Interesting SR-71 / A-12 photos
Discussion
Came across this. Some interesting shots and info associated with this magnificent aircraft.
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/rare-high-definition-pho...
Who would have thought they transported them by road in big boxes from the Skunkworks in Palmdale, CA to Area-51!
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/rare-high-definition-pho...
Who would have thought they transported them by road in big boxes from the Skunkworks in Palmdale, CA to Area-51!
Eric Mc said:
The range of aircraft built under the programme was
A-11
YF-12
SR-71
M-71
The term "A-12" was used in error a number of times (or part of disinformation campaigns - which surrounded many Skunk Work projects). But it was never an official designation.
Have you any sources for your claim RE 'A-11'? A-11
YF-12
SR-71
M-71
The term "A-12" was used in error a number of times (or part of disinformation campaigns - which surrounded many Skunk Work projects). But it was never an official designation.
Ben Rich claimed that the A-12 was so-called as it was the 12th design which contained many features from the previous eleven plus the chines running around the fuselage for added stealth and twin tails instead of a single.
I've read a few books on the Blackbird family, some written by people that designed and built them and whilst there is plenty of discussion about the RS/SR-71 mix up I've never once heard of anything about A-11/12.
Image lifted from Wikipedia.
Just realised I got myself confused 
The A-11 was definitely a project. But it was never built. Indeed, there is a strong suggestion in what I was reading that the A-11 project was used as a cover for the real project, which was the A-12.
This book is pretty good for background data on the origins of the A-12 and "Oxcart".
The A-11 was definitely a project. But it was never built. Indeed, there is a strong suggestion in what I was reading that the A-11 project was used as a cover for the real project, which was the A-12.
This book is pretty good for background data on the origins of the A-12 and "Oxcart".
dvs_dave said:
Who would have thought they transported them by road in big boxes from the Skunkworks in Palmdale, CA to Area-51!
There's a story about the lorry carrying the pre-prototype hit a bus on it's trip, and they had to pay the bus driver in cash to avoid and insurance claims etc........... ;-)
PW said:
I think it's interesting how people overlook how poor "aircraft" they were because they are "cool".
The article brags about how over 1000 missiles were fired at them and missed - they didn't need to hit them - 40% of A-12/YF-12 and SR-71s dropped out of the sky of their own accord. Something that is always glossed over.
I don't think that is any reflection on the design. What it does indicate is the extreme conditions under which they were flying.The article brags about how over 1000 missiles were fired at them and missed - they didn't need to hit them - 40% of A-12/YF-12 and SR-71s dropped out of the sky of their own accord. Something that is always glossed over.
PW said:
I think it's interesting how people overlook how poor "aircraft" they were because they are "cool".
The article brags about how over 1000 missiles were fired at them and missed - they didn't need to hit them - 40% of A-12/YF-12 and SR-71s dropped out of the sky of their own accord. Something that is always glossed over.
eh? Strange attitude imo. Sure, in 2014, the failure rate looks high, but the fact they got it to work at ALL in 1963, let alone with what was realistic reliability (remember the various derivitives were in active "front line" service for over 25 years!) is astonishing.The article brags about how over 1000 missiles were fired at them and missed - they didn't need to hit them - 40% of A-12/YF-12 and SR-71s dropped out of the sky of their own accord. Something that is always glossed over.
Max_Torque said:
There's a story about the lorry carrying the pre-prototype hit a bus on it's trip, and they had to pay the bus driver in cash to avoid and insurance claims etc........... ;-)
NASA were recovering an X-15 from one of the alternate lakebeds on the back of a flatbed truck when they noticed an oncoming campervan, the truck driver moved to the right as much as possible and stopped. The campervan driver failed to move over and had the top of his van sliced off like the top of a boiled egg by the wing of the X-15...
PW said:
Max_Torque said:
eh? Strange attitude imo.
Why is it "strange" to point out that people ignore a remarkable aspect of the plane? Isn't it a strange attitude to get upset that someone stated the "wrong" fact about an inanimate object?
It's not even a criticism, it's just a 100% true fact about it; just like all the other facts in the article. Why is it so important that this aspect of it is swept under the rug?
Also, for Military service aircraft, those lose rates are by no means unusual, but what is perhaps more un-usual is that the vast majority of crew ejected safely from these high speed/high altitude incidents!
dvs_dave said:
I must make the trip to the USAF Museum to see the one (and only) they have on display there.
I got to see it a few years ago, had to do a double take to spot it. It's quite lanky, as you approach the hanger you don't spot the nose because it's higher than the doorway- and when you're in the hanger it's directly above you! The road runner of aircraft :-)
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff