A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SR-71



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 30th 07, 01:39 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
Default SR-71

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


I was under the impression that improvements in recon by satellite made use
of the SR-71 obsolete.
  #12  
Old October 30th 07, 02:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Morgans[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,924
Default SR-71


"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Phil wrote:
I think it's pretty likely they deactivated it because they had a
replacement that was even better.


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


That's what they say.

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

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


  #13  
Old October 30th 07, 02:42 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Maxwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,116
Default SR-71


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


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

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


  #14  
Old October 30th 07, 03:26 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Ron Wanttaja
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 756
Default SR-71

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


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


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

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


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

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

(RS: Reconnaissance Strike)

Ron Wanttaja


  #15  
Old October 30th 07, 04:09 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,573
Default SR-71

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


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

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

  #16  
Old October 30th 07, 05:35 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default SR-71

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



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


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

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


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


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


(RS: Reconnaissance Strike)


Ron Wanttaja


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

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

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

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

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

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

I got the drift real quick and changed the subject.

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

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #17  
Old October 30th 07, 05:35 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default SR-71

Big John writes:

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


I'm not so sure about that. The ANS was accurate to within half a mile or so,
as I recall. It wasn't good enough for a landing in zero visibility. Of
course, the published accuracy for the ANS could be (dramatically)
understated.
  #18  
Old October 30th 07, 06:02 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Dallas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 541
Default SR-71

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

has confirmed that there was, indeed, an Aurora.


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

:-)

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


--
Dallas
  #19  
Old October 30th 07, 06:15 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default SR-71

Mxsmanic wrote:
Big John writes:


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


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


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

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #20  
Old October 30th 07, 06:50 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,851
Default SR-71

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Big John writes:

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


I'm not so sure about that. The ANS was accurate to within half a
mile or so, as I recall.


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


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



Ya think?


Bertie
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.