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

Quote:


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.

Quote:


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?

Quote:

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...

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.

Quote:


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.

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