STEALTH PLANES GROUP BUILD

Dan!! We meet again!! I'll be in on that. I don't think the B-1 is part of the stealth programme. However, I think an SR-71 would go well!
Cheers,
John
P.S. Will we be having an 'official' group build badge, or just make our own again?

Good to see you again John!

How about this badge??


You can make your own if you like, I'm not the best at making good badges.

It would be a top secret if I participated in this GB. I really like the idea but I have so many other GB commitments right now. Please post lots of pictures. So many group builds so little time.

Nah Dan, i love the badge!! Let's do it!
Cheers,
John

Excellent,

Should be great fun! Are you building the Blackbird then John?

I'll be building the 1/72 F117A 'Nighthawk' from Tamiya. Dan are you sure we can't persuade yo uto join in?? We'll have plenty of time!

Mmmm ... SR-71 completed, F117A completed, apart from some decals .... So I guess you are now giving me an excuse to crack open the U-2 in 1/48 on my shelf!! [:S]. So count me in ... if I can get all my ducks lined up .

Also, am happy to share photos of the SR and F117 if anyone is interested ... purely amateur efforts you understand - but they do look good in 1/48 - take up the top of my bookshelf!!

Welcome aboard cossack. We would love to see pics of your work and don't worry I'm only one my 2nd model kit so I'm still an amatuer too. But all modellers are welcome be it advanced, amatuer or otherwise. The 1/48 SR-71 must be pretty big. Do you have any pics of those two birds??

Look forward to seeing the 'U2'.

Dan

This sounds like fun, can I join in. I was planing to build my I/72 Italer F-117 after my current project, so for me this is great timing!

Best /Johan

Come on in Johan, the more the merrier! If you want to use our offical badge just add this image link to your signature.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/dan1677/Stealthbadge.jpg[

Dan

Boy, it figures that I start my F-22 too late for the previous stealth group build, and am too far into it to join this one! Oh well, maybe when I finish, I'll post some pics to inspire you guys along!

Hi Snake,

You can join in if you like as official 'morale officer'! I've heard that kit has some interesting 'fit' problems?

Dan

Thanks for letting me in, this will be fun!

Best /Johan

I was part of the SR-71 program for 12 years, so this is MUST for me. 1/72 scale SR-71C, affectionately know as, "The Bastard".
Question: Is it proper etiquette to display a GB badge as soon as you join the GB or are you supposed to wait until the project is finished?
Darwin, O.F.

Well, I'll throw in with my partially completed X-32 that was 'cancelled' for the last Stealth GB. I should have time to finish it now.

QUOTE: Originally posted by yardbird78 Question: Is it proper etiquette to display a GB badge as soon as you join the GB or are you supposed to wait until the project is finished? Darwin, O.F.

I don't see a problem with displaying one's GB badge as soon as one starts/joins the GB. Many, many people in these forums do it and it's a mark to show, not what GBs one has finished (although they can and do keep their old GB badges), but to show which GBs they are participating in.
That's my .
Cheers,
John

Hi folks,

Personally I display my badges to show which GB's i'm in. But you can do whichever suits you.

Yarbird, you were part of the actual programme? Wow! Got any good pics?

Dan

QUOTE: Originally posted by Dan1677 Yarbird, you were part of the actual programme? Wow! Got any good pics? Dan

Unfortunately, NO! I was assigned to the 9 SRW, 9 Recon Tech Squadron from June 1963 to May 1977. That was very near the beginning of the program and security was ultra tight. Taking unauthorized pictures was a court martial offense. Only the Public Affairs Office and certain designated individuals were authorized to take pictures of the SR-71. I have been truely amazed over the last few years when I look at the recently published books and see the photographs. Many of them were obviously taken during the early years, especially those with high visibility markings, and I seriously doubt that they were "authorized." If true, these folks were risking several years in Leavenworth stockade and a dishonorable discharge. It just wasn't worth it to me.
The photos below are of two of my SR-71 models, an "A" model on the left and a "B" model on the right. The A is a Monogram 1/72 and the B is a modified early Revell A model built in 1968. I just recently destroyed the B model when I got fumble fingered and dropped it on a concrete floor.


More photos of these two models are at:
bellevillercflyers.com/gallery/album65 and bellevillercflyers.com/gallery/album82

QUOTE: Originally posted by Dan1677 Hi Snake, You can join in if you like as official 'morale officer'! I've heard that kit has some interesting 'fit' problems? Dan

Fit problems like I've never dealt with. Granted, I am not a "master-modeler," but I've come back to modelling after a 5 year break in the military, too. I decided to build the plane "clean," with the bomb bays and missile bays closed up. Clearly, Italeri never meant for this to happen . The door parts only loosely fit into openings on the fuselage for the bays, and right now I am just in a holding pattern of filling gaps, sanding, filling, and sanding again. I put on a coat of white primer yesterday to see how the putty was working and it was bad. Thought I had it sanded all smooth, but the outline from the putty over the door seams is clearly visible. Back to the sanding table........
And I haven't even got to the notorious intakes I've heard about, lol.

Got my kit!!
It's the Academy/MRC 1/72 SR-71A Blackbird!
This'll be fun!
Cheers,
John

Yardbird, thanks for the info and pics of your models. I have to agree, I don't think I would have risked it just for a picture. Mind you, at the time I bet those birds had an almost mythical reputation. Does make you wonder though, if they were capable of building something that fast back then I wonder what could be built nowadays (with an unlimited budget!).

Snake, good luck with the filling, sanding, filling and sanding!! I really wanted to build that kit but I've heard too many bad things about it. Will wait to see if anyone else makes one in the future.

My F117 is turning up this week so I can start when I get back from my vacation next week. Happy building!!

QUOTE: Originally posted by Dan1677 . Mind you, at the time I bet those birds had an almost mythical reputation. Does make you wonder though, if they were capable of building something that fast back then I wonder what could be built nowadays (with an unlimited budget!).

The USAF released just enough pictures and information during the early days of the program to really whet the appetite of airplane lovers. There were several magazine articles and books that published so called "facts" that were about 10% what had been released and 90% the figment of the writer's imagination. Most of those stories really were rediculous and outlandish. But yes, it did create quite a mystique around the plane.
The technology has existed for quite a number of years to build hypersonic (Mach 5 and above), aircraft. The cost to take it from paper to hardware would be astronomical. It would make our current federal deficit look like a surplus. The cost of operating such a machine would be equally expensive. It is also very impractical for everything except the longest of flights. New York to Los Angeles wouldn't even get up to speed before you had to start slowing down again. The sonic booms during climb out and decel would be devastating. That is why the Concorde was never allowed to fly supersonic over the US.

Darwin, O.F.

When you say the sonic booms would be devasting, what do you mean? Devastating to the airframe? I though they didn't create much actual movement inside the aircraft but rather lots of displacement around it. Hey I don't know about these things but still find them really interesting.

Dan

QUOTE: Originally posted by Dan1677 When you say the sonic booms would be devasting, what do you mean? Devastating to the airframe? I though they didn't create much actual movement inside the aircraft but rather lots of displacement around it. Hey I don't know about these things but still find them really interesting. Dan

At high altitude they make alot of noise, scare wildlife and give environmentalists conniptions. At low altitude they break things, like windows.

Cool. Er , I mean that's terrible. :oP

QUOTE: Originally posted by Dan1677 When you say the sonic booms would be devasting, what do you mean? Devastating to the airframe? I though they didn't create much actual movement inside the aircraft but rather lots of displacement around it. Hey I don't know about these things but still find them really interesting. Dan

The SR-71 doing Mach 3 at 80,000 feet made a sonic boom on the ground that sounded about like a small firecracker. When it was just barely supersonic at say 30,000 feet shortly after refueling, it made a sonic boom that could do considerable damage to buildings on the ground. Creating the atmospheric disturbance or pressure wave that makes the noise on the ground does no damage what so ever to the airplane. SR-71 missions were planned from and return to Beale AFB, California, so that they passed over mostly uninhabited or sparsely inhabited areas of the western portion of the US. That is one reason they very rarely ventured east of the Mississippi river. A typical mission would launch from Beale, refuel over the Sierra Nevada mountains, accelerate to Mach 3 over western Nevada, fly over Wyoming and Nebraska, turn south to Texas, decel and refuel, climb back to 80,000 feet and go over southern New Mexico and Arizona, cross southern California and the Edwards AFB resolution range and then back to Beale either over the Pacific ocean, coastal range mountains or the Sierra Nevadas. They probably startled a lot of coyotes and jack rabbits, much not much else.
There were 2 or 3 large chicken ranches on the north western portion of this route and the USAF had to pay some rather large reparations supposedly because the SR-71s sonic boom scared the chickens and caused them to cease laying eggs. We had to change the routes a little bit to miss those particular areas.

Darwin, O.F.

It's great to know that I'll be building a model of a history making aircraft.
I opened the box a few days ago to find, to my astonishment and amzement (and delight), that the upper and lower hulls are moulded in single pieces without loss of detail!
Cheerio,
John

That's amazing stuff yardbird. It's good to have someone in on the build with so much info about the subject, gives a lot of inspiration. Those poor chickens! It's incredible to think that at 30'000 ft it can still creat enough displacement to actually cause damage. Imagine the damage at below 10'000 ft! I guess the Blackbird is no longer in active service due to costs and the end of the cold war?

John that sounds like a good kit, I will be building one of these in the not too distant future. Which SR71 kit did you buy?

Dan

QUOTE: Originally posted by Dan1677 I guess the Blackbird is no longer in active service due to costs and the end of the cold war? Dan

The A-12, (Older sister to the SR-71), was retired in 1967 after about a year of operational service out of Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan. This was PURELY political. The SR-71 was sent over to Kadena as a replacement and even used the same "T" hangar that was originally built for the A-12.
The SR-71s were retired in January 1990 for about 90% political reasons and about 10% physical limitations. The biggest being that there was no real time data transfer from the aircraft to the ground. The stated reason was that it cost too much to operate. That is pure Bull S_ _ t ! It was expensive on a per flight hour basis, especially if you figured in tanker support and all the other things that helped out, but went on anyway, even without the Blackbird. Things like Air Traffic Control, security, etc. Two A models and the only B model were operated by NASA during this time.
Three Blackbirds were un-retired in 1995 and flew occasionally for about 3 years. USAF stopped flying them in early 1998. NASA made the last ever flight of an SR-71 in December 1999 for the Edwards AFB Air Show using tail number 17980.
The SR-71 was retired the second time for several reasons
1. The supporting infrastructure was so thoroughly destroyed in 1990 that it just wasn't feasible to get it all back together. Things like the twin Buick or Chevy 454 cubic inch engine start carts were nearly all destroyed or rendered unserviceable and put in museums. KC-135Q tankers were retrograded to be unable to handle the JP-7 fuel.
2. With only three flyable aircraft, (actually two), you can't have one on ready alert at Kadena, one at Mildenhall, England, one available in the US for training and one grounded for deep phase maintenance. Simple arithmetic.
3. Congress had allocated funds for the un-retirement, but the USAF "leaders" (??????) refused to support the program any more than they were forced to. Stupid, narrow minded, prejudiced attitudes.

So much for my, "narrow minded, prejudiced" opinions!

Darwin, O.F.

In the interest of stirring up a little activity on this thread, I will post some photos of the second sister in the Blackbird Triumverate, better know as the YF-12A. This was supposed to be the interceptor version of the Blackbird and was armed with 3 Hughes AIM-47 air to air missiles. It was intended to intercept the "hoards of Russian bombers" as they crossed the north pole on their way to obliterate the US. Each missile had a range of about a 100 miles and could hit a fighter sized target dead center. The model is 1/72 scale and is the original Revell 1966 release that stirred up so much controversy about security violations. It is reasonably accurate except for the fuselage being to deep.





Two of the A-12 Blackbirds were redesignated as M-21 and built to carry the D-21 drone on their backs, then launch them at speed and altitude. The first three tests worked fine, but the 4th resulted in a mid-air collision between the M-21 and D-21, both machines broke up in flight and the two crewmen on the M-21 ejected. both landed successfully in the Pacific Ocean, but the backseater, Ray Torrick, drowned before he could be picked up. Drone #7 and onward were built as B models, with the intent that they be carried under the wings of a B-52H and launched in that manner. The easiest way to tell a B model is by the presence of the pitot tube on the leading edge of each wing.
The model is included in the Monogram, now Revell kit of the SR-71. A point to remember is that the SR-71 NEVER, EVER carried one of these drones. Only the M-21 did.



Darwin, O.F.