ferguson@x102c.harris-atd.com (ferguson ct 71078) (03/10/89)
In article <6782@super.ORG> mjt@super.UUCP (Michael J. Tighe) writes: >In article <13987@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> david@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (David Robinson) writes: >>My dates may be wrong (so please don't flame me) but I was told once >>that the SR-71 first flew in 1962 and was known to the public until 1968. >>An ex roommate's father who was an Air Force mechanic at the time said that the >>flight line was always cleared on landing (always at night with no lights) >>and as soon as it stopped a tarp was thrown over it. So secret that he >>had no idea of what type of plane it was (i.e. boomer or recon). >> >This is not a flame. Lyndon Johnson leaked the existence of the A-12, (which >he called the A-11) on February 29, 1964. Then on July 24, 1964 he leaked >the existence of the RS-71, (which he called the SR-71), a plane dedicated >to recon. > >Ironically, when LBJ leaked the A-12, he used photos of the YF-12a, serial >number 60-6934. The speed records were on May 1, 1965, so it was clearly >in the public by then. >-- >------------- >Michael Tighe >internet: mjt@super.org > uunet: ...!uunet!super!mjt Well, LBJ didn't exactly "leak" the existence of the blackbird -- he announced it at a press conference! He announced it as the A-11 and it was left unclear whether it was a fighter or recon. The plane was originally intended as a recon plane but after Gary Powers got shot down over USSR and JFK promised no more overflights, the builders of the plane had political dilemma. They solved it by calling the plane a fighter even though it was clearly intended as a recon plane. There were abortive attempts to hang missles on it and reclassify it as the YF-12A but, personally speaking, I don't think these efforts were serious -- I believe they were just political damage control efforts. The politics of LBJ's announcement were interesting. Keep in mind the times: JFK had been assasinated four months earlier, the nation was still in shock, and there was an election in nine months. Also, the "Supersonic Transport race" was in progress. The SST race was like the "space race" with the Russians except the competition was Great Britain, France, and others who were probably considered more formidable competitors. The perception at the time was that the US was BEHIND in the SST race (seems like the US was behind in everything about that time). To make matters worse, the US was planning to build a mach 3 SST whereas the rest of the world was planning mach 2.5 SSTs. It was "common knowledge" that mach 3 put the US at a schedule disadvantage since such speeds required stainless steel or titanium aircraft and there had never been a titanium aircraft built before. Basic titanium metallurgy techniques were a mystery. So LBJ's announcement of the blackbird was laden with political objectives: o He wanted to divert national attention from the JFK assasination and convey a sense of "the world marches on". o He wanted to get some attention ("Hey, there's a new president in town. Look at me for cripes sake!"). After all, 1964 was an election year. o He wanted to make it know that (Oh, by the way) the blackbird was made of titanium and was already in flight testing Of course LBJ couldn't just come right out and say all that so he said he was making the blackbird public for the safety of airline pilots flying over Edwards who would no doubt be startled by its sighting. The only photo of the plane released to the press was a side view and there was considerable speculation as to its configuration, fuel load, weapons, etc. Some months later, techies from the various SST contractors were allowed to visit Lockheed's "Skunk Works" to get the low-down on titanium technology, etc. The plan worked -- the US was henceforth perceived as the leader in the SST race and the "we're ahead technology-wise" feeling probably helped LBJ in the '64 election. Politics and technology is a strange mixture. Chuck Ferguson Harris Government Information Systems Division (407) 984-6010 MS: W1/7732 PO Box 98000 Melbourne, FL 32902 Internet: ferguson@cobra@trantor.harris-atd.com uunet: uunet!x102a!x102c!ferguson
mcd@iconsys.UUCP (Mark Dakins) (03/10/89)
In article <3247@pixar.UUCP> good@pixar.uucp writes: >In article <524@gonzo.UUCP> daveb@gonzo.UUCP (Dave Brower) writes: | |[quote from poorly-written "Chronicle" item about retirement of the |SR-71 deleted. They even still believe that 85,000 foot stuff.] | |:So, the announcement leads me to suspect any combination of the |:following: |: |: * The SR-71 replacement is ready to go, but so black no one |: is supposed to know. Conspiracy theorists take note. | |This one gets my vote. In fact, I think it really could be "Aurora", |already reported as operational in -- get this -- "Popular Mechanics". |The article was pretty plausible. It's supposed to be a Mach 5+ plane |which is launched and retrieved from flying C-5's. I know. I thought |about it and I convinced myself it could be done, and cleverly, too. | |Random points: (Arguments the Aurura may exist and be operational deleted) Well, I won't disagree with Craig's point but, with respect to the SR-71 having been retired; the following is a quote from AW&ST March 6, 1989 in the "Industry Observer" feature on page 13 under the headline "High Flyers". "Air Force Lockheed SR-71 reconnaissance aircraft are making high-altitude, high-speed, intelligence gathering flights over the Barents Sea near the Soviet Union's Kola Peninsula. The Soviets conduct extensive naval activity in the area. The SR-71s have been overflying Spitsbergen Island, Norway, at altitudes above 70,000 ft." Of course, the fact that this item was published doesn't mean that the flights are occuring or that if they are that the aircraft is the SR-71. You will note that the item is unattributed. May be true or may not be. May be a leak or an "leak" (intentionally accidental) or a release (although I have never heard of this kind of info being offically released.) The wizard war is a strange game. -- UUCP: uunet!iconsys!mcd Mark Dakins, Icon International ARPANET: iconsys!mcd@uunet.uu.net 774 South 400 East, Orem, UT.
mjt@super.ORG (Michael J. Tighe) (03/10/89)
In article <63@sppy00.UUCP> kco@sppy00.UUCP (Kevin ONeil) writes: >In an IEEE newspaper a while ago there was mention of an unmanned version of >the SR71. Is that to be retired also? As far as I know there was never an unmanned SR-71, but there were D-21 drones that were to fly on top of the A-12, but I don't know if this was ever done beyond the test stage. Two A-12's were converted to carry the D-21; one crashed, the other is in storage. -- ------------- Michael Tighe internet: mjt@super.org uunet: ...!uunet!super!mjt
roberts@cognos.uucp (Robert Stanley) (03/11/89)
In article <1659@trantor.harris-atd.com> mjt@super.UUCP (Michael J. Tighe) writes: > ... To make matters worse, the US was planning to build > a mach 3 SST whereas the rest of the world was planning mach 2.5 SSTs. > It was "common knowledge" that mach 3 put the US at a schedule > disadvantage since such speeds required stainless steel or titanium > aircraft and there had never been a titanium aircraft built before. > Basic titanium metallurgy techniques were a mystery. This doesn't ring altogether true. I agree that the limiting mach on Concorde was dictated by the choice of alloys, which were chosen on the grounds of practicality; there were already a great many unknowns. However, one of the reasons that Boeing put forward their SST proposal was surely because they had exactly the experience that was needed. The XB-70 (Valkyrie) was the pioneer in this respect, and didn't it make extensive use of epoxy-bonded, honey-comb titanium sandwich? In the same time-frame, Lockheed built the A11 (where this thread started!) with Titanium as the primary skin material. Several interviews with Kelly have described at length the problems they went through, ranging from discovering that cadmium plating on tools was a disaster, through to developing a formal recording process for every sheet rolled that included such information as the grain direction! Part of developing the necessary titanium-production infrastructure included building the (then) largest cold forging press in the country (250,000 tons pressure, from memory). The design process for the A11 began in the '50s, although I forget exactly the date that manufacturing started. However, experiments had already been conducted to prove that titanium technology was workable before Lockheed committed to building the aircraft. As an aside, I believe that stainless steel has always suffered from being too dense, and that is what has excluded it from consideration, rather than the difficulty of working the material. There was in fact an absolute wealth of knowledge on the subject in the early '60s, although there is a real chance that much of this came under various levels of classification. What was lacking was any way to reduce the cost of working with such a difficult material as titanium, and I believe that still to be the case. The very properties that make it so interesting as a structural material in high-speed aircraft (low creep, high tensile strength, low thermal conductivity) are the same properties that make it fiendishly difficult to work. Caveat: I was an aero-engineering student in the '60s, but I have never worked in the aircraft manufacturing industry. Memory is fallible. Robert_S -- Robert Stanley - Cognos Incorporated: 3755 Riverside Drive, P.O. Box 9707, Compuserve: 76174,3024 Ottawa, Ontario K1G 3Z4, CANADA uucp: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!roberts Voice: (613)738-1338 x6115 arpa/internet: roberts%cognos.uucp@uunet.uu.net FAX: (613)738-0002
kco@sppy00.UUCP (Kevin ONeil) (03/13/89)
In article <6972@super.ORG> mjt@super.UUCP (Michael J. Tighe) writes: >In article <63@sppy00.UUCP> kco@sppy00.UUCP (Kevin ONeil) writes: >>In an IEEE newspaper a while ago there was mention of an unmanned version of >>the SR71. Is that to be retired also? > >As far as I know there was never an unmanned SR-71, but there were >D-21 drones that were to fly on top of the A-12, but I don't know >if this was ever done beyond the test stage. Two A-12's were converted >to carry the D-21; one crashed, the other is in storage. >-- >------------- >Michael Tighe >internet: mjt@super.org > uunet: ...!uunet!super!mjt I found the article. IEEE Institute of December 1985, p. 12, there is a profile of Norman Stone by John Horgan: "Defense engineer makes a hobby of knowing what the Soviets know". Quote: "As for the journals, Stone said, 'They publish the best open descriptions I've seen of some U.S. weapons systems. I've found out things I've never known.' One article, for example, described and showed a photograph of an unmanned version of the supersonic SR-71 reconnaissance jet, nicknamed Blackbird." -- Kevin C. O'Neil OCLC Inc. 6565 Frantz Road Dublin, OH 43017-0702 (614) 764-6271
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/14/89)
In article <5527@cognos.UUCP> roberts@cognos.UUCP (Robert Stanley) writes: >However, one of the reasons that Boeing put forward their SST proposal was >surely because they had exactly the experience that was needed. The XB-70 >(Valkyrie) was the pioneer in this respect, and didn't it make extensive >use of epoxy-bonded, honey-comb titanium sandwich? The XB-70 used brazed stainless-steel honeycomb sandwich, actually, with some titanium in the forward fuselage. It was built by North American, incidentally, not Boeing, although some of the technology may have been common property. >In the same time-frame, Lockheed built the A11 (where this thread >started!) with Titanium as the primary skin material... A-12, please. "A-11" was another of LBJ's verbal typos. >... As an aside, I believe that stainless >steel has always suffered from being too dense, and that is what has >excluded it from consideration, rather than the difficulty of working the >material. Stainless steel *is* heavy, although it's been successfully used in some experimental aircraft (notably the X-15). The stainless-steel honeycomb sandwich panels used in the XB-70 would be ideal for high-speed aircraft, as they are light, they are strong and rigid at high temperatures, and incidentally they are moderately good thermal insulators, but they are *horrendously* expensive. The cost of the first XB-70 exceeded the aircraft's weight in gold, and this was a half-million-pound aircraft. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (03/14/89)
In article <5527@cognos.UUCP>, roberts@cognos.uucp (Robert Stanley) writes: > In article <1659@trantor.harris-atd.com> mjt@super.UUCP (Michael J. Tighe) writes: > > > ... To make matters worse, the US was planning to build > > a mach 3 SST whereas the rest of the world was planning mach 2.5 SSTs. > > It was "common knowledge" that mach 3 put the US at a schedule > > disadvantage since such speeds required stainless steel or titanium > > aircraft and there had never been a titanium aircraft built before. > > This doesn't ring altogether true. I agree that the limiting mach on > Concorde was dictated by the choice of alloys, which were chosen on the > grounds of practicality; there were already a great many unknowns. > However, one of the reasons that Boeing put forward their SST proposal was > surely because they had exactly the experience that was needed. The XB-70 > (Valkyrie) was the pioneer in this respect, and didn't it make extensive > use of epoxy-bonded, honey-comb titanium sandwich? No. It used stainless steel in its structure. (Honeycomb.) Interesting about Boeing, especially since North American (now Rockwell) built the XB-70. Don't forget that North American and Lockheed both had SST designs on the boards at the same time Boeing did.
jdm@gssc.UUCP (John D. Miller) (03/15/89)
In article <5527@cognos.UUCP> roberts@cognos.UUCP (Robert Stanley) writes: >In article <1659@trantor.harris-atd.com> mjt@super.UUCP (Michael J. Tighe) writes: > >However, one of the reasons that Boeing put forward their SST proposal was >surely because they had exactly the experience that was needed. The XB-70 >(Valkyrie) was the pioneer in this respect, and didn't it make extensive >use of epoxy-bonded, honey-comb titanium sandwich? North American built the XB-70s, not Boeing. That bird gets MY vote for most beautiful airplane ever. It was made of honeycomb stainless-steel (!) which was a new and complicated process, to be sure. From the WINGS special on the Discovery Channel (I am tapeing all of the "Great Planes" series), when you divide the development cost over the number of flights the two Valkyries made, it comes to about $11 million per flight. In 1964 dollars. It was the biggest plane built, at the time. The huge delta wing is still the largest control surface ever put on a plane. -- jdm -- ...!{tektronix!verdix}!sequent!gssc!jdm John David Miller (503) 641-2200 Graphic Software Systems * From you, I get opinions * 9590 S.W. Gemini Dr. * From you, I get the story * Beaverton, OR 97005
dtroup@carroll1.UUCP (Dave Troup) (03/15/89)
In article <66@sppy00.UUCP> kco@sppy00.UUCP (Kevin ONeil) writes: >In article <6972@super.ORG> mjt@super.UUCP (Michael J. Tighe) writes: >>In article <63@sppy00.UUCP> kco@sppy00.UUCP (Kevin ONeil) writes: >>>In an IEEE newspaper a while ago there was mention of an unmanned version of >>>the SR71. Is that to be retired also? >> >>As far as I know there was never an unmanned SR-71, but there were >>D-21 drones that were to fly on top of the A-12, but I don't know >>if this was ever done beyond the test stage. Two A-12's were converted >>to carry the D-21; one crashed, the other is in storage. The D-21 drones were quite the neat little unit. The one that wiped out a Blackbird was launched, and didnt clear the shock cone. Dove back into the 71 and when the 71 pitched node positive, it broke in half. The only other photos that I have of D-21's are on the ground in storage or under the wings (2 of them) of a B-52. Looking @ them, you would have to admit that they would make a nice stealth cruise missle (high alt of course) without the vertical tail (now that we dont need them anymore, but supersonic cruise might present some YAW problems, so the tail will still be needed, Im not sure)> I'll have to check, but Im sure the pilot survived and the 'observer/weapons/intelligence' officer died either when the drone crushed his cockpit or during the breakup... >--
h16@homxc.ATT.COM (D.JACOBOWITZ) (03/17/89)
In article <310@carroll1.UUCP>, dtroup@carroll1.UUCP (Dave Troup) writes: > The D-21 drones were quite the neat little unit. The one that wiped out > a Blackbird was launched, and didnt clear the shock cone. Dove back > into the 71 and when the 71 pitched node positive, it broke in half. > > I'll have to check, but Im sure the pilot survived and the > 'observer/weapons/intelligence' officer died either when the drone > crushed his cockpit or during the breakup... Both the pilot and RSO survived ejection, but the RSO drowned in the water before he could be recovered. The accident put an end to the D-21 program, no other tests were ever done. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dave J. ark2!dlj usual disclaimer implied
harmons@sting.gwd.tek.com (Harmon Sommer) (03/18/89)
>ahead technology-wise" feeling probably helped LBJ in the '64 >election. Politics and technology is a strange mixture. As I recall the big issue in '64 was Viet Nam. They told me if I voted for Goldwater the U.S. would bomb Hanoi. So I did and sure enough, we did.
ferguson@x102c.harris-atd.com (ferguson ct 71078) (03/23/89)
In article <11153@tekecs.GWD.TEK.COM> harmons@sting.UUCP (Harmon Sommer) writes: > > >>ahead technology-wise" feeling probably helped LBJ in the '64 >>election. Politics and technology is a strange mixture. > >As I recall the big issue in '64 was Viet Nam. They told me if I voted >for Goldwater the U.S. would bomb Hanoi. So I did and sure enough, we did. I'm no history expert but as I recall the congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and the Vietnam war was a dead issue as far as the election was concerned. By passing the resolution, both political parties were on record as favoring continuing the involvement. Vietnam did become the major issue of the '68 election and sunk Humphrey's candidacy. Chuck Ferguson Harris Government Information Systems Division (407) 984-6010 MS: W1/7732 PO Box 98000 Melbourne, FL 32902 Internet: ferguson@cobra@trantor.harris-atd.com uunet: uunet!x102a!x102c!ferguson