The Smithsonian at Dulles

[OVERKILL]

The thing about the SR-71 is that the top speed of Mach 3.2+ really is pretty bloody vague. I've read multiple accounts from pilots having their top speed runs "called" when the thing was still accelerating like crazy. There is so much we will never know about that plane IMHO. The U-2 being shot down was what really poured the fuel on the final development stages of the SR-71, which had been in the works since 1958. Originally designed as a fighter (hence the YF-12), its final incarnation was simply a spy plane.

God only knows what the true top speed was of a plane that flew at the edge of space; 80K to 100K ft. To experience that? I am sure there is absolutely nothing else like it.

No, Lockheed didn't have a monopoly on innovation, but their Skunkworks were probably the best of the breed. Working with Pratt & Whitney, the unique hybrid turbo/ramjet propulsion, making the impossible possible? The SR-71 is the product of that. It truly is, IMHO, the best of American innovation; The hallmark of what can be done when the brass tacks are down and you sink or swim. And this is coming from a (Canadian) guy that knows all about the Avro fiasco.

The XB-70 came after the SR-71, and didn't incorporate the same sort of hybrid engine technology (they used GE turbines) which, IMHO, was a poor move. The SR-71's propulsion was superior, hence its significant tenure, and the XB-70 project could have benefited from the hybrid propulsion technology.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The list of inventory sounds really interesting although I question some of the selected aircraft.
I mean, a Cessna 152 or a Beech King Air or Model 18?

They're very pedestrian aircraft, but they are rather iconic, I would say.

 

[Shannow]

OVERKILL,
did you read my thread

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4071544/FOIA_CIA_doc_on_the_U2,_A12,_a#Post4071544

 

[andrewg]

Someday.......

 

[javacontour]

I've been there three times and still haven't been able to see the whole thing. I just might take a trip there while my wife is out of town one weekend this summer.

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The Air Force Museum in Fairborn near Dayton on a piece of the Wright-Patterson Air Force base is even better.
They've got your SR-71, but they also have the only surviving B-70 as well as an F-117 test article along with one of just about everything that ever flew in the USAF inventory as well as some space vehicles. That they didn't get a shuttle was a travesty that Ohio's congressional delegation really should have fixed.
Does the museum at Dulles named for some guy who founded a very successful airliner leasing company have a B-36, a B-47 and a B-52?
The one in Fairborn does, as well as an ME-262 and some other WW II Japanese and German aircraft.
I love both car and airplane museums. They're all wonderful to visit. The difference is that planes take up a whole lot more space, of course.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
OVERKILL,
did you read my thread

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4071544/FOIA_CIA_doc_on_the_U2,_A12,_a#Post4071544



No, but I will take a look now

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The list of inventory sounds really interesting although I question some of the selected aircraft.
I mean, a Cessna 152 or a Beech King Air or Model 18?

They're very pedestrian aircraft, but they are rather iconic, I would say.


Not really. The C152 was no more than a C150 with an engine better suited to 100LL. The King Air was once the default cheap turboprop, being much smaller and cheaper to buy and to run than a Gulfstream. It offered nothing like the performance of the widely feared MU-2. The B-18 is a pretty unique aircraft with conventional gear and round engines although it wasn't actually a Beech design. Out of the three, I'd give it iconic status.

 

[Garak]

Well, one can certainly niggle about the details. One could argue that the 150 or 172 might be a better choice for the museum, but to the lay person, they would see a single engine small Cessna, and that's good enough. And the King Air is ubiquitous enough.

 

[fdcg27]

My original concern was that there is little point in having a museum display aircraft that can be seen at any small airport.
A better GA display might consist of a C120 or C140, a C195 and a C170.
IOW, aircraft one can't see any nice day being flown from any GA airport.
A lineup of some of the really interesting planes from the golden era of postwar GA flying might also be worthy of display, although I suppose that space limitations might preclude that.
There is a huge story to be told of much larger numbers of active piston aircraft and private pilots than what we see today.
Maybe that's best left to EAA?

 

[Jetronic]

the Me-109, FW-190, Me-262 etc used to be rather abundant... not now though.


You need to get them while they're available and cheap as they'll eventually get scrapped...

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
My original concern was that there is little point in having a museum display aircraft that can be seen at any small airport.

Well, there is that point, of course, but that's the difficulty. Should a museum be about only products that are hard to find, or also include great examples of very popular ones?

 

[JetStar]

The USAF museum in Dayton just opened the new 4th building this weekend. You no longer have to take the bus to the annex to see the X-Planes. I plan on making another visit this summer.

 

[JetStar]

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Expansion.aspx