Mystery Plane Identified (theory)!

page: 10
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Now if anybody is trying to say that the A-12 was not originally ordered as the A-11 then they are not informed. The original order was for 12 or 13 airframes desginated as the A-11.


The Spyplane design from Project Oxcart for the CIA went through a series of design changes as it evolved. A Model of the A-11 was built for RCS testing at Area 51. The test reveiled higher than expected RCS numbers. Dew to these test resualts, the Skunkworks redesign the aircraft to lower it's RCS to an acceptable level. The Redesign yeilded the familiar Blackbird shape that everyone is used to. Since it was now the 12th Design the Aircraft was designated the A-12.

The A-11 was never built, but was refined into the A-12 Blackbird. Further development was authorized based on the A-11, but the plane Ordered into production was the A-12.

Tim




posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Actually, I think the A-11 model was tested at the Rye Canyon, California, facility. It really had no anti-radar characteristics at all. Lockheed applied some RCS reduction treatments to the A-10 model and ran tests in the anechoic facility at Rye Canyon, but I have never seen a similar treatment of the A-11.

The A-12 was a major redesign that underwent several stages of refinement. One early iteration entirely lacked chines on the foward fuselage. The wingtips and vertical tails also went through several variations before arriving at their now-familiar shapes.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
From what I remeber in my reading that the A-11 and its testbeds and tests where geared towards production and methods. The A-12 design and SR-71 design was made possible by the metallurgical and performance breakthroughs of the A-11. Or is this another example of the A-11 name being used incorrectly again and the should be refering to the YF-12A?



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   
just some pulled quotes on the A-11 designation/ refering to it.


The basic design of the SR-71 and YF-12 aircraft originated in secrecy in the late l950s with the aircraft designation of A-11. Its existence was publicly announced by President Lyndon Johnson on Feb. 29, 1964, when he announced that an A-11 had flown at sustained speeds of over 2000 miles per hour during tests at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.

Development of the SR-71s from the A-11 design, as strategic reconnaissance aircraft, began in February 1963. First flight of an SR-71 was on Dec. 22, 1964.


link: NASA link with quotes from bottom of page



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   
There is a good book on the A-12 which shows some of the evolution of the A-12 .

"A-12 BLACKBIRD DECLASSIFIED". By Jeannette Remak & Joseph Ventolo Jr.

Good read eh Shadowhawk



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Kelly Johnson submitted the A-10 concept in February 1959. It had a 109-foot-long cylindrical fuselage and semi-double-delta wings with squared tips that spanned 46 feet. A vertical tail fin with conventional rudder provided lateral stability. It was to be powered by two General Electric J93-3 turbojets. RCS was a problem, but Johnson was more concerned with performance.

The following month he developed the A-11, featuring true double-delta wings spanning 56.67 feet. Fuselage length increased to 116.67 feet and the J93 engines were replaced with J58s. The A-11 was designed to cruise at Mach 3.2 at 93,500 feet and complete an eight-hour, 13,340 nautical mile mission with two aerial refuelings.

Johnson pitched his A-11 concept to the CIA and reported the results of six months of radar studies. He emphasized that expected improvements to radar systems would enable detection of any conceivable airplane that would fly in the next three to five years. He noted that the probability of detection of the A-11 was practically 100 percent. It was subsequently agreed the airplane might make such a strong radar target that it could be mistaken for a bomber.

On July 3, 1959, Johnson received a visit from the director of the Program Office at CIA headquarters. He thought Lockheed was about to be ruled out as a contender, but the CIA instead offered to extend Lockheed’s program and accept lower cruising altitudes in exchange for reduced RCS.

Johnson subsequently proposed the A-12 design, with the J58 engines in a mid-wing arrangement to reduce the airplane’s side profile. Chines along the forebody reduced fuselage sloping while providing additional lift and stability. The single vertical stabilizer was replaced with two all-moving vertical fins, one on top of each engine nacelle. They were canted inward for further RCS reduction. Serrations on the wing edges incorporated radar absorbent materials. Conventional rudders were eventually exchanged for all-moving vertical stabilizers. The wingtips were rounded off, as well.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Is there any photos of the A-11 models that he used to test the RCS? He would of had to buidl at least one to get a proper idea for a purposal right? Or at ther very very least drawings.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Most books on the history of the Blackbirds have drawings or photos of the A-11 wind-tunnel model. I haven't found any pictures online.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Dunno if this is really it, but I found it on a French webpage with some apparently A-12 stuff on it, and it seems to fit the description.



Or is this it?



[edit on 4/2/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   
It was the first image. Good find! That's the A-11.

The second image is an A-12 model on the pylon at Area 51. The extensions on the tail pipes represented the exhaust flow.



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
It was the first image. Good find! That's the A-11.

The second image is an A-12 model on the pylon at Area 51. The extensions on the tail pipes represented the exhaust flow.


Thats a huge difference in shape from the 11 to 12. What alt was the 11 suppose to cuise at since the redesign was suppose to lower the max alt in order to lower the RCS? Its a neat looking plane though with a very different feel from the A-12. engines mounted under as apposed to inwing and the large vertical stablizer too!

Also Shadowhawk when you pointed out the fact that the exhaust flow would return RCS it really makes me look at the current stealths and see how much work has been done to lower its possible return.



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 05:20 AM
link   
If you are interested in the story of the A-12 you might want to check out [url=http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs_full.asp?doc_no=0000645397&title=%28EST%2E+PUB+DATE%29+THE+U%2D2%27S+INTENDED+SUCCESSOR%3A+PROJECT+OXCART%2C+ 1956%2D1968&abstract=&no_pages=0055&pub_date=12%2F31%2F1968&release_date=9%2F12%2F2001&keywords=U%2D2%7COXCART%7CU2%7CA%2D12+AIRCRAFT%7CCIA+AIRCRAFTS& case_no=F%2D2000%2D01514©right=0&release_dec=RIPPUB&classification=U&showPage=0001]this declassified CIA _/url]. Its a really good read and has some preliminary drawings of Kelly Johnsons A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-11 designs and an A-12 windtunnel photo. It also includes information on the Convair competitor the FISH.

For more info on the Convair FISH and KINGFISH designs see my thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I dont know about the A-11 but the A-12 and the KINGFISH mockups were tested at Area 51 since Lockheed didnt want their designs tested at Gray Butte because it was too open for observation.


[edit on 3/4/07 by gfad]



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 05:30 AM
link   
I don't think they are developing any manned high altitude spyplane like sr71 anymore.
There might have been and likely was more study continuing on the basis of the sr71 research but I would think it logical that the goal has changed from creating a production spyplane with the developments of UAV spyplanes.
The airframe research etc might be continuing but to research propulsion, air frame design etc.. not focusing on a production model for a manned spyplane.

Why risk a pilot to spy when they are getting real good at the 'cheap' UAV thing.

Pilots are worth far more then planes. Far harder to replace.

Just seems like common sense, to me anyway

[edit on 3-4-2007 by David2012]



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 08:50 AM
link   
There are a number of good reasons for a UAV unfortunatly scince most companies are still running into problems with their designs and even in controlling them inflight and getting interferance etc I think we are a bit off until we see a unmanned platfrom like the SR-71. I'm not saying its impossible only that there are hurdles that the companies cann't seem to over come. If your interested in UAV's and their testing for military application feel free to take alot at another thread that I started.

link: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Well what I meant was there would be no platform like the sr-71 but unmanned.

cheap UAV's would imho be a smarter direction to take.

I think if there is an evolution of the sr-71 then it is a manned plane, but not for the purpose of spying, but simply research into propulsion etc.



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by David2012

I think if there is an evolution of the sr-71 then it is a manned plane, but not for the purpose of spying, but simply research into propulsion etc.


The mobility and ablity of the manned SR-71 has never been reprodused "offcially". The ablity to get classified photos in extremely short notice is a task that not even a slow drone UAV or in-modile satellite can do to the same degree of proficiency.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
I had a copy of the original order from Pentagon paperwork. The original order was for 12 or 13 A-11's and signed off "per Col. Brewer.

Now if anybody is trying to say that the A-12 was not originally ordered as the A-11 then they are not informed. The original order was for 12 or 13 airframes desginated as the A-11.

Please post a scan of this "original order". Or quote an independent source, printed or online, which confirms your claim. If you can do neither, please stop telling fairy tales. Thanks!

Regards
yf



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
oh and i should mention, housing for military families is just on the other side of the landing field. that means other people, spouses, their children, probably saw it too. we lived off base, so i didn't get to see it or anything like it. there was nothing barring the view of the landing field from the housing area on that side of the base.

Oh yes, sure! The Air Force is flying a top-secret vehicle, with absolutely astounding flying characteristics and whose mere existence is classified, in plain sight in front of hundreds of non-military witnesses?!? And this "mass sighting" has not made headlines anywhere in the press?! NO WAY!


Regards
yf



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx
Please post a scan of this "original order". Or quote an independent source, printed or online, which confirms your claim. If you can do neither, please stop telling fairy tales. Thanks!




I am currently looking for my SR-71 file yfxxx. Exactly what is it that you are having a problem with? That the A-11 was ordered? Or the number of the A-11's? Or that Col. Brewer authorized it? If you can be more specific maybe I can help you. You seem to be antagonistic in each of your posts. Is there a problem? Thanks.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx

Oh yes, sure! The Air Force is flying a top-secret vehicle, with absolutely astounding flying characteristics and whose mere existence is classified, in plain sight in front of hundreds of non-military witnesses?!? And this "mass sighting" has not made headlines anywhere in the press?! NO WAY!


Regards
yf


Yep, they sure did. The housing was spread out all over the base. Some was right adjacent to the air field. I remember this specifically, because I didn't want to get stuck living there. The air field was very busy -- the Black Widow Squadron of F-16s was there, and they were landing and taking off all times of the night and day. The noise pollution levels were bad enough, 5 miles from the base, much less across the fence from the air field. The sighting would've been isolated to military families and their dependants mostly, because there weren't really any buildings on that side of the airfield that civilians would need to use.

Besides, they know there will always be people like you that wouldn't believe such a report anyway. So, a rare visit, for purposes of a bombing run, would not be a security issue. What's the military dependent going to say, that I haven't already. See any earth shattering results regarding this info? No, I didn't think so.

DON'T call me a liar.

[edit on 4-4-2007 by undo]





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join