Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: munnari!vaxa.uwa.OZ.au!G_AHRENDT@uunet.UU.NET
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: SR-71
Message-ID: <14446@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 3 Mar 90 06:08:21 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 44
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: munnari!vaxa.uwa.OZ.au!G_AHRENDT@uunet.UU.NET
>> The YF-12C was an SR-71A (64-17951). It was "detuned" for NASA use. Since
>> it was an SR-71A it did not have a dual cockpit, I doubt it was used as a
>> trainer.
 
>The YF-12C was indeed 60-6937, BUT, it was also an SR-71A (64-17951). That
>was my point. No doubt modifications were made as it was switched between
>the two configurations.

True, but your statement 'The YF-12C was an SR-71A' implied the wrong order :-)

>No. As I said, 64-17951 was converted to a YF-12C, not an SR-71B. There may
>have been another SR-71A converted to an SR-71B, namely 64-17957. However
>this plane crashed on approach to Beale AFB on 12-Jan-68, and as far as I
>know, this information (that it was indeed an SR-71B) has not been made
>publicly available.

Sorry, but the YF-12C was the prototype SR-71A, thus it had it's YF-12C 
designation before it's SR-71A redesignation, and further conversion to an 
SR-71B.

>> You are also incorrect in saying that 60-6927 was a A-12 as it
>> was an A-11. 

>It was an A-12, I do not know what it was before it was an A-12.

The only 'A-12's' or YF-12A's were 60-6934,60-6935 & 60-6936.

>> And again in saying that the SR-71C was constructed from the
>> original YF-12A 60-6934, as it was a converted and electronically updated
>> SR-71A 64-17981.

>But it was. It was constructed from the rear half of 60-6934, which had a
>"rough landing". The front half came from 64-17957, lending credence to the
>fact that 64-17957 may have been an SR-71B.

My information which is taken from 'The World's Greatest Aircraft Series: 
Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird' by Peter Allez-Fernandez which states that the SR-71C 
was a converted SR-71A 64-17981, your information in this instance seems to be 
more precise, but i would like to hear a third party's voice on this :-().

[mod.note:  So would I.  - Bill ]