..
the water is a major concern for the B-2's surfaces.. will look up the
article..

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

John Szalay added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>> I didn't know we deployed these aircraft to any overseas
>> bases. I asssume you mean that the hangars are super hardened
>> in some ways to protect the aircraft as much as is fiscally
>> reasonable.
>
> No actually, the main reason for the hangers is protection
> from
> the rain. Strange as it may seem..
> the water is a major concern for the B-2's surfaces.. will
> look up the article..
>
Thanks for the info. No need to do research for me unless you're
personally interested in it yourself.

So, if these very expensive - $2B each? - and very scarce, what
protects them from a terrorist attack of some sort on Guam or an
attack by another country with an air force and/or missiles? Again,
no need to research, just looking for your own opinion.

Do you agree that mainly parking these birds in the American
Midwest was chosen to maximize their ability to fly anywhere in the
world with the most optimum time as well as protect them (hopefull)
from attack?

Whatever, have a great Saturday, John. I've learned a lot from you
about these planes.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Don't say 'can't' when you really mean 'won't'"

[John Szalay]

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in news:Xns9B1E7C124E806ReplyScoreID@2
>>
>> "The SR-71 has 6 main BF Goodrich 32-ply tires, each filled
>> with 415 PSI of nitrogen. Impregnated with aluminum powder to
>> reduce heat"
>>
> Them's one helluva lot of psi's! Never thought of using a metallic
> powder as a heat sink for the "rubber" tires.
>

There are many unique items about the Blackbird,
the fuel, the special B.F Goodrich tires, the spike, the massive engines
the oil, the metal used to build her.
the cadmium free tools required to work on her.
the paint, the wiring and connectors themelves were a problem
becasue of the heat at speed.

Ben Rich goes on for almost a full chapter in his book, on the problems
of building and maint on the plane.
Great read by the way...

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

John Szalay added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>> "The SR-71 has 6 main BF Goodrich 32-ply tires, each filled
>>> with 415 PSI of nitrogen. Impregnated with aluminum powder
>>> to reduce heat"
>>>
>> Them's one helluva lot of psi's! Never thought of using a
>> metallic powder as a heat sink for the "rubber" tires.
>
> There are many unique items about the Blackbird,
> the fuel, the special B.F Goodrich tires, the spike, the
> massive engines the oil, the metal used to build her.
> the cadmium free tools required to work on her.
> the paint,

Why cadmium-free tools? would there be a weird electrolytic
reaction or something if cadmium came in contact with the paint?

the wiring and connectors themelves were a problem
> becasue of the heat at speed.

I would think from expansion of the connectors and wiring from
heat generated by the airframe at speed, just like the fuel leak
on the ground issue which stemmed from a need for larger metal
and seal clearances on the fuel tanks to avoid crumpling when the
metal exapanded.

> Ben Rich goes on for almost a full chapter in his book, on the
> problems of building and maint on the plane.
> Great read by the way...
>
I must've missed your first mention of this book. Could you
please repeat the title as well as the author so I can make a
note go to the library?

The relatively little I already knew about the SR-71 plus your
comments suggest that this was one damn advanced aircraft for the
late 1950s/early 1960s era in aviation. Can't recall who said
that Kelly Johnson never got the recognition he truly deserved,
especially for his Skunk Works projects. Without him, we'd not
have had an effective intelligence gathering tool over the USSR
after Powers was shot down at 80,000+ feet in his U-2. And, we
were a generation away from the first spy satellites and
effectively 2 generations from UAVs, both of which have
limitations.

Do you foresee anything on the horizon for a high altitude, maybe
stealthy, high speed air breathing aircraft to be developed
especially for intelligence gathering to replace the Blackbird?

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Don't say 'can't' when you really mean 'won't'"

[John Szalay]

Maple1 > wrote in
>
> http://gizmodo.com/5052279/f+117-stealth-fighter-%252B-caterpillar-crus
> her--pile-of-sadness
>
>


That aircraft was ‘Article 784’, the fifth full-scale development F-117A,
and it was destroyed at the US Air Force’s Plant 42 site in Palmdale, Calif
after being stripped of all useable and secret items..

All the remaining operational Blackjets were retired to Tonopah.
(other than the 4 now in museums)

[John Szalay]

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in
> So, if these very expensive - $2B each? - and very scarce, what
> protects them from a terrorist attack of some sort on Guam or an
> attack by another country with an air force and/or missiles?

Very efficent and armed Security forces. and a few signs.


> Do you agree that mainly parking these birds in the American
> Midwest was chosen to maximize their ability to fly anywhere in the
> world with the most optimum time as well as protect them (hopefull)
> from attack?
>
makes sense to me.. long way from the coast ( and missiles), in the
heartland. away from a major population centers. same reason missile
fields were once placed there....


> Whatever, have a great Saturday, John. I've learned a lot from you
> about these planes.
>

[John Szalay]

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in n
> Why cadmium-free tools? would there be a weird electrolytic
> reaction or something if cadmium came in contact with the paint?
>

traces of cadmium left on the bolts caused the heads of the bolts to
break off when, the planes/engines got hot...
remember these planes suffered the heat of friction of the air.
the pilots were reported to warm their food by holding it close to the
windscreens.

>>
> I must've missed your first mention of this book. Could you
> please repeat the title as well as the author so I can make a
> note go to the library?
>
Skunk Works by Ben Rich & Leo Janos
ISNB 0-316-74330-5
>
> Do you foresee anything on the horizon for a high altitude, maybe
> stealthy, high speed air breathing aircraft to be developed
> especially for intelligence gathering to replace the Blackbird?
>


IMHO:
No, but believe me, I am FAR from an expert, FAR, FAR...
I just follow . what I can find, and research and read much... :-)

[John Szalay]

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in n> No actually, the main reason for
the hangers is protection
>> from
>> the rain. Strange as it may seem..
>> the water is a major concern for the B-2's surfaces.. will
>> look up the article..
>>
> Whatever, have a great Saturday, John. I've learned a lot from you
> about these planes.
>


My pleasure,,,
BTW: the B-2 crash at ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, Guam
was due to water in several of the air-data sensors
causeing the flight control computers to get bad data..

[John Szalay]

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in
> So, if these very expensive - $2B each? - and very scarce, what
> protects them from a terrorist attack of some sort on Guam


also the B-2 has been deployed on a short term basis to Australia
as well..(more or less a training operation)

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

John Szalay added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

> Maple1 > wrote in
>>
>> http://gizmodo.com/5052279/f+117-stealth-fighter-%252B-caterpi
>> llar-crus her--pile-of-sadness
>>
> That aircraft was ‘Article 784’, the fifth full-scale
> development F-117A, and it was destroyed at the US Air Force’s
> Plant 42 site in Palmdale, Calif after being stripped of all
> useable and secret items..
>
> All the remaining operational Blackjets were retired to
> Tonopah. (other than the 4 now in museums)
>
Interesting. Thanks.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Don't say 'can't' when you really mean 'won't'"

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

John Szalay added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>> Whatever, have a great Saturday, John. I've learned a lot
>> from you about these planes.
>
> My pleasure,,,
> BTW: the B-2 crash at ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, Guam
> was due to water in several of the air-data sensors
> causeing the flight control computers to get bad data..
>
Hmmm. I am aware that the flight characteristics of the F-117 are
so poor that it cannot fly without it's computer(s). Is that also
true of the B-2, i.e., if the computer(s) fail for any reason, like
rain killing the data sensors, the plane goes down? Wow! Double
plus ungood! Thank God for redundant systems and good design.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Don't say 'can't' when you really mean 'won't'"

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

John Szalay added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in
>> So, if these very expensive - $2B each? - and very scarce,
>> what protects them from a terrorist attack of some sort on
>> Guam or an attack by another country with an air force and/or
>> missiles?
>
> Very efficent and armed Security forces. and a few signs.

Neat sign and I certainly believe it. But, perhaps the question is,
would a SEAL team-like assault term give a damn? Wouldn't a
dedicated or fanatical terrorist group be able to overcome whatever
"deadly force" Anderson has?
>
>> Do you agree that mainly parking these birds in the American
>> Midwest was chosen to maximize their ability to fly anywhere
>> in the world with the most optimum time as well as protect
>> them (hopefull) from attack?
>>
> makes sense to me.. long way from the coast ( and
> missiles), in the
> heartland. away from a major population centers. same reason
> missile fields were once placed there....

Well, for once, I speculuated right. Thanks for the confirmaton,
John. I commented yesterday or the day before that I thought they
were based in the Midwest both for protection from terrorist or
mid-range missiles, but also so they could fly either to a Korea or
SE Asia hot spot or Iran/Middle East in about the same time and
distance. Basing the entire wing someplace else would aggravate
that, plus make security much more difficult. Too bad that planes
this large can't launch and land on a CVN, it'd be a great place to
deploy some in the Persian Gulf.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Don't say 'can't' when you really mean 'won't'"

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

John Szalay added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>> So, if these very expensive - $2B each? - and very scarce,
>> what protects them from a terrorist attack of some sort on
>> Guam
>
> also the B-2 has been deployed on a short term basis to
> Australia
> as well..(more or less a training operation)
>
Didn't know that either.

The picture looks pretty lethal but let me tell you a story from my
fighting the Red Smear days, circa 1971. I was stationed in Bavaria
in a Pershing tactical missile battalion. One month out of 4, we'd
"deploy" to a hard site where the missiles were set up and armed
with nuclear warheads, but the warheads themselves were obviously
not armed. There was a really tall, maybe 10 feet or so, double
barb wire fence around the whole place and I think two rows of
fencing with a killing zone in between. A company of Army infantry
guarded the place for us.

That's all great, I guess. But, security tests were run
occasionally and it was trivially easy to bluff your way past the
gate guards with the simple ploy of dressing in an Army officer's
uniform. Yeah, that's been fixed, but I also was fearful of the
fact that the hard site was surrounded by farmland with no
protection at all. My biggest fear, such that it was, was that a
sapper squad or two could simply get in close at night and mortar
the place. And then there was the constant threat of being only 9
minutes away from Soviet tactical nucks in Czechoslovakia ...

I only have one picture of the hard site missiles (attached) which
does show a double row of fences but few guards are visible. I used
a small 35mm range finder camera to grab this picture quickly by
standing in the doorway of my radio van and shooting over the roof
(I was outside the security perimeter but still inside a fenced
area). It was a special court martial offense back them to
photograph the missiles on the hard site but I always wondered what
would stop someone from shooting pictures from the farmland with a
bigger camera and telephoto lens. Besides which, there ain't much
to be seen of value to a foreign power.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Don't say 'can't' when you really mean 'won't'"

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

John Szalay added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>> Why cadmium-free tools? would there be a weird electrolytic
>> reaction or something if cadmium came in contact with the
>> paint?
>
> traces of cadmium left on the bolts caused the heads of the
> bolts to
> break off when, the planes/engines got hot...
> remember these planes suffered the heat of friction of the
> air. the pilots were reported to warm their food by holding it
> close to the windscreens.

Really?! I do know that the skin of the aircraft got hot enough to
glow red in the dark, which is pretty damn hot to heat titanium by
air friction even at speeds about it's unclassified speed of Mach
3. I was educated as an engineer but it's been 40 years since I
took Strength of Materials, and there weren't no exotic materials
back then. But, I cannot imagine cadmium causing some kind of
reaction or messing up the heat dissipation enough to crack off a
head. Obviously, I believe you, it just shows how really difficult
it must've been for Kelly Johnson to develop and build such a
plane.

I fully believe that the windscreen would be hot enough to heat
food. When I was running my radio van in the field using the 10 KW
V-4 air cooled generator built in, I used the exhaust manifold to
heat my C-rations.
>>>
>> I must've missed your first mention of this book. Could you
>> please repeat the title as well as the author so I can make a
>> note go to the library?
>>
> Skunk Works by Ben Rich & Leo Janos
> ISNB 0-316-74330-5

Thank you, I'll look for it.

>> Do you foresee anything on the horizon for a high altitude,
>> maybe stealthy, high speed air breathing aircraft to be
>> developed especially for intelligence gathering to replace
>> the Blackbird?
>
> IMHO:
> No, but believe me, I am FAR from an expert, FAR, FAR...
> I just follow . what I can find, and research and read much...
> :-)
>
I wouldn't downplay your knowledge, John. You've got a fantastic
store on a wide variety of aircraft and I suspect you either have a
large library of reference and picture books (as I do of car books,
my specialty) and/or you have a large digital collection.

I find it interesting to go from analysis, which is the study of
data, to synthesis, which is the extrapolation of current data to
reach conclusions. So, I would think that your judgment is quite
keen on military and intelligence aircraft, John.

I don't go in for conspiracy theories or little green men, but I do
believe it is necessary for our country to be constantly vigilent
against a rapidly changing new set of enemies while still keeping
an eye on our former Cold War enemies who are still very active.
So, while I have zerio knowledge, I would strongly suspect that
something is being at least discussed to take the place of a fast,
high flying intelligence aircraft, but I would also include in my
synthesis that we may be designing and deploying more and more
sophisticated spy satellites which are impervious to attack with
today's technology and perhaps get enough of them to shorten the
time of reorienting a satellite to spy on a rapidly evolving
situation. That might get rid of the need to develop a multi-
billion dollar new aircraft that would be outrageously expensive to
fly and maintain.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Don't say 'can't' when you really mean 'won't'"

[John Szalay]

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in
> Neat sign and I certainly believe it. But, perhaps the question is,
> would a SEAL team-like assault term give a damn? Wouldn't a
> dedicated or fanatical terrorist group be able to overcome whatever
> "deadly force" Anderson has?
>>

Sure, Anything is possible. But at what cost, for what benefit ?

When I was stationed at Ft Campbell,(before our little trip overseas
in 1967)..
we had a nice little compound less then a mile from our barracks. Know
as Clarksville Base. (AKA: The Birdcage) guarded by a detachment of
Marines, with 4 fences around the place, two floodlights every 50 ft
2nd fence was electric. two patrol ring roads
The Marines carried live ammo,
and there were those signs everywhere..

the 160th (Night stalkers) helicopter unit is housed there now.
the fences are gone, but you can still see some of the signs...

There are several websites that detail the place..


Anything can be attacked given the right resources..
but you have to weigh the cost/gain ratio..

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

John Szalay added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>> Neat sign and I certainly believe it. But, perhaps the
>> question is, would a SEAL team-like assault term give a damn?
>> Wouldn't a dedicated or fanatical terrorist group be able to
>> overcome whatever "deadly force" Anderson has?
>
> Sure, Anything is possible. But at what cost, for what
> benefit ?

Maybe I shouldn't belabor this, but the BIG lesson we learned on
9/11 plus our experiences in both Afghanistan and Iraq is that a
dedicated enemy of Islamic terrorists such as Al Qaeda will stop
at nothing to attack a target of opportunity, usually at very low
cost and with very low numbers of boots on the ground (but very
highly trained). What I learned myself almost 40 years ago can
possibly be extrapolated today with shoulder mounted RPGs and
even 10 kilo ton nukes that are small enough to literlly fit into
a minivan.

John, one of the things I learned when I was first assigned to be
Chrysler's Engineering Information Security Manager was a saying
that said "the only two kinds of people that've never had a
security breach are the arrogant and the ignorant". Perhaps we
could apply that same logic to a very small scale
military/terrorist attack here ...

> When I was stationed at Ft Campbell,(before our little trip
> overseas in 1967)..

Where did you go then, the rice paddies? I don't recall you ever
saying what branch of the military you were in, your rank (I left
as a hard stripe Sergeant E-5), and job. I'd be very interested
in that because I could learn from your experiences.

> we had a nice little compound less then a mile from our
> barracks. Know
> as Clarksville Base. (AKA: The Birdcage) guarded by a
> detachment of Marines, with 4 fences around the place, two
> floodlights every 50 ft 2nd fence was electric. two patrol
> ring roads
> The Marines carried live ammo,
> and there were those signs everywhere..
>
> the 160th (Night stalkers) helicopter unit is housed there
> now. the fences are gone, but you can still see some of the
> signs...
>
> There are several websites that detail the place..

I don't understand your point. You're saying that this place was,
in your opinion, reasonably impregnable?

> Anything can be attacked given the right resources..
> but you have to weigh the cost/gain ratio..
>
I certainly agree with this in principle, but the Al Qaeda
attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon (only because the
fools got lost in D.C. looking for the White House, else we'd
have had a big hole in that) and a field in Pennsylvania were
attacked by trained airline pilots - only 20 of maybe 30 in-
country - that nobody, NOBODY even surmised might mount that kind
of attack. Every year coming up to 9/11 everyone gets nervous
even though Osama Bin Laden himself has said that they will
attack when they are ready and when we are vulnerable, and NOT on
arbitrary anniversaries or special dates, ala this year's
election. I said I'm not a conspiracy believer and I'm also not
an alarmist, but frankly with all due respect to our dedicated
people in the FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security, I don't think they
could find a terrorist if they were looking at them. There've
been a few terrorist attacks that were, fortunately, stopped and
I'm someone sure that some people are being surveilled right now,
but I have to wonder ...

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Don't say 'can't' when you really mean 'won't'"

[John Szalay]

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in
>> When I was stationed at Ft Campbell,(before our little trip
>> overseas in 1967)..
>
> Where did you go then, the rice paddies? I don't recall you ever
> saying what branch of the military you were in, your rank (I left
> as a hard stripe Sergeant E-5), and job. I'd be very interested
> in that because I could learn from your experiences.
>
Yep..
trained as a member of an airborne artillery FDC
crosstrained as a Airborne Pathfinder, left after my tour
as a SPC-5


> I don't understand your point. You're saying that this place was,
> in your opinion, reasonably impregnable?
>
Pretty much, the same as the gold Vault at Ft Knox, probably more so..

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

John Szalay added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>> Where did you go then, the rice paddies? I don't recall you
>> ever saying what branch of the military you were in, your
>> rank (I left as a hard stripe Sergeant E-5), and job. I'd be
>> very interested in that because I could learn from your
>> experiences.
>>
> Yep..
> trained as a member of an airborne artillery FDC
> crosstrained as a Airborne Pathfinder, left after my tour
> as a SPC-5
>
I was the oldest guy in my BCT company at Ft. Dix in June, 1970 at
23 being that I had a college defermant for 4 years plus a year a
Chrysler before I got drafted. We had this 17 year old kid that
never stopped talking about going airborne so he naturally picked
up the nickname Airborne. Finally, even our drill sergeant,
airborne infantry and Viet Nam tested himself said "son, there is
something unnatural about jumping out of an airplane in level
flight!"

My respects to you, John, for your contributions.

>> I don't understand your point. You're saying that this place
>> was, in your opinion, reasonably impregnable?
>>
> Pretty much, the same as the gold Vault at Ft Knox, probably
> more so..
>
Thanks. As I think I said earlier, rule breakers can always stay
ahead of rule makers so let's hope that them who have the
responsibility of securing our military bases and our civilian
population are thinking out-of-the-box for new threats, e.g. like
when the Brits discovered people trying to bring liquid explosives
on board an airliner.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Don't say 'can't' when you really mean 'won't'"

[John Szalay]

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in Finally, even our drill sergeant,
> airborne infantry and Viet Nam tested himself said "son, there is
> something unnatural about jumping out of an airplane in level
> flight!"
>

Yep ! I agree, but boy is it a rush !

But then I was a firefighter for 17 years too,
& There is something unnatural about running into
a burning building too ! :-)

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

John Szalay added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in Finally, even our drill
> sergeant,
>> airborne infantry and Viet Nam tested himself said "son,
>> there is something unnatural about jumping out of an airplane
>> in level flight!"
>>
>
> Yep ! I agree, but boy is it a rush !
>
> But then I was a firefighter for 17 years too,
> & There is something unnatural about running into
> a burning building too ! :-)
>
My same drill instructor was asked once by this kid we called
"Airborne" if there was any trouble getting men to make their
first jump. He said "nope, it's the 2nd jump that's hard to make
'em take" at which time the kid said "what'd you do?" He said "I
stood in the door but hestitated and the last thing I remember
was the jump master's size 12 on my ass - everybody makes 3
jumps, son!".

Our next door neighbor's daughter is a 1989 graduate of West
Point. She got enamored with Airborne and did that, then went to
Ranger School and did that. In her class's graduation from Ranger
School, the whole bunch jumped out of whatever aircraft it was.
Our neighbors were there to see it. One jumper got tangled in the
shroud upside down and couldn't right themselves until very close
to the ground but thankfully landed safely. After the jump, when
our neighbor's daughter came to see per parents she asked
exitedly "did you see me?! did you see me?!" to which they said
"all we saw was a couple hundred green things floating down and
the young woman said "I was the one hanging upside down!". Talk
about hearts dropping! She later went on to chute packing tool as
a officer - well, I did say she was gung ho - but somehow got
shoved into a logistics battalion when her division deployed to
Kuwait in the 1991 Gulf War. She and her husband, a 1998 West
Point grad she met there, were both just inside the Iraq border
with orders to spearhead 100 klicks in if the go code came, which
it never did, so she might've seen some action.

So, no, John, BCT and 8 weeks as a Pershing Communications
Specialist at Ft. Sill was enough excitement for me. I am very
tall and VERY thin and highly UN-atheletic so the physical stuff
was pretty damn hard on me, damn near didn't pass the PT test.
So, I was neither interested in the airborne gig nor did I think
I had a prayrer of humping that course for 3 weeks. Ditto for NCO
school when I was in Germany; rather, I just went before the
normal E-5 board probably similarly to what you did.

I have to hand it to you, John, you're either very brave or very
dumb if you were a fire fighter as well as airborne! <grin>
Serioously, I have great respect for the military as well as
state, county, and local law enforcement and fire fighter men and
women. Their job is difficult and dangerous, hours are long, and
pay is low. Again, my hat is off to you.

And, no, I had no desire to be a Marine like my father.

Have a good one, John!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Don't say 'can't' when you really mean 'won't'"

[Bob]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:24:28 -0500, John Szalay
> wrote:

>Maple1 > wrote in
>>
>> http://gizmodo.com/5052279/f+117-stealth-fighter-%252B-caterpillar-crus
>> her--pile-of-sadness
>>
>>
>
>
>That aircraft was ‘Article 784’, the fifth full-scale development F-117A,
>and it was destroyed at the US Air Force’s Plant 42 site in Palmdale, Calif
>after being stripped of all useable and secret items..
>
>All the remaining operational Blackjets were retired to Tonopah.
>(other than the 4 now in museums)

My conspiracy theory de jour is that at least a couple of them now
speak with an accent and wear six-pointed blue stars...

Bob ^,,^

[HEMI-Powered[_3_]]

Bob added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

>>That aircraft was ‘Article 784’, the fifth full-scale
>>development F-117A, and it was destroyed at the US Air Force’s
>>Plant 42 site in Palmdale, Calif after being stripped of all
>>useableand secret items..
>>
>>All the remaining operational Blackjets were retired to
>>Tonopah. (other than the 4 now in museums)
>
> My conspiracy theory de jour is that at least a couple of them
> now speak with an accent and wear six-pointed blue stars...
>
Seems like it'd be awfully hard to fly one of them from Israel to,
say, Iran, and not have everybody know about it. If the United
States were still flying them, at least we cotrol one of the
biggest groups 0f spy satellites but the Israeli's don't and also
would engender hoards of media crawling all over them that don't
especially like the Jewish homeland. Not saying this is entirely
far-fetched but if there is any truth to it, I would also think
that the U.S. would have to send a team over there to help maintain
the very expensive planes as well as either train the Israeli
pilots or covertly fly the planes for them.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Don't say 'can't' when you really mean 'won't'"