As I remember now, it was NASA. I guess there were more in museums than I
remember. It was cool to see one make a pass at Oshkosh a few years ago.
Mark Kuzia
Mark's Diecast Inc.
flyboy01@comcast.net
http://www.dragtruk.com/ENTRIES/kuziamark.html
1995 Dakota "Fastdak"
~360ci, 5-spd, 8 3/4 rear / 3.90-SG
1994 Dakota "Crack Dak"
~318ci, 5-spd, 3.90 LS (bone stock, no mods)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stlaurent Mr Steven" <STLAURENTS@MCTSSA.USMC.MIL>
To: <dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 9:18 AM
Subject: RE: DML: SR-71 Aircraft
>
> Not likely.
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------
> Steven St.Laurent
> C4i System Engineer
> C4i Engineering Branch, PSD, MCTSSA
> MARCORSYSCOM, U.S. Marine Corps
> Office (760) 725-2506 (DSN Prefix: 365)
> "Never be content with somebody else's definition
> of you. Instead, define yourself by your own beliefs,
> your own truths, your own understanding of who
> you are. Never be content until you are happy with
> the unique person GOD has created you to be."
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Kuzia [mailto:flyboy01@comcast.net]
> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 6:12 PM
> To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
> Subject: Re: DML: SR-71 Aircraft
>
>
> Actually, all of the "retired" SR-71's were put back into service a few
> years ago after it was learned that there was no current substitute. It is
> doubtful that there is a current replacement since they are still using
> them. I heard a few museums had their 71's snatched away by the
Government.
> I am not sure, but I don't think any museums have any on display
currently.
> I may be wrong, but I remember reading this in an industry magazine
> (aviation).
>
>
> Mark Kuzia
> Mark's Diecast Inc.
> flyboy01@comcast.net
> http://www.dragtruk.com/ENTRIES/kuziamark.html
> 1995 Dakota "Fastdak"
> ~360ci, 5-spd, 8 3/4 rear / 3.90-SG
> 1994 Dakota "Crack Dak"
> ~318ci, 5-spd, 3.90 LS (bone stock, no mods)
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jon N. Benignus" <blkwidow1@primary.net>
> To: <dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net>
> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 7:47 PM
> Subject: Re: DML: SR-71 Aircraft
>
>
> >
> > > He added that the plane flew at 80,000
> > > feet, had two rather large (for its size) engines,
> > > and had a flattened fuselage shape (view from front).
> > > It was painted a flat black color. He thinks that one
> > > is now on display at the Air Natl Guard museum at the
> > > MSP Airport. Unfortunately, the museum has been closed
> > > since the Sept. 11 attacks. No foreseeable date to
> > > reopen.
> > The SR flew at altitudes HIGHER than 80k ft-the exact altitude is still
> > classified, as well as top speed. In fact, the "official" book from the
> USAF
> > museum lists the altitude as 85k plus. A couple friends (one was a
> mechanic,
> > the other a flight sim programmer for the SR) say "higher than that".
The
> > record FOR ITS CLASS is (was) 85,068.997 ft at 2,193.167 mph. I don't
know
> > about the altitude, but I do know the speed record was eclipsed on a
> > "retirement" flight before taking the craft out of service.
> > The engines were Pratt and Whitney (in thrust we trust) J58s with rated
> > thrust at 32,500 lbs each w/burner.
> > The SR was a development from the A-12 CIA spy craft (not the cancelled
> M-D
> > now Boeing) A-12. There is an A-12 also at Wright-Patterson AFB.
> > IIRC, there is also a SR at the USS Alabama museum (yes, there are
planes
> > there, too), and a few other places. Most can be made ready to fly in a
> > short time, as they are subject to recall by the USAF/NASA/CIA. In fact,
> > three were called back into service during the 90s by NASA for "flight
> > testing"
> > I took pics of the craft at Wright-Pat, and gave them to my friend. He
> > pulled out a log book showing the date, aircraft, and other info of
every
> > plane he worked on (including the one at the museum), including the U-2
> > "Dragon Lady" and F-105 Thunderchief, aka "Thud".
> > The data from the development of the SR was valuable in later years as
it
> > was accidentally found to be a "stealthy" design.
> > Hard to belive this plane was designed in the early 60s and first flew
in
> > 64.
> > Quite a feat in its day without the use of CAD/CAM, and the like. Still
> > quite a feat today. I doubt a plane to surpass the SR will see the light
> of
> > day due to the costs of development (can you say "Aurora").
> > Proof that good design is timeless-much like our beloved Dakotas.
> >
> > Jon
> > STL MO
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:04:44 EDT