Okay everyone what is your favourite plane around, my choice remains this one:

Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker B

http://www.cnw.mk.ua/weapons/airforce/fighter/su27/image/flanker1.jpg

http://bobqat.com/AeroBob/Other_AF/Su-27.jpg

http://202.84.17.11/mil/wqdg/airforce/fighter/su-27/su27_4f.jpg

So what is your plane of choice  ;)

Grumman F-14 Tomcat

http://www.pilotlist.org/balades/oshkosh/statique21.JPG

wrote on 06.11.04 at 20:54:13:

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/games/Falcon4Pics/glidePlane.JPG Any aircraft/plane that renderd with 3dfx is sweet ;D

Super Mooi man , That's from Falcon 4.0  ;)

You youngsters and your supersonic hot rods!  Ha!  In my day we had to walk ten miles in the snow and avoid roving herds of Tyrannosaurus Rex in order to get to the aerodrome.

It may not have been the fastest, or the most maneuverable, or the sturdiest aircraft of its era, but it was a fine all-around performer and it is my favorite in Red Baron 3D:

http://www.410wing.cyberus.ca/BarkerAlbum/pages/fokdvii_jpg.htm

wrote on 07.11.04 at 05:56:36:

You youngsters and your supersonic hot rods!  Ha!  In my day we had to walk ten miles in the snow and avoid roving herds of Tyrannosaurus Rex in order to get to the aerodrome. It may not have been the fastest, or the most maneuverable, or the sturdiest aircraft of its era, but it was a fine all-around performer and it is my favorite in Red Baron 3D: http://www.410wing.cyberus.ca/BarkerAlbum/pages/fokdvii_jpg.htm

that's a real beauty, and they were really good then ;)

http://www.410wing.cyberus.ca/BarkerAlbum/images/fokdvii_jpg.jpg

is it yours? you must feel great by haveing one, how far can you fly with it, about 400KM ?

hehe anyway, I'm not so young, December 08 2004 I'm gonna be 28 hehe --> nearly 30  :-X

The F104G Starfighter, F-14 Tomcat, the Sukhoi su-27/35 and the S-37. And the F22 Raptor.

wrote on 07.11.04 at 15:15:29:

and will kill nobody..

and what about the concorde crashed in paris  :-/



http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/905000/images/_905397_flames150.jpg

wrote on 07.11.04 at 16:28:33:

I waited this "note" Don't make the error to mix the civil aviation and the military aviation, the first doesn't carry bombs... ::)

but she can carry terroists ;) The Concorde is nice though, I seen her at Perth Airport, once for a show and with that the introducion of Boeing's New 747-400 that was in begin 1990.

But anyway, I see you're a Gold Member, You would be nice for Gold Squadron's Gold Leader ;)

The Boing 737-400 remains my favourite Passenger plane:

Just love those trails 8)
http://photos.airliners.net/middle/5/6/4/687465.jpg

How lovely the dolphin is!See the engine carefully what you have found?It came to the Xiamen Taeco make a maintenance.
http://photos.airliners.net/middle/8/8/1/677188.jpg

No wingflex with these stubby wings, but looking good anyway. Vasco da Gama turns for the runway 24 departure flightpath.
http://photos.airliners.net/middle/5/9/7/664795.jpg

I'm not very a fan of the concorde cause it's loud and not realy friendly to the nature (and this is one of these points everybody can see how bad my english is :D )

but it's a very interesting technology inside the concorde and she's looking very good :)

wrote on 07.11.04 at 20:10:59:

I'm not very a fan of the concorde cause it's loud and not realy friendly to the nature (and this is one of these points everybody can see how bad my english is :D ) but it's a very interesting technology inside the concorde and she's looking very good :)

The russians were the first ones with that design, the Tupolev Tu-144 Concordski:

http://photos.airliners.net/middle/9/3/4/551439.jpg

The Tu-144 was flew first in 1968 and the Concorde in 1969, the Russians had the original design, the Concorde is actually a copy of the good ol Tu-144.

This one is one of the last Tu-144's that ever flew, it was used by NASA and the Tupolev for the joint Russia-USA program for supersonic research.
http://photos.airliners.net/middle/8/6/5/412568.jpg

Hey nice info :D i ever think the Concorde was an french designed airplane  ???

Yup Russian engineering was not as bas as people want you to believe.

wrote on 07.11.04 at 20:43:55:

Yup Russian engineering was not as bas as people want you to believe.

You are absolutely right there. Take a look at Obi-Wan's plane the Sukhoi SU 27. A state-of-the-art aicraft that can do some very impressive manouvers. It's just that there maintenance is very poor and therefore there machines get rusty and poor looking (and dangerous to use too)

wrote on 07.11.04 at 22:46:17:

The Tu-144 or the "Concordov", like some people said at this time...   ;D Even if the Tu-144 will stay the first commercial supersonic having flown (31/12/1968 ) but also a "short" career.

it was called Concordski and not Concordov.

here some more info on this beauty, it even flew in the 1990's ;)

http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/Aviation/Aircraft/images/Tu144EC98-44749-19(320).jpg

A Tu-144 that had been in storage for years was obtained and modified by the Tupolev Aircraft Design Bureau in 1996 creating what NASA called the Tu-144LL Flying Laboratory. It was hoped the knowledge gained from the flights would benefit NASA & Boeing's in their efforts to "develop the technology that may enable design of an efficient, environmentally friendly second-generation supersonic transport in this country."

The program involved eight experiments - six aboard the aircraft and two ground test engine experiments. Between November 1996 and February 1998 the Tu-144LL flew 19 research flights. The follow-on Tu-144LL program encompassed about eight flights, focusing on extensions of five experiments from the first project and two new experiments to measure fuel system temperatures and to define in-flight wing deflections. As it became clear that no airlines were interested in an American HST in the foreseeable future, the project was quietly cancelled in 1999.


http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/Aviation/Aircraft/images/Tu144BlueprintsNASA(320).gif

Specifications refer to production Tu-144:

Engines      4 Kuznetsov NK-144 turbofans
Cruising Speed      Mach 1.6, Mach 2.0 with afterburners
Passengers      140
Range      4030
Span      88ft 7in
Length      215ft 6.5in
Height      42ft 4in
Weight      396,800
Built      17

Final Production      1984


this is the source of my onfo of this great plane.:

http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/Aviation/Aircraft/Tu-144.asp

AFAIK, the TU-144 had (during Takeoff) only a Speed Window of 10-15kts; exceeding that would have resulted in structural disintegration.

I'm not sure they ever found a workaound for their structural airframe limitations.

I have a Flight Safety Video that shows one breaking up Mid-Air during a Flying Display in 1973, at Le Bourget Airshow.

A-12 and SR-71 Blackbirds.

I laid hands on one of each this weekend, making for a total of four seen in person, also had the insane luck of one of the guides being a former SR-71 pilot.

While we're at it, my personal favorite :

F/A-18E SuperHornet
http://www.airexpo.ru/w/modules/my_egallery/gallery/usa/Boeing/f-18.jpg

The Hornet is one sturdy piece of Aircraft, and yes... you can go out and break things with it ;)

wrote on 08.11.04 at 18:41:43:

While we're at it, my personal favorite : F/A-18E SuperHornet http://www.airexpo.ru/w/modules/my_egallery/gallery/usa/Boeing/f-18.jpg The Hornet is one sturdy piece of Aircraft, and yes... you can go out and break things with it ;)

Hehe I would like to meet you in a ACE class dogfight , with the Su-47 Berkut, also known as S.37 Golden Eagle:

http://www.aircity.org/gen8/avions/su47/04.jpg

http://www.aircity.org/gen8/avions/su47/05.jpg

http://www.aircity.org/gen8/avions/su47/01.jpg

Don't even have to worry about F-22 either, this is one of the best Jet fighters in the world, it's beyond American technology. I just live for Russian Air Power  ;D

Hate to spoil ya, but the Berkut is a true Prototype, nothing but a technology testbed displayed to the public for Airshows only (a common Russian sales/financing strategy) ;)

We won't be seeing this one flying 'on the line' for a long time , if ever...
(and mind you, a Raptor does have the Avionics needed to win a fight if needed, although a bit 'unmanly' due to their Stealth approach)

Interesting design though, same as the Grumman X-29 Prototype/Technology Demonstrator.

Anyway, I agree that the Russians do build some fine airframes. Too bad they lack the technology to make them true winners at the end of the day (that would lead to some more competition on the world market)

wrote on 08.11.04 at 20:02:41:

Hate to spoil ya, but the Berkut is a true Prototype, nothing but a technology testbed displayed to the public for Airshows only (a common Russian sales/financing strategy) ;) We won't be seeing this one flying 'on the line' for a long time , if ever...

I'm not so sure, Never know what the russian's are up to, BTW the Flanker based planes do have a lot advantages compaired to thier American counter parts, they are lighter, More manuervrable, they can even be flown when a computer failure has occured, if that happens to those American thing they crash, Australia, I lived there for about 11 years, they Have F/A 18's they crash quite often, because of computer failure, never heard of A Flanker haveing that problem... Russians can fly without avionics when needed  Americans only wished that ;) I'm sorry but this is a fact.

They are true winners, but the russians don't take care of them that neatly as the Americans do,  and The Pilots could get some better training, but thier Planes are the best in the world. Americans can learn alot from thier Airframe and Avionic Fail safe technology, but the problem is the russians rather keep thet secret.

The Su-37 is indeed a true player in the field as for Su- 32FN also.

Anyway I've heard it from many F-15 pilots that they rather Fly the Russian built Su-27 Flankers it's just because that they are way more manuerverable and more reliable. I got to many Airshows , I don't need to be a Pilot for this info.

From the aerodynamic (Dogfight) and failsafe design, true.
But that's not what wins a fight anymore, a superior Sensor Platform, high Integration and a capable standoff Weapon is what brings victory.

It's mainly the lack of technology (the Russians are usually in need only for one thing : Money in hard currency) and high Total Cost of Ownership that drags them down.

Just look how long a MiG-29 Engine was designed to live before it needs costly (complete) replacement, then compare it to your typical General Electrics, Rolls Royce or Pratt&Whitney Engine.

And speaking about engines, look how far a MiG-29 gets before it's starved on fuel, then compare it to a modern western design. The Flanker was their only design with considerable range, but that had to be bought with an extremely high gross weight. They had to add their most powerful, yet most thirsty engine ever built to make it manouverable and give it some range.

In some ways it's a pity that the 'old times' are over, but even sitting in the (aerodynamically) best plane is of little use, if you end up soaking a stand-off Missile supported by a Phased Array low-emmision Sensor platform, built inside a stealth Aircraft.
You won't even know what hit you.

Okay But if you out that adavanced Avionics in these Flaker based planes A victory has been layed, and if the avionics fail , they'll keep on fly'n :D

Sorry FalconFly, I don't want to dissapoint you in anyway, But My Aircraft of choice is still The Russian Su-27 Flanker B, I fly Falker 2.51 in Ace mode, I've had dogfights with F-22's, F-15 -E's, F/A18 E/F's and at the hardest level I always beat them.

and Flanker 2.0 with 2.51 Patch is the most relistic Su-27 Flight Sim out there, LOMAC is too arcade.

And for the Amrecian Planes I go For The F-16C,  So Falcon 4.0 with Free Falcon 2.0 is a nice choice also :D


Russians do have a solution to that problem for years, only it hasn't met the real world yet. the Su-47 can lock up 8 planes at once, so before the American guy decides to attack he will be gone before he know's what hit him.

Agreed :)

Dogfighting one of those is not going to be easy, close-in I'd call it a 7:3 win for the flanker in a 1 v 1 guns-only scenario.

PS.
Tracking a large number of Aircraft is nothing difficult to advertise with, but that feature usually becomes "relative" in a dense ECM environment, and without superior range weapons becomes a mere checkmark feature ;)

Trust me, things become alot more difficult and relative once you are able to look behind advertising numbers.

PPS,
You do realize you keep talking about non-operational Prototypes ?
Except in Simulators, those Aircraft likely won't win a single fight as of now.

wrote on 08.11.04 at 20:30:40:

Agreed :) Dogfighting one of those is not going to be easy, close-in I'd call it a 7:3 win for the flanker in a 1 v 1 guns-only scenario. PS. Tracking a large number of Aircraft is nothing difficult to advertise with, but that feature usually becomes "relative" in a dense ECM environment, and without superior range weapons becomes a mere checkmark feature ;)

Though thier missiles arn't so bad either, they can be fired back to front, they can be guided by the pilot's head with in Close combat, I think in a colse range combat the F-22 will be an easy prey, but in a medium range combat  it would be a fifty fifty battle on who will take the lead and indeed if you go long range the American wil have a nice 80% chance of winning,

The Russian do have some nice tech of which the Americans do not know of. The Su-47 really got the Americans quite supprised, Russian Technology hasn't died yet, It would be great if the Russians and Americans mixxed thier technology, American Avionics in Russian Airframes ;D

Firing a Missile backwards is (theoretically) possible, but brings a hell lot of Problems with it.

Unfortunately, I cannot go more into detail from this point on.

You shoudn't believe everything you read or hear I would suggest ;)

wrote on 08.11.04 at 20:41:25:

Firing a Missile backwards is (theoretically) possible, but brings a hell lot of Problems with it. Unfortunately, I cannot go more into detail from this point on. You shoudn't believe everything you read or hear I would suggest ;)

Okay true, But I think The russians will change the possibilties if Flight one day, they always been good.

Flanker2.0 was develped patually bay Sukhoi it's self, and that gets quite near reallity it's self.

But anyways, Amercan planes are okay, but my choise is still from the Sukhoi Design Bureau. Everyone has a choice, And my choice is Sukhoi. no one can change that, I do believe that the russians will get the lead oneday.

And everything I see or read I don't believe all the time, But' I've seen it with my own eyes.

But how long will East Germany keep the Mig-29 Fulcrum in Service? Man I love that plane too :D

wrote on 08.11.04 at 20:58:12:

Tell me Obi-Wan_Kenobi, you know these planes how ? only by the game or when you see them in a show ?

Both. But Flight Sim's on a Military Airbase , Flight Sims at home and in real life
I flew the Belgian Angusta Flight Sim once, He said I could get that thing flying within 3 weeks. But that's gonna cost me way to much money.

I know a few F-16 Pilots here in Holland and Belgium.
And they always had alot of trouble in dogfights against Su-27 and Mig-29 planes even with thier advanced Avionics.

Belgian Air Force Pilot  "Koen" he flies the GD F-16-C , and he trained always with the Germain Mig-29's, He told me this:
"The Mig-29 is the one most difficult opponents I ever met in a dogfight" Anyway I never see him much, But He invited me for a flight in the Belgian Air Force F-16 Flight Simulator next year. He'll contact me when he has time. The Air Force Base is located in Luik - Luige

The Other Pilot a Know is an ex-F-104 Starfighter Pilot, he also flew the Northrop NF-5A, F-16-A, Hawker Hunter and the F-86 in the Royal Netherlands Air Force and now he flies a Cessna 172, he has retiered from the Airforce for a few years now.

wrote on 08.11.04 at 21:28:36:

I see. So come back on Earth : the War is not a game or a show or a simulation or in the real life (the fight), you will have no chance to survive. Perhaps that a fight is "exciting" but i think that the final aim of all the pilots is to come back at home safe and sound, without a scratch.

Oh well that's easy to say, but War is everywhere,  it's the Ameiicans that are mak'n a mess of it, they just push thing a little to far, I just hope that President Bush can clean this mess up.

And Some Pilots come back and some don't,  it's a risk you choose for. I'm Sorry but Life is hard in the Air Force.

wrote on 08.11.04 at 21:28:36:

I see. So come back on Earth : the War is not a game or a show or a simulation or in the real life (the fight), you will have no chance to survive. Perhaps that a fight is "exciting" but i think that the final aim of all the pilots is to come back at home safe and sound, without a scratch.

True words  ::)

Although these 'destructive' planes sure are nice looking machines in some way.  Some people like collecting 3dfx boards, some like military airplanes and some...like BOTH  :P  ;D
Anyway you are truly right there. The medal sure has a 'black' side. When such an airplane needs to do what it needs to do, it can get very nasty.

THough I disagree with That you don't have a chance to Survive, Alot of Crashed pilots have Survived and some of them have not, In the Air Force Your are forced te learn how to survive ;)

wrote on 08.11.04 at 21:54:36:

Oh well that's easy to say, but War is everywhere,  it's the Ameiicans that are mak'n a mess of it, they just push thing a little to far, I just hope that President Bush can clean this mess up.

I would avoid making sweeping political statements.

hehe Sorry Gary, don't take it too personal, It's a very well know factor here, and the politics here in NL aren't so fantastic either ;)

Anyway I am not blaming you man, noway, you're avery nice guy ;)

any Patience there is no such thing as luck it's morely about co-incidence and speculation in my theorie.

Anyway, everone has thier own meaning of things.

Let's not make a mess of this please, everyone has thier own meanings of things., and no offense okay ;)

May the Force Be With You.


P.S. The Jedi Order does not accept the word "Luck" ;)

Anyway back to real life On topic mode, The Dutch have made up thier mind's for a replacement of the F-16 though, this was their favourite member!

Lockheed F35A Joint Strike Fighter
http://www.defence.gov.au/raaf/images/for_site/corporate/f35.gif

She's a beauty allright no doubt about that and it's our first Stealth based plane too   ;D They cost 60 Mil a piece., that's quite cheap for a plane like that.

wrote on 08.11.04 at 22:28:42:

hehe Sorry Gary, don't take it too personal, It's a very well know factor here, and the politics here in NL aren't so fantastic either ;)

You see what your media and government wishes you to see and they have their own bias and agendas.

I saw a few planes you may like this weekend, I'll try to post some shots.

This is where I spent my weekend-

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/

There was a few Russian planes there too.

w00t! Thanx Gary, and the Memphis Belle is a very well known plane also, I have it in a nice Die caste Metal 1/144 scale model, I recieved from my just past-away Grand Father,  He was an old W.W.II hero, and he recieved that plane because he was a member of the DDA. that refers to Dutch Dakota Accosiation and the Royal Marchausee.

Anyways thanx for the great site :)

But my question is , What happened to the YF-23 BlackWidow, why was the YF-22 alot better?

the YF-23 had a greater range, it did carry less, but it did have a higher speed an manueverbillity didn't it?
The YF-23 is my favourite ATF :)

The black one:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/yf-23_4.jpg

The grey one:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/yf-23-desert.jpg


@ Patience, we can go on for hours , but that is not the idea.

Everyone has thier own meanings of things, I don't want to disturb people about that, because it's pointless.

Anyway, I hope you arn't mad at me or so, because I didn't mean to upset people here, I'm just different like everyone else is.


May the Force Be With Us All.

Quote:

You see what your media and government wishes you to see and they have their own bias and agendas.

Indeed and its quite obvious  ;)

Many Government's and their citizens seem to get inflicted with the ostrich syndrom of sticking their heads in the sand and thinking lifes problems can somehow someway go by undealt with  :(

wrote on 09.11.04 at 16:34:25:

Indeed and its quite obvious  ;)

You would be surprised the number of people here who swallow everything they hear in the news without a second thought.

The "left" tried very hard to steal this last election and the media pretty much gave them a free pass to do so without saying a word.

wrote on 09.11.04 at 08:09:24:

@ Obi-Wan_Kenobi You have No idea about the Real Life or Die Real Politik and definitively you need to grow up...   ::)

How would you know that I have no idea, My grand Fatyher told me things worse than the things that are happening nowadays He suvived W.W.I and W.W.II so don't tell me that  I have no idea about real life in a war situation, come on, I am about 28 if you wanted to know, and I'm a Dutchman.

Theo Van Gogh just got got burried today a good and faithfull dutchman, he got terribly murderd bu 7 Muslim Terrorists, shot 7 times and stabbed two times, What is goinig on, well we are gonna see more of these shocking things yet to come.

But anyway this topic is gett'n out of hand.

wrote on 09.11.04 at 20:26:14:

What is goinig on, well we are gonna see more of these shocking things yet to come.

Not if all nations ban together setting aside their own $$$ interests and destroy these animals like the mad dogs they are.

It pains me greatly to see a leader in Europe snub the US while visiting a certain well known terror figure on his deathbed.

His personal actions sends a clear message which I'm sure does not reflect what his other countrymen think.

Well I just came across this nice Concorde, It's the nicest one I've ever seen:

http://www.concordesst.com/history/events/pictures/pepsi8.jpg

A Concorde in PEPSI colors for you Patience, Concorde is your favo ;)

Alright folks, let's keep this Thread On-Topic, which are Aircraft, just plain Aircraft.

Last time I strapped an armed Figher under my butt, it certainly did not start any political discussions when I cranked its engines ;)

PS.
Yes, Politics is dirty, kills people for money and power, and alot of people would need to learn alot of things to actually fully comprehend that (which would probably scare the sh*t out of some). But that's open for discussion for another Thread (preferrably one with Ceramic heatshields *g*) ;)

Quote:

Not if all nations ban together setting aside their own $$$ interests and destroy these animals like the mad dogs they are. It pains me greatly to see a leader in Europe snub the US while visiting a certain well known terror figure on his deathbed. His personal actions sends a clear message which I'm sure does not reflect what his other countrymen think.

Exactly  ;)

PLANES PLANES PLANES ....no politics here!

here mine again...sweet bird ;D
http://www.voodoo.cz/tomcat/new1/f14589.jpg  

Artwork :

http://www.falconfly.de/temp/Rhino.jpg

Actually that artwork is very well found  ;)  With those massive angines the front of the F4 looks kinda like the big rhino. I dont know the code for resizing pictures in this forum but this sure looks nice : http://archive.cs.uu.nl/pub/AIRCRAFT-IMAGES/F4-Phantom-formation.jpg

In honor of our webmaster, from my trip this last weekend-

http://www.thedodgegarage.com/3dfx/offsite/falconfly_fighter.jpg

This is a nice shot, with the nice yellow flowers on the fore ground :)

http://www.airliners.net/photos/middle/9/3/0/579039.jpg

and here my Favourite PhantomII:

Mc Donnel Douglas RF-4C PhantomII:

http://www.airliners.net/photos/middle/3/5/9/244953.jpg

Added info:

72-0156 BA/91st TRS/67th TRW. Marked 91st AMU. Landing after an early morning training mission during "Salty Bee '88" exercise.

And did I mention I like Blackbirds?-

http://www.thedodgegarage.com/3dfx/offsite/nasa-01.jpg
http://www.thedodgegarage.com/3dfx/offsite/nasa-04.jpg
http://www.thedodgegarage.com/3dfx/offsite/nasa-03.jpg
http://www.thedodgegarage.com/3dfx/offsite/nasa-02.jpg

Sorry about the near swerve into politics, some things get my blood boiling.

Hey Gary here some nice pics of the YF-12A Interceptor:

http://www.cnw.mk.ua/weapons/airforce/razv/sr71/image/lobird.jpg

http://www.voodoo.cz/sr71/o/yf12.jpg


here a photo of a Hughes GAR-9 (AIM-47A) getting ready for Bomb Bay loading :D
http://www.voodoo.cz/sr71/o/aim47.jpg

http://jpcolliat.free.fr/f12/yf12/yf12_99.jpg

ZOIKS! that thing is huge, it looks like twice the size of the AIM-54.  :o

If I recall correctly, they originally had the Idea of a Mach 3+ dogfight.

It was not until they realized this Aircraft had a turn circle of no less than like ~110 nautical miles (!) at maximum speed, that this wicked Idea was abandoned ;D

Crazy people they were back in those days *g*

That would be one hell of a dogfight. With the entire earth surface as playground  ;D

I was always of the opinion that the weapons side of the Blackbird program was a ruse to hide it's true calling-

The worlds fastest spyplane.

To this day a Blackbird has never been lost to enemy action, not once. By the time you know one is in the area, it's already to late to do anything about it ;-)

hehe what do you expect with mach 3.2+  ;) For this plane it only takes 3 minutes to fly over our entire country  :o ! I know its not very big but still....Anyway does the blackbird already have stealt technologie and can it really go through earth's athmosfere?

The Blackbird was one of the first aircraft to have some stealth features, I would have to pull the book I have on them off the shelf and check the details again though.

I know the paint on the craft has some stealth aspect to it, there was something else though.

Here the russian Mach 3+ compettitors:

Mig-25 UB Foxbat Trainer version:
http://troll.hn.org/foxbat.jpg

Mig-25 A Foxbat Intercepter version
http://www.bubbamoose.com/K_MiG-25_7.jpg

Mig-25 R Foxbat Reconnosense version:
http://www.bubbamoose.com/K_MiG-25R_4.jpg

Mig-31 Foxhound Show-model version:
http://www.fighter-planes.com/big/mig31.jpg

Mig-31A Foxhound Interceptor version:
http://www2.arnes.si/~ttomsi5/mig-31-1.jpg

Mig-31M  Marines version:
http://home19.inet.tele.dk/airwing/aircraft/mig-31-parked.jpg

01-MIG-31
Nato reporting name: "Foxhound"
Laid: 1972, Operational: 1979
Aircraft in service: 280

05-MIG-31M
Nato reporting name: "Foxhound B"
Laid: 1983, Operational: 1984
Aircraft in service: 8

here more info on the Mig31 http://home19.inet.tele.dk/airwing/aircraft/foxhound.htm

wrote on 10.11.04 at 00:13:58:

The Blackbird was one of the first aircraft to have some stealth features, I would have to pull the book I have on them off the shelf and check the details again though. I know the paint on the craft has some stealth aspect to it, there was something else though.

yes there was indeed something else, The blackbird and YF-12 planes had triangular weges in side sloped parts of the hull as on the top side as bottom side. they are very well vissable on the modil kit version of this plane as well, my model is 1.72 scale SR-71 A Blackbird with the yellow NASA stickers on the tail fins.

and here some flower power!
http://www.flybyaviation.com/Flower%20Power%20DC-3%20%20-%20KDH%2012-15-2003%20copy.jpg

Hello all, im not a huge plane fan but being in san diego you get too see quite alot, also there is a plane museum here thats pretty cool, its got a black bird at entrance as you come in just a few feet above your head
-->http://www.aerospacemuseum.org/exhibits/listing.html

so anyways the blackbird is my favorite followed by the red baron tri wing

A bit of Aeronautic history :

The World's first VTOL Transport Aircraft

Dornier DO-31
http://www.bdli.de/geschichte/zivile_luftfahrt/bilder/DornierDo31.jpg

First flight made in Nov 1967, Germany

wrote on 10.11.04 at 13:00:44:

A bit of Aeronautic history : The World's first VTOL Transport Aircraft Dornier DO-31 http://www.bdli.de/geschichte/zivile_luftfahrt/bilder/DornierDo31.jpg First flight made in Nov 1967, Germany

Wow :) that looks like a space ship FalconFly :D, like from some 1950 Space invader movie, it looks pretty wierd too.

Nice find :)

wrote on 10.11.04 at 00:31:00:

Here the russian Mach 3+ compettitors: Mig-25 UB Foxbat Trainer version: Mig-25 A Foxbat Intercepter version Mig-25 R Foxbat Reconnosense version:

The Foxbat can *reach* Mach 2.8 for short bursts and cannot be refueled mid-air, the Blackbird cruises at Mach 3.2-3.3 for hours and can be refueled while in flight.


Quote:

Mig-31A Foxhound

Mach 2.8 sprints only, 777 mile maximum range- does have refuel provisions and nice radar.

Advantage... Blackbird.

*Cough* Antonov 225

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/art/photogallery/parisairshow/photos/photo07.jpg
http://www.airfoyle.co.uk/home/antonov.jpg

http://www.tweakers.net/ext/f/44848/thumb.jpg
(Thumbnail)

wrote on 10.11.04 at 13:24:00:

The Foxbat can *reach* Mach 2.8 for short bursts and cannot be refueled mid-air, the Blackbird cruises at Mach 3.2-3.3 for hours and can be refueled while in flight. Mach 2.8 sprints only, 777 mile maximum range- does have refuel provisions and nice radar. Advantage... Blackbird.

Nope the Foxhound has a max speed of Mach 2.83 and the  Foxbat A has a max speed of Mach 3+

Here's my proof:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Specs/MiG-25.html

Origin: Russia.

NATO Codename: Foxbat.

Indian Name: Garuda (Mythological Eagle King).

Type: All weather, high-speed reconnaissance aircraft.

Current versions in IAF service: MiG-25R; Single-seat, high-speed reconnaissance.
..........................................MiG-25U; Dual-seat, used for conversion training.

Design Features: The MiG-25U trainer, which had first flown in 1973 and entered service soon after, differed from the single-seat MiG-25 variants in having a totally redesigned forward fuselage component containing two separate cockpits. This trainer version has no SLAR (side-looking airborne radar) nor any reconnaissance capability and is solely used for conversion training.

Accommodation: Pilot on zero/zero ejection seat in A/C and pressurized cockpit.

Avionics: The MiG-25R is equipped with a number of electromagnetic-spectrum sensors along with a larger and a more capable side-looking airborne radar (SLAR). It is fitted with two left-to-right rotating cameras of a focal length of 650mm and 1300mm that can be fitted in the three interchangeable camera bays located in the nose cone of the aircraft.

The two cameras shoot through two port and two starboard windows, and a vertical camera with a shorter focal length is located under the cockpit to make the horizon to horizon linking shots.

Armament: Can carry short & medium range air-to-air missiles for self protection.

Engine: Two Tumansky R-15BD-300 engines each rated at 10,210 kg. of max. thrust.

Maximum Speed: Mach 3+

Service Ceiling: 70,000+ feet

G limit: ?

Maximum Range: ?

Self Defence: ?

Comments: With an inventory of 10 MiG-25R and 2 MiG-25U, they form the No.102 Trisonics Squadron at Bareilly AFB. An indigenous life extension on the MiG-25 is being studied and reportedly the IAF has received preliminary good results.


But the Mig-25 PDS goes Mach 2.83 ;)

Specification MiG-25PDS

Type: Single-seat interceptor, reconnaissance aircraft and two-seat conversion aircraft
Power-plant: 2 × Soyuz/Tumansky R15BD-300 turbojet
Power: 86.3 kN (19,400 lb st) dry, 109.75 kN (24,675 lb st) with afterburner
Dimensions: Length: 23.82 m (78 ft 1 3/4 ins)
Span: 14.015 (45 ft 11 3/4 ins)
Height: 6.10 m (20 ft 0 1/4 ins)
Weight: Maximum take-off: 36,720 kg (80,950 lb)
Maximum Speed: Mach 2.83 at altitude
Range: 1,250 km (777 miles)
Armament: Four external attachment points for R-40R (AA-6 'Acrid'), R-40T (AA-6 'Acrid'), R-60, R-23 (AA-7 'Apex'), R-73A (AA-11 'Archer') or R-60T (AA-8 'Aphid') AAMs

here the source:

http://www.soviet-empire.com/arsenal/air/fighters/mig25.php

Here is a list of all type Foxbat based planes:

# MiG-25P Foxbat A
# MiG-25RB Foxbat B
# MiG-25RBV Foxbat B
# MiG-25BBT Foxbat B
# MiG-25R Foxbat B
# MiG-25PU Foxbat C
# MiG-25RU Foxbat C
# MiG-25U Foxbat C
# MiG-25RBK Foxbat D
# MiG-25RBS Foxbat D
# MiG-25RBSh Foxbat D
# MiG-25RBF Foxbat D
# MiG-25PD Foxbat E
# MiG-25PDS Foxbat E
# MiG-25BM Foxbat F

and the solution to the Blackbird has been found:

AA-6 ACRID R-40

In early 1962 the Bisnovat design team began working on the R-40 (K-40), a new long-range missile intended for use with the the MiG-25-40 high- altitude interception system, consisting of the MiG-25 aircraft with Smerch-A radar set and the R-40 missile. Though only slightly larger than the predecessor R-4, the range of the R-40 is over three times greater. This missile was produced in two variants: R-40R (Object RD46 with PARG-12 head) and R-40T (Object TG-46).



After the defection of a MiG-25P to Japan on 06 September 1976, an extensive redesign of the aircraft was undertaken, resulting in the MiG-25PD interception system. Instead of the Smerch-A, a Sapfir-25 radar was installed. The new missile R-40D and its R-40D1 update ("dorabotanaya" [more elaborate]) were produced in two variants R-40RD and R-40TD, both featuring improved countermeasures resistance and a more sensitive homing head to improve performance against low-flying targets. The R-40D1 missile was developed by the Vympel team, the Molniya team having by that time withdraw from development of aircraft missiles. The R-40 is still included among the weapons of MiG-25 and MiG-31 aircraft, although production was discontinued in 1991.

AA-6 ACRID R-40 tech specs

Manafacturer Bisnovat design team      
Date Deployed       Late 60s
Range       30 km (R-40)   50 km (R-40TD and R-40RD)
Speed       Mach 4.5
Propulsion       One solid-propellant rocket motor
Fuze       Radar and active laser
Guidance       Command, inertial and semi-active radar (R-40R)  Command, inertial and IR (R-40T)
Warhead       70 kg HE fragmentation
Launch Weight       475 kg
Length       6.2 m
Diameter       355 mm
Fin Span       1.8 m
Platforms       Su-15, MiG-25, MiG-31

hehe this baby goes Mach 4.5  ;D ;D ;D

wrote on 10.11.04 at 15:22:38:

Nope the Foxhound has a max speed of Mach 2.83 and the  Foxbat A has a max speed of Mach 3+ Here's my proof:

<snip>

The vast number of sites I checked states Mach 2.8, not 3+ which is still neither here nor there as the 'bird cruises at 3+ for hours at a time while the Russian bird can only sprint at that speed for a few minutes.


Quote:

and the solution to the Blackbird has been found:

I repeat since it didn't sink in the first time- Since the Blackbirds were released into service over 30 years ago, *NEVER* has one been lost due to enemy action.

NEVER.

Repeat that till it sinks in.

By the time you are aware that there is a 'bird in the area scoping things out it's too late to bring a weapons system on line that *might* have a chance of shooting one down.

AFAIK, the MiG-25 can indeed sustain Mach 3+ for some period of time (limited only by the resulting, excessive Fuel consumtion I guess).

The MiG-31 due to (thermal) engine limitations is reported to reach ~M2.85 only for a short period of time. After a few minutes, it has to leave this critical flight regime again, since it's hurting itself doing that.

Whether you could find Pilots crazy enough to try this today, in 20 year old Airframes, is a different story though ;)

-----------------------

PS.
Much more interesting than the Airframes themself, I find the funny stories that lead to their invention in the first place ;)

Soviet Intelligence catched up stories about a US Hypersonic, long range, nuclear capable bomber.

Development immediately started to build an Interceptor, that would serve only one single purpose : Intercept a Mach 2+ Bomber, long before reaching Soviet territory.

The US indeed built their (hilariously expensive) XB-70 Valkyrie, of which one Prototype crashed after a F-104 (together with a whole bulk of various other Aircraft taking a glance at the XB-70) takes Pictures of it, gets into the Jetwash of the large Bomber, and collides with its Wing and Vertical Stabilizer section, leaving the AV-1 Prototype XB-70 rolling uncontrolled towards the Ground.

Even after the Project is officially cancelled, the Soviets continue to develop their Interceptor, and build the MiG-25 Foxbat.

During the delopment, the US Intelligence, in turn, catches their counterpart's Plans of what apparently is going to be a ultra-fast and ultra-capable Soviet Figher Aircraft.

Assumed a Long-Range threat to US territory itself, they in turn hurdle into developing something that can encounter this Soviet "Wonder Fighter", having the most hilarious theories rage inside the Pentagon about its expected capabilities.

The Result was the F-15 Eagle, build with 2 Engines and designed as a very expensive, but (so thought) only Fighter capable enough to oppose the Soviet's latest Ace "Wonder" Fighter.
----------
In short, we actually have two interesting and costly designs, each built against a Threat that (actually) never existed ;)

I find that funny in many ways ;D

wrote on 10.11.04 at 18:27:11:

AFAIK, the MiG-25 can indeed sustain Mach 3+ for some period of time (limited only by the resulting, excessive Fuel consumtion I guess).

Fuel consumption is always a critical issue when considering *fighter* aircraft and weapons payload.

Fighter pilots spend a good deal of time thinking about their next fill up ;-)

Early jets had flight times that were measured in mere minutes.

Well there is a plane faster than the so called Blackbird:

X-15 :D
http://palpatine.chez.tiscali.fr/Warfare/Planes/X15/X15.jpg

http://www.arches.uga.edu/~raptor7/x-15pic.jpg

it's fastest flight took it to Mach 6.67 that's about twice the speed of the Blackbird,  I thought, that's quite sicko :P  

The Lockheed Space Shuttle can go faster but that is a space plane ofcourse. it can go Mach 26 or something, in space it can orbit the Earth within 90 minutes, quite crazy.

When will we reach light speed, in 2075 or so?  I hope earlier:)

here more info of the top speed of the Lockheed Space Shuttle:

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/InnaSokolyanskaya1.shtml

8000 m/s (in orbit) = 18.000 miles per hour that is 28800 KM per hour  :-X so that would be equivelant to Mach 26.18., so I was kinda close on it top speed.

http://faketrix.com/contents/aviation/space/800/space-shuttle.jpg

that's about  8.2 times faster than the Blackbird   8)

Com'n Home :)
http://www.ed.arizona.edu/ward/Sonic/shuttle.jpg

Lets hope the  So-called western civilization still exist. So that they even bother to make something that can travel so fast.

Technically the X-15 is not an airplane, it's an aircraft, because it's powered by a rocket engine.

(For those who don't understand the difference between an aircraft and an airplane: an aircraft is a thing that can fly. An airplane is a specific type of aircraft.)

wrote on 11.11.04 at 00:05:36:

Technically the X-15 is not an airplane, it's an aircraft, because it's powered by a rocket engine. (For those who don't understand the difference between an aircraft and an airplane: an aircraft is a thing that can fly. An airplane is a specific type of aircraft.)

Yeah right, Aircraft is just another word for Airplane. ;)


Like the sentence What type of Airplane are you flying refers the same to what type of Aircraft you're flying ;)

Don't fool me on English, 11 years Australia :D and Aussie English is quite okay, we don't care if it's Aircraft of Airplane it has the same meaning, so lets get cozy en get on with the topic.

This plane still wonders my mind:

Tacit Blue The Fly'n Bath Tub :D:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/tbbg1.jpg

Here a funny one:

Shorts SC7 Skyvan:

http://www.cs-ent.ca/6138o.JPG

http://www.ing-neugebauer.at/faneugebauer/images/shorts1.jpg

http://www.ing-neugebauer.at/faneugebauer/images/shorts2.jpg

http://www.cs-ent.ca/6138p.jpg

wrote on 10.11.04 at 16:20:48:

Since the Blackbirds were released into service over 30 years ago, *NEVER* has one been lost due to enemy action.

Shame it was such a pain to land, eh? ;)  (Over a third of the SR-71 fleet was lost due to crashes on landing)

Personally I've always had a penchant for the TSR.2, which should NEVER EVER have been cancelled (image here - it's a bit big, so I didn't want to post the whole thing).  I've seen both the surviving ones, and if money were no object it'd probably be something I'd look into having made airworthy again.

As for big planes, it has to be the Valkyrie just for the sheer brute size of it:

http://www.military.cz/usa/air/post_war/xb70/xb70.jpg
(and how cool is this, a Lego model!)

Incidentally, there's what looks like an interesting article on Tupolev's own website regarding the various problems faced by the TU-144 from both a technical and economic aspect, but it's ruined by being written by a non-native speaker.  I can't find that there's an original document from which it's been translated, however.

I'd always thought that the main issue it faced was range, but that doesn't necessarily appear to be the case.  It doesn't sound as if it was particularly pleasant to fly on, though...

wrote on 07.12.04 at 14:48:44:

Shame it was such a pain to land, eh? ;)  (Over a third of the SR-71 fleet was lost due to crashes on landing)

And your source of information is? I have a book sitting on my desk that lists the status of every single A12 and SR71 made, there was no problem landing the planes.

The only *non-prototype* landing crash of note was when "Rapid Rabbit" was lost while trying to land during a TYPHOON in May 1973 at Kadena.

Actually it was from a military aircraft reference book at my parents' house, but looking into it a bit more.  It looks like they stretched their information somewhat - the crash of 6928/ #125 is a crash "on landing", for example, if you completely ignore the fact that it ran out of fuel :p

So yeah, go reference books.

I just found a similar statement here, but they don't back it up with any actual data, which is a bit useless.

Just to belabour the point, all of the following would probably be considered crashes on landing, although as I said, most of them - particularly 6936 - are cases of something else going wrong during while landing, not because of landing itself.

YF12A #60-6934 crashed on landing
YF12A #60-6936 crashed approaching traffic pattern
A12 #60-6939 crashed on approach
SR-71A #61-7950 crashed on landing during anti-skid braking system test
SR-71A #61-7954 crashed on landing during anti-skid braking system test
SR-71B #61-7957 crashed on approach

(Sorry for the multiple posts, btw, I lost my password and couldn't access my webmail for it, otherwise I would've been able to just edit the above...)

wrote on 07.12.04 at 17:41:04:

YF12A #60-6934 crashed on landing YF12A #60-6936 crashed approaching traffic pattern A12 # crashed on approach SR-71A #61-7950 crashed on landing during anti-skid braking system test SR-71A #61-7954 crashed on landing during anti-skid braking system test SR-71B #61-7957 crashed on approach

60-6934- prototype YF-12 (Aerofax claims '934 was damaged during a landing at Edwards AFB yet it is still listed as being operational)

60-6936- On the 63rd flight test of a command and control test program, USAF pilot Lt. Col. Ronald J. Layton and WSO Maj. William A. Curtis were forced to eject after the plane caught fire due to a fuel line fatigue failure during approach to Edwards.

60-6939-  A12 test pilot Bill Park was returning to Groom Lake following a high Mach test flight; aircraft was *brand new*. On approach, the controls locked up. Despite trying to save the plane, bank angle and descent rate increased. At 1500 feet in a 45 degree bank, Park ejected safely as '939 flew into the ground

61-7950- Lockheed pilot Art Peterson was conducting anti-skid brake trials. At 200 knots the braking 'chute failed to deploy properly. After leaving the wet test area and finding dry surface, the brakes locked and all six main tires blew. The magnesium wheel hubs caught fire which spread to the rest of the aircraft. Peterson was injured but escaped the aircraft. '950 was destroyed in the fire.

61-7954- USAF pilot Lt. Col. Bill Skliar and RSO Maj. Noel
Warner had just rotated for takoff when a left main gear tire blew. As they aborted the takeoff, shrapnel from the disintegrating wheel hubs caused the aircraft to catch fire. Pilot and RSO both escaped.

61-7957- During a training flight, the aircraft suffered a
double generator failure over northern Washington state. Displaying great skill, the pilot was able to coax the aircraft back to Beale (California), only to have serious unstarts while in the approach pattern. The crew ejected safely; the aircraft crashed inverted
about 7 miles north of the field.

wrote on 07.12.04 at 18:10:40:

60-6934- prototype YF-12 (Aerofax claims '934 was damaged during a landing at Edwards AFB yet it is still listed as being operational)

"The rear half was later used to build the SR-71C (64-17981) which flew for the first time on 14 March 1969."

i.e. it was essentially cannibalised.  So yes, it was largely operational, but not in the conventional sense.


wrote on 07.12.04 at 18:10:40:

61-7954- USAF pilot Lt. Col. Bill Skliar and RSO Maj. Noel Warner had just rotated for takeoff

Wasn't this an anti-skid test as well?  I figured that this happened during a touch-and-go landing.

Anyhow... that was entirely not my point.  I was fully aware of the details of the individual crashes, and saw no point in regurgitating them, hence the summary.  If you read the three posts you'd see that I actually agreed with you; I simply posted the brief list to show which ones "might" be considered to be a crash on landing, not that I thought that these were correct.  The only thing I would contend is that these do seem to indicate that the plane sometimes experienced low-speed problems.

I was in Seattle last week, incidentally - and I'm really annoyed that I still haven't managed to make it to the Boeing museum yet, since the SR-71 is one of the few planes I consider "special" that I've not yet seen.  Maybe next time...

wrote on 07.12.04 at 22:22:33:

Anyhow... that was entirely not my point.  I was fully aware of the details of the individual crashes, and saw no point in regurgitating them, hence the summary.

They why your remark-

"Shame it was such a pain to land, eh?   (Over a third of the SR-71 fleet was lost due to crashes on landing)"

When the record you are fully aware of doesn't support such a statement?

wrote on 07.12.04 at 22:22:33:

i.e. it was essentially cannibalised.  So yes, it was largely operational, but not in the conventional sense.

If you noted the plane was a prototype, they have a tendancy to fall down alot ;-)

I saw the Valkyrie a few weeks ago in Ohio if you want me to post a few pics, it is a very impressive plane up close.

wrote on 07.12.04 at 23:46:08:

They why your remark- "Shame it was such a pain to land, eh?   (Over a third of the SR-71 fleet was lost due to crashes on landing)" When the record you are fully aware of doesn't support such a statement?

That's why I subsequently stated:

"but looking into it a bit more, it looks like they stretched their information somewhat" - i.e. my original source was not as reliable as I thought.  The examples were just to show what sort of incidents they were presumably considering as crashes "on landing".

Pictures of the Valkyrie would be nice, and I'm officially jealous - Dayton's the one place I *really really really* want to visit.  Unfortunately I have absolutely no sustainable reason to drag my wife off to the middle of Ohio...

For you Gary :)


http://photos.airliners.net/6207e619599e427530ca50add47724f2/41b663ba/middle/3/1/7/322713.jpg

High Res photo:
http://photos.airliners.net/2393d43367d3d57b8410df6fed381860/41b663be/photos/3/1/7/322713.jpg

this is my PhantomII:

McDonnel Douglas RF-4C Phantom II:
http://photos.airliners.net/d702e819ec16fee1efa27c57c86f38c7/41b8ca04/middle/3/5/4/696453.jpg

maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan you guys are a bit crazy  :)

When I was in school I was reading a lot about aviation, space, military stuff and weponry, but since I got my PC in 2001 I just don't have any more time for everything, so now I live with moastly cars and a bit of computer stuff for personal fun and needs plus mountainbking. Damn, I new almoast all modern military aircraft by name and a lot of info back then, I really lost my knowledge  :-/  But maybe the lack of money for books back in the days or the lack of internet, but I never knew soooo much details about the themes you are talking about.

Obi-Wan_Kenobi, if not, you I would probably take the role of a guy defending Soviet aviation, but actually I have never seen a guy so sincere and so good about Soviet aviation from outside USSR  ::) Great job.  ;)

As for my favorites, I would name a Su-35 because it is the moast advanced fighter which is really in use in Russian air force (shame on me that I checked one of my books not to make a mistake about the exaxt model  :( )
The best things about it is the triplan configuration with small wings in front and a directly manuverable engines (sorry for my crappy translation, the books are in russian)

And I just have to mention another fantastic machine - the Ka-52 Alligator attack helicopter, I simply love it.

here was a lot of mentioning of SR-71 and Mig-25, Mig-31

I find interesting one note that, very likely the arrival of Mig-31 was one of the main reasons of SR-71 were left obsolete - they were vunerable to Migs...

wrote on 21.02.05 at 20:05:40:

I find interesting one note that, very likely the arrival of Mig-31 was one of the main reasons of SR-71 were left obsolete - they were vunerable to Migs...

Here we go again..

1) There has never been a SR-71 or A-12 lost to enemy action. By the time you are aware there is one in the area it's too late to do anything about it.

2) The SR-71 program was closed down due to politics between the services pure and simple.

A quick reading of several SR-71 sites will confirm this.

Gary is right ;)  and SDX Gary does know alot about the Blackbird,  the Blackbird can easily win from a Mig 31.

A. The Blackbird has stealth capabilliets, the Foxhound does not

B The Blackbird can go Mach 3.63 well some versions can, that is alittle too fast for Foxhound, the Foxhound only go Mach2.4 and can do bursts of Mach 2.85, but only for a short periosdof time, the Mig 25 Fox bat was designed to go Mach 3.2 but was not designed to fight agains the blackbird but against the Valkyrie.

C the Foxhound was also not designed to track and trace down Blackbirds'it was an intercepter agians B1 Lancers and yeah it had the Tomcat's role in the russian Air Force, track down eneymy bombers and shoot them down when needed.

The Blackbird was like the shield of the sky, no plane was it's enemy. They even had D21 Drones as only weapon, but I don't know if the D21 Drone was a succesfull device, Gary do you have any more info of that D21 Drone?

Actually the D21 drone was an umanned sensor package designed for overflight over USSR. The US had a signed a treaty after the U2 incident banning manned overflights so the US came up with an *unmanned* sensor drone the D21.

There were two accidents while in design and testing and the project was scratched as too dangerous, the high speed release of the drone was a very unstable event.

Since the D21 drone did not work out that lead to the next project.... a high speed manned vehicle that could look sideways while in flight and move along a target countrys border thus not violating the treaty... and so project Senior Crown was born.... otherwise known as the SR-71.

Triva time- Know why the SR-71 is "SR" instead of "SC"?

The president at the time LBJ had to make a statment in the sixties mentioning the plane did in fact exsist but mis-read SC for SR and said SR in a radio broadcast.

Rather then face having to correct the president in public it was far easier for the Air Force to change the name of it's super secret spyplane ;-)