From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V2 #12 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Sunday, 22 November 1992 Volume 02 : Number 012 In this issue: Re: F-117 Article (1-3) B-52 vs. B-58 Re: F-117 designator Re: F-117 Article (1-3) Propulsion Systems Re: HAVE BLUE See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 07:38:42 MST Subject: Re: F-117 Article (1-3) larry@ichips.intel.com writes: > From this point forward, stealth development went deep into >"the black," or the classified world. The vehicle was the Have Blue >program, which produced stealth technology demonstrators." >Some issues about HAVE BLUE: >It doesn't say that Have Blue was STRICTLY a Lockheed program, >but that HAVE BLUE was the development 'vehicle'. That is the impression I get as well. >Was Have Blue a bigger, government technology demonstration program? It sounds like Have Blue was the DARPA/AFSPO program to fund various low-RCS test platforms and demonstrators... >Was Have Blue's total money budget 20 million dollars? I certainly doubt it. >It DOES indicate that Lockheed was given only 2/3 rds of the funds it needed >to build it's 2 prototypes (maybe signs of a bigger budget devoted to >building prototypes of stealth for other regimes, besides the subsonic >attack regime of the F-117A). Lockheed's previous programs were funded >more completely. But these two aircraft were technology demonstrators. Hmmm... I'm not sure about that one. It sounds like the gov had a price in mind and didn't just want to give LADC a blank check for this project (at least not YET :) That still doesn't mean they were not also funding other programs as well though... >This is just pure conjecture however. I also like conjecture on >skunk-works, as long as it is so labeled. Yep! - -dean ------------------------------ From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 07:39:56 MST Subject: B-52 vs. B-58 larry@ichips.intel.com writes: >>Unfortunately, the B-58 could not go supersonic >>with the bird in place, >Err, ahhhhh, sorry about this Lockheed guys but I can't resist. If a B-58 >can't go supersonic with a Mach 4 payload in place, how can a B-52 go >supersonic with TWO Mach 4 payloads in place? (obviously), it can't... but then a B-58 is no B-52 either. :-> >A B-52H was used to launch two Mach 4 Lockheed D-21Bs. It used a ROCKET, >currently and then, the highest flight time, most proven, hypersonic jet >engine type in existence, to boost it to ramjet inlet 'start' speed. > >Convair, at that time, had already proposed rocket powered pods for the B-58 >for other applications. So it's not like Convair wouldn't have thought >about trying a rocket with their first proposal. But, there was already experience in launching such things off a B-52. As much as we all love the Hustler, I think that if you have already written off using the speed advantage of a B-58, then the much greater lifting capacity and more practical "mothership" configurations of the B-52 make it better suited as a launch platform. >So, in this one instance, be a little skeptical of what the GREAT Kelly >Johnson says (and I do mean GREAT). Well... I think we can forgive him a little "rivalry" with Convair. :-) wb9omc@ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) writes: >As for the "thing-slung-under-the-hustler" and so forth, one problem you >have with sticking extra junk onto it to boost it up to Mach whatever is >physical space. Right. That is just what I was thinking of. On a B-52 wing pylon, you have plenty of room for all kinds of unwieldy vehicles to be mounted. The B-58 centerline simply can't compete... Also, if you are not going supersonic, then WHY use a supersonic aircraft as a launch platform? >I really think the B58 as equipped at the time was up against the limits >of its capabilities. Had approval ever been given for some of the >re-engining proposals, that might have changed. One proposal was to >put J58's on it. You know, those nice engines on the SR71? One version >would have had two; another version had FOUR J58's, which would have been >unimaginable. To say the least! :-) Phew... larry@ichips.intel.com writes: >The Super Hustler study you mentioned was a two component system. The >The first component was the unmanned booster, and according to Miller, it >was ramjet powered. The second component was the manned, ramjet powered, >strategic bombing system. >The blueprints indicated both components fit snuggly under the Hustler, >and the B-58 was even able to rotate for takeoff. It would have to be pretty snug down there though... >All I'm saying is that the booster, the ramjet powered first component, >could have been replaced in the design, with a rocket powered one! But I doubt if a GTD-21 with booster attached would have fit, it seems like the rocket nozzle would be too low. But it is pretty amazing that they could fit a booster AND a manned vehicle under there. >>I don't recall the maximum speed that one ever reached. From what we can >>tell, that is pushing close to the point where most ramjets are able to >>light off and run. >That's why, if they really got the development money for that program, >they most probably would have gone to a rocket powered booster, just like >Lockheed did for the D-21B. >If a B-52 can do it, a B-58 can. But the B-58 ain't a B-52. :-> The 52 has triple the max take-off weight, and a hell of a lot more room to carry (and service) these sort of payloads. >>I suspect that with greater power, the scheme might have worked. However, >>the A12 Blackbird was there ... >No. We're talking about the A-11 bid here. What the OXCART History calls >GUSTO. Super Hustler PREDATES the A-11 bid. >No. A-12 wasn't there. We're talking about the birth of the A-12. Hmmm... interesting. >>Sigh - all the neat aircraft that never got produced..... >I agree with that! Yep... >Guys, this is NEW stuff! Great! ------------------------------ From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 07:40:55 MST Subject: Re: F-117 designator kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) writes: >What I've gotten on this is that the F-117 designator is a fluke. >Since it was a black a/c, there was no official designation. Locally, >the people working with it called it the F-117 because of one of the >parts had a stencil on it that said F-117. Well, then that must have come from somewhere i'd think... The only real explanation I have heard for the F-112 to F-116 "gap" is that they were assigned to captured MiG and Sukkoi types used for testing at Nellis or Tonopah. >When the Flight Manual was printed they had to use something so they >stuck in the F-117 for lack of anything better. >Whereby, it became official. I'd think that by the time a manual was being printed, there already WOULD be some sort of "offical" designation assigned. Who knows... >The stealth was thought to be the F-19 before the F-117 was announced. >The official reason given for the lack of the F-19 was that it might >get confused with the Mig 19 (which has to be bogus, or they would >have left a hole for the F-15). Yep... i've never heard a good explanation for that one. >Now, also, is a hole for the F-21. As was mentioned, that is the IAI Kfir, used by USN and USMC. >Anybody have a clue as to why the holes? Also, There is no C-16 >or no A-11. (A-10 Warthog, A-11 ?, A-12 Navy Stealth). Any others? >Hmmm.. what (if anything) is an F-13? Bad luck... >>when Congress wanted to fund the production of more F-117s, one Air >>Force general said the Air Force did not want them because they were >>obsolete. That says to me they have got their eye on something better... All it really says is that the F-117 was designed in the 1970s. If you are going to start a new production run, the in most cases it might as well be for a NEW aircraft... >What I hear is that this additional production run of the F-117 was going >to be a recon version and was to have been the TR-3A. This was an idea mainly put forth by Sen. Sam Nunn from Georgia, which just happens to be the home for many a Lockheed facility. :-> This proposal was made fairly recently, so the TR-3A would have already "been" for quite some time. ------------------------------ From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 07:42:37 MST Subject: Re: F-117 Article (1-3) brndlfly@Athena.MIT.EDU writes: >Nope, sorry guys, I posted the whole thing THANK YOU! *I* at least appreciated it a great deal. I'd say the _last_ thing you should be is sorry... >(Except maybe the byline at the top of the article, does that count?;) Heh... Whenever I pass along something of that sort, I like to give all the credit that is due... which means the author's name, article title, publication name/date, etc. (and I think you got all that :) >Lesson for the future: don't copy over the whole thing. Maybe, maybe not. I think in this case you did exactly right. >Thanks for the insight, Mike. But lets not let that "insight" us into ignorance please... :-> >The reason I took the time to type in the article was that I thought the >folks on the list would probably want to hear about some of the stuff Ben >Rich and Paul Martin and company had to say that probably would not have >otherwise been brought to light. Exactly! And that is just what (most) of us joined this group for. >I did not intend to infringe on anyone's copyright (of course I didn't >intend to infringe on anyone's copyright!). And I still do not believe that you did. Oh, well... >I considered the article to be of interest to the few members of this >group and decided to share the information with the rest of the members >who may not have access to the article Once again, that is what this group is all about. >(I have read at least one post from someone saying they were >having some trouble finding the issue). Yep... and it appears that there would have been no other way for most people to get a look at the information. The only place I can remember seeing AFM for sale in a store was on a military base... - -dean ------------------------------ From: Gargoyle Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 12:22:26 -0500 Subject: Propulsion Systems I'm on a design team for a propulsion systems class and we have been tasked to develop a new high-tech aircraft engine system (not a simple turbojet, tfan, ram, or scramjet. Unfortunately, we're stuck about 3 hours from any decent research facilities or libraries. I haven't kept up with this list recently, but the topics are similar to what we need. If anyone can make a suggestion about something we can try and give a few places to start looking for information on systems already researched or attempted, we'd really like to hear them. Pulse engines, external combustion hydrogen rockets, charged plasma accelerators, and electric ramjets are some of the ideas we're looking into now. Since we don't have to build a working model (this year) any ideas, however far out, would be appreciated. If your ideas fit the bill for advanced tech aircraft, you can probably post them to the mailing list (skunk-works@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu) or you can mail to me directly at bateskm@clutx.clarkson.edu Thanks. ------------------------------ From: randy@halcyon.halcyon.com(C. Brandon Gresham, Jr.) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 09:58:40 -0800 Subject: Re: HAVE BLUE From Issue 2-11: >> >> Some issues about HAVE BLUE: >> >> It doesn't say that Have Blue was STRICTLY a >> Lockheed program, but that HAVE BLUE was the >> development 'vehicle'. >> >> Was Have Blue a bigger, government technology >> demonstration program? >> >> Was Have Blue's total money budget 20 million >> dollars? >> >> It DOES indicate that Lockheed was given only 2/3 >> rds of the funds it needed to build it's 2 >> prototypes (maybe signs of a bigger budget devoted >> to building prototypes of stealth for other >> regimes, besides the subsonic attack regime of the >> F-117A). Lockheed's previous programs were funded >> more completely. But these two aircraft were >> technology demonstrators. The path to follow: Who was building the competing prototypes. Randy randy@halcyon.com C. Brandon Gresham, Jr. Ad Hoc Enterprises Issaquah WA 98027-7776 U.S.A. Phone: 206-557-9700 Fax: 206-392-1464 ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V2 #12 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "listserv@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from harbor.ecn.purdue.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).