wbates%bucsf.BU.EDU@bu.edu (William Bates) (02/09/90)
From: wbates%bucsf.BU.EDU@bu.edu (William Bates) Does anyone have info on the A-12 ? I don't know what it looks like or really anything about it. Please email to me, wbates@bucsf.bu.edu. Thanks !! BCB
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (02/12/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: wbates%bucsf.BU.EDU@bu.edu (William Bates) >Does anyone have info on the A-12 ? Assuming we are talking about the Navy's new attack aircraft, as opposed to the predecessor of the YF-12A and SR-71, almost all info on it is still officially secret. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
) (02/13/90)
From: ccastjr%prism@gatech.edu (COOOOoooooOOOoooOOOKIE!!!!) In article <13881@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >Assuming we are talking about the Navy's new attack aircraft, as opposed >to the predecessor of the YF-12A and SR-71, almost all info on it is >still officially secret. > Actually, the YF-12 is the fighter version of the A-11 (the predicessor of both the YF-12 and SR-71). The plane was mistakenly labeled the A-12 by then President Johnson in a press conference (or simular event). The A-11 was a plane that was being used (supposedly) by the CIA for a while..it looked the same as the SR-71, except it was all silver, with leading and trailing edges in black. I'm not sure, but I believe that since the SR-71 fulfilled the same mission as the A-11, the program was cancelled. The YF-12 program was cancelled because the plane (intended as a long range interceptor) flew faster than it's air to air missile payload, and that caused a few problems.
root@grumbly.UUCP (Super user) (02/21/90)
From: root@grumbly.UUCP (Super user) In article <14130@cbnews.ATT.COM> munnari!goanna.oz.au!twb@goanna.oz.au (Tony Basaranowicz) is writing: ->I have seen photos of the YF-12A carrying one of the drone look-alikes between ->its canted-in verticals, and it definitely had a bare-metal/black paint scheme ->Has anyone else seen these photos ... Yes, its the GTD-21 drone. According to my source they were used for "proof of concept" vehicles for the A-11s. The engine is rumored to be more of a pure ramjet. They were stored at Davis-Monthan - where they were first spotted in late 1976. One of the A-12 losses was rumored to have occured during a 'launch' of one of these D-21s. The Blackbird pitched up into the D-21 during a ballistic release [read explosive bolts or something similar]. Most of the A-12s were left bare metal except on the leading edges and other areas which got the hottest during flight. These areas were painted 'dark blue' This info comes from "SR-71 Blackbird in action" by Lou Drendel, Squadron/Signalpublications -- @@ uunet!grumbly!root > Richard B Ducoty root@GRUMBLY.COM ~(~ we Capitola, CA (408) 475-6539 NCF::DUCOTY " bad 95010-2733
gwh%earthquake.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (02/22/90)
From: gwh%earthquake.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) In article <14198@cbnews.ATT.COM> root@grumbly.UUCP (Super user) writes: > >Yes, its the GTD-21 drone. According to my source they were used for "proof of >concept" vehicles for the A-11s. The engine is rumored to be more of a pure >ramjet. They were stored at Davis-Monthan - where they were first spotted in >late 1976. > >One of the A-12 losses was rumored to have occured during a 'launch' of one of >these D-21s. The Blackbird pitched up into the D-21 during a ballistic >release [read explosive bolts or something similar]. The D-21 was a recon drone, not a 'proof of concept'. It was developed in response to projected soviet improved SAM's that could catch the SR-71; the idea was that it was much easier to explain the loss of an unmanned drone than a manned SR-71. THey were used in flight for a while, but after that one accident they were all taken out of service. ******************************************************************************* George William Herbert JOAT For Hire: Anything, Anywhere: My Price UCB Naval Architecture undergrad: Engineering with a Bouyant Attitude :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu ||||||||||| "What do I have to do to convince you?"-Q gwh@soda.berkeley.edu ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| "Die."-Worf maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu||"Very good, Worf. Eaten any good books recently?"-Q
nobody@Kodak.COM (Rick Lafford (x37825)) (12/22/90)
From: nobody@Kodak.COM (Rick Lafford (x37825)) Reply-To: lafford@serum.kodak.com Re: the SR-71/A-12 discussion In this discussion, everyone is right. Lockheed did indeed build a prototype attack version of the SR-71 called the YF-12A which was to carry four Genie missiles in internal bays behind the nose gear. Oops - I didn't mean "attack" but interceptor. The Genie was an air-to-air missile. Re: the "new" A-12 The prototype has indeed flown and underwhelmed most of the uninvolved observers. Just kidding folks. I believe the first flight is scheduled for early 1992 but you know how those things go. "The schedule is dependent on funding levels." Schedule calls for flight tests through 1995, with initial sea trials commencing in early 1993. Crew training is to start in late 1994 with the opevaluation in mid-1995. The first operational groups will be west coast based. The navy is also looking at an air-to-air version of the A-12 which would work with F-14D's already in the fleet. Stats on the A-12 are: Span: 70 ft. (wings folded 34' and F-14 is 33.3' folded and the A-6 is 25.3') Length: 37' Wing area: 1300 sq/ft (F-14 565, A-6 529) Wetted area is roughly the same due to the shape of the F-14. Estimated Payload (all internal): 40% greater than A-6E Estimated Range: 80% greater than A-6E Time to Accel: 33% less than A-6E This with no stores attached to A-6. Max. Instantaneous and sustained turn rates are estimated to be higher than the F/A-18 or A-6E except for the F/A-18 with burners on. Power: Two non-afterburning F404 derivatives. Source: October 1990 Aviation Week Regarding the microprocessors in the F-16: If you count all the avionics equipment, I wouldn't be surprised if there are more than 100 micros in the F-16. I believe that the flight control system depends on three independent control computers. Anyone out there know fore sure? ....I know nuting, nuting!!! - Schultz Rick Lafford Eastman Kodak ** Nobody asks me how to run the place, I just work here.**
ham@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Bob Hamilton) (01/27/91)
From: ham@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Bob Hamilton) Hugh LaMaster -- RCS <lamaster@george.arc.nasa.gov> writes... > Twice in the last two years I have heard of a small propeller plane > of apparently 50's vintage used in Vietnam until 1968 or so. This > plane was for ground attack and infantry support roles. The Air Force > apparently referred to it as the "A-1". My questions are: > 1) Who made it? Douglas (of DC-3 fame) > 2) What other designations did it have? AD and AD-1 (Navy) aka "Skyraider" [Attack, Douglas, Model one] > 3) Why can't I find it in Jane's in the 50's or 60's? Where should I look? Dunno. > Does anyone know *for sure* about the A-1? It wasn't exactly a "small" plane. It was single-engined, but quit large for a single-engined plane, and carried a hell of a bomb load. Sorry I don't have specs. My reference library lives at home. The Skyraider family of planes performed multiple roles for the Navy. There was a multi-seat version used for ASW, for example. The U.S Air Force used the single seat version, mostly, in Viet Nam, although I think there were some 2-seat versions in USAF colors, too. --Bob Hamilton Corporate Quality Information Systems Hewlett-Packard Mail Stop 29AK 3172 Porter Drive Palo Alto, California 94304 (415) 857-6025 ham@hpsdesis.corp.hp.com