Talk:Lockheed YF-12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

YF-12 and A-12 are two different planes[edit]

File:A12Blackbird.JPG
An A-12 trainer in LA

The A-12 (one-seater) is a spy-plane like the SR-71 (two-seater). The YF-12 is an intercepter. Why is the A-12 article redirected to YF-12? They need two separate articles.

The Lockheed YF-12 was a prototype interceptor aircraft that formed the basis for the SR-71 Blackbird.

The first statement of this article is false. The A-12 was the basis of both the YF-12 and the SR-71. The YF-12 was done after A-12 and SR-71. Kowloonese 23:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not quite. The A-12, a CIA spy plane, first flew out of Groom Lake in April 1962 and remained secret until 1982. The YF-12 interceptor first flew at Groom Lake in August 1963. President Johnson announced the existence of the YF-12 in February 1964 (mistakingly calling it the A-11), and from this point on the YF-12 was the "cover" airplane for the A-12. The SR-71 first flew in December 1964 (and was already known to the public) and was also used to cover up for the A-12. When A-12s were seen or crashed, the Air Force would simply say to the public that it was actually a YF-12 or an experimental SR-71.
I would agree that the A-12 was the basis for both planes, and I'd also agree that the A-12, as a substantially different plane with a substantially different mission, should have its own article. --68.43.122.246 20:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How to tell them apart[edit]

see Talk:A-12_Oxcart#How to tell them apart

Suddenly desclassified?[edit]

As of May 7th, 2006 exact specifications regarding the performance capabilities of all Blackbird variants still remains classified. It should be noted that the capabilities presented regarding this aircraft is not accurate and are only speculation.

On March 6th, 1990, traveling from Los Angeles to Washington, DC in 1 hour, 4 minutes and 20 seconds, a Blackbird once again established a new world speed record for turbine-engine powered aircraft. That is estimated to be in excess of Mach 3.0 without afterburners.

Edited the link to direct to the new NMUSAF page for thr YF-12 -gale_dono

What? The SR-71 always cruised at supersonic speed with it's burners on whether it be at Mach 3 or whatever it's top speed may be 68.192.204.19 (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong About History[edit]

About the statement above, the information is incorrect. The SR-71 came AFTER the YF-12. If you read the actual history, the first SR-71, #17951, was referred to as the YF-12C; hence, being created after the YF-12A. The YF-12A is an extention of the A-12 and M-21, the SR-71 having a different tail than the other three, meaning a more reworked design. And the response above is very correct, the YF flew over a year before the SR. The A-12 was first, then the YF-12A, and the SR-71 and M-21/D-21 flew on the same day. That's part of the offical history.

On a side note, I will never consider the YF-12 as a serious attempt at a fighter, more like a milti-million dollar cover story. Think about this: About this time, the Tri-Service designation took effect. So, why were all the aircraft from F-1 to F-11 all aircraft that were mostly obsolete? The F-7, the Sea Dart, was canceled years before, but still got listed. Why not tack the number on the F-111, or something else IN SERVICE?... Not to mention, making a fighter out of an aircraft that is very finicky and requires refueling the minute it gets airbourne. Not something you want the do when you're on QRA (Quick Reaction Alert). You just as well could get there as fast with F-89's and save the tankers for the trip home. Plus, using a radar that was to flown 4 years earlier, adds up to a clobbered together cover story to hide the A-12 and how quickly the SR-71 took to the air with little fuss. I like the A-12, M-21, and SR-71, but was never impressed by the YF-12. They could have done a lot better job if they were REALLY serious about it. -Aoiryu

Something to consider: The YF-12 was merely a prototype; the production version would have been designated F-12B, and probably would have been as refined as the SR-71 was over the A-12. In addition, the F-12 was to be a long-range interceptor, for which the usual fighter manueverability was not a requirement. The MiG-25 was almost as fast, but had little maneverability also.
As for the designations, the old series was ended at F-111 in 1962; I beleive the F-12 was assigend in 1963 or 64; relly has nothing to do with it being a cover or not. Were the F-4 and F-8 just covers? - BillCJ 17:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The SR-71 prototype was a modified fourth YF-12A serial number 06937. Also, LBJ (Feburary 29, 1964) reportedly misread "AMI" (Advanced Manned Interceptor) as A-11, and this was allowed to stand (it was known that Lockheed's designations for the design evolution of the Blackbird ran from A-1 to A-12, which lent additional credence to the A-11 designation.) Acording to: Lou Drendel, SR-71 Blackbird in Action Carrollton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1982, ISBN 0-89747-136-9, page 4. --Colputt 18:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There's one on the USS Intrepid[edit]

http://www.intrepidmuseum.org/intrepidmuseum/aircraft/ This plane could be restored to flight. The wing skins were carefully removed outboard of the engines where there's a join in the wings. Every component there was taken apart, nothing cut. That was done to reduce the width so it could be delivered to the Intrepid by truck. The curator insisted that the plane not be cut up or damaged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talkcontribs) 05:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Last paragraph of NASA testing section[edit]

Is gobbledegook. I don't know the history, so I can't make the changes, but I can't work out what the history is from what's in the paragraph, so I can't trust myself to make it clearer. Can someone fix it so it's clearer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.32.3 (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Too much info it seems. Should be better now.. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

X-Men Plane[edit]

Isn't this the plane the X-Men use? There should be some mention of it somewhere in the article, perhaps under Media or something to that extent. --151.190.254.108 (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope. They used a fictional aircraft based on the SR-71 Blackbird. See Blackbird (comics) and Fictional Military aircraft#X-Men for more on that. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

High-bypass turbojet ?[edit]

"Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney J58/JTD11D-20A high-bypass-ratio turbojet". I thought high-bypass applied to turbofans, not turbojets. ?? ~~

Good catch. I'll fix it, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

world's largest manned interceptor to date[edit]

If you look at the Tupolev Tu-28, it has slightly larger size, but lower take-off weight.--Arado (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

So what was their precise intended mission ?[edit]

To shoot down Soviet nuclear bombers ? So why weren't they really needed ? What ended up with that mission ? Or were nuclear missiles seen as the big the threat, not bombers ? Needs discussion. Rcbutcher (talk)

Interceptor with no guns?[edit]

Maybe. It should be called other thing but Not interceptor.--81.36.249.224 (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Interceptors can have missle- or rocket-only armaments. Guns aren't a requirement. - BilCat (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lockheed YF-12. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)