G_AHRENDT@uunet.uu.net (02/25/90)
From: munnari!vaxa.uwa.OZ.AU!G_AHRENDT@uunet.uu.net >The YF-12C was an SR-71A (64-17951). It was "detuned" for NASA use. Since >it was an SR-71A it did not have a dual cockpit, I doubt it was used as a >trainer. Incorrect, the YF-12C was 60-6937, it's fuselage was lengthened to provide for a dual canopy not cockpit and extra fuel and it served as the prototype for the SR-71. >There was only one SR-71A that was converted to SR-71B specifications. It >was 64-17956. The only other dual cockpit aircraft in the family were an A- >12 (60-6927), and an SR-71C (64-17981) which was constructed from parts of >a YF-12A (60-6934). Also incorrect, two SR-71A's were converted to SR-71B's : 64-17956 & 64-17951. You are also incorrect in saying that 60-6927 was a A-12 as it was an A-11. And again in saying that the SR-71C was constructed from the original YF-12A 60-6934, as it was a converted and electronically updated SR-71A 64-17981. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 >on it. These were A-11's not YF-12A's, two of which were capable of carrying a GTD-21 Oxcart drone aircraft powered by a Marquardt ramjet. 40ft*17ft, 38 constructed between 64-69, they look similar to the J-58 engine pods. The drone could carry either reconnaissance sensors or a nuclear weapon. After a collision incident, the ramjet was replaced with a rocket booster and transferred to B-52's in Project Tagboard over SE Asia. Note that the Blackbird's are painted in a special high-emissivity dark blue paint that looks black. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >The next time any of you YF-12 fans are near the Dayton, Ohio area, >the Air Force Museum at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in nearby >Fairborn has a YF-12 on display. Rumor has it that they will receive >one of the decommissioned SR-71s as well. The only remaining XB-70 >is parked nearby. If you're into aircraft, this is one "must-see" >place. When was the Valkyrie moved from the Strategic Aerospace Museum in Belevue Nebraska which also houses a B-36! B-58! B-29 B-47 & B-17?
mjt@nagshead.ncsc.org (Mike Tighe) (02/27/90)
From: Mike Tighe <mjt@nagshead.ncsc.org> > From: munnari!vaxa.uwa.OZ.AU!G_AHRENDT@uunet.uu.net >> From: mjt@ncsc.org >> The YF-12C was an SR-71A (64-17951). It was "detuned" for NASA use. Since >> it was an SR-71A it did not have a dual cockpit, I doubt it was used as a >> trainer. > Incorrect, the YF-12C was 60-6937, it's fuselage was lengthened to provide > for a dual canopy not cockpit and extra fuel and it served as the prototype > for the SR-71. The YF-12C was indeed 60-6937, BUT, it was also an SR-71A (64-17951). That was my point. No doubt modifications were made as it was switched between the two configurations. >> There was only one SR-71A that was converted to SR-71B specifications. It >> was 64-17956. The only other dual cockpit aircraft in the family were an A- >> 12 (60-6927), and an SR-71C (64-17981) which was constructed from parts of >> a YF-12A (60-6934). > Also incorrect, two SR-71A's were converted to SR-71B's : 64-17956 & > 64-17951. No. As I said, 64-17951 was converted to a YF-12C, not an SR-71B. There may have been another SR-71A converted to an SR-71B, namely 64-17957. However this plane crashed on approach to Beale AFB on 12-Jan-68, and as far as I know, this information (that it was indeed an SR-71B) has not been made publicly available. > You are also incorrect in saying that 60-6927 was a A-12 as it > was an A-11. It was an A-12, I do not know what it was before it was an A-12. > And again in saying that the SR-71C was constructed from the > original YF-12A 60-6934, as it was a converted and electronically updated > SR-71A 64-17981. But it was. It was constructed from the rear half of 60-6934, which had a "rough landing". The front half came from 64-17957, lending credence to the fact that 64-17957 may have been an SR-71B. All of this information I am spewing forth with is in the public domain. No secrets here. Two references on this family of planes are: "Lockheed SR-71" by Jay Miller and "SR-71 in Action" by Lou Drendell. If you have a reference that contradicts the statements I have made (which came from these sources), I would appreciate knowing what it is as would probably many other readers of sci.military. Please share your reference with the rest of us. --- Michael Tighe, mjt@ncsc.org