From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V2 #14 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 25 November 1992 Volume 02 : Number 014 In this issue: Re: Lockheed vs Convair SR-71 manual Neat Catalog! Re: SR-71 Flight Manual Re: SR-71 Flight Manual mail 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: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 10:22:08 -0800 Subject: Re: Lockheed vs Convair Dean Adams posted from Lockheed Horizons, Winter 1981: >>> Unfortunately, the B-58 could not go supersonic >>>with the bird in place, Larry Smith responds: >>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? >Dean Adams writes: >(obviously), it can't... but then a B-58 is no B-52 either. :-> That's not the point! Payload weight is not the issue! :) We're talking about the ability of the launch aircraft to accelerate to Mach 2.2+ to launch a pure ramjet powered vehicle. >Dean Adams writes: >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. The speed advantage of the Hustler wouldn't HAVE to be written off. It's just that, in the case of the SuperHustler, the replacement of the first component ramjet booster, with a rocket powered one, or even a more exotic combined cycle one (rocket + ramjet), would have been an insurance policy against problems with the B-58. After further study it would have been found that the Hustler could have employed the same acceleration techniques that the M-12 later used to launch D-21A's or the rocket booster would have been employed (assuming that a re-engined B-58 wouldn't be built). Eventually someone would have gotten the idea to launch the SuperHustler from a B-52, because of the other things that eventually were launched from a B-52 (some of them were Mach 6+ and manned). The Hustler's supersonic capability could have provided other 'options' as well, on reconnaissance missions. I'm not discounting the greatness of the Lockheed proposal, or the fact that it won the competition. It DID WIN, and it was tremendous! All I'm trying to point out, is that I'm skeptical about the above reason that Kelly gave. I find his statement is designed to possibly hide a very interesting concept, on the part of the competition. A concept that had certain 'advantages' over the winning and probably 'superior' (for the time) Lockheed entry. A concept that they later proposed themselves, in the form of the M-12/D-21A. Perhaps a concept that is performing part of the strategic reconnaissance mission today! Don't misread what I'm saying. I'm not saying that Lockheed stole the high-Mach/hypersonic parasite concept. Perhaps Kelly rightfully believed that it was too early for such a proposal. Evidently Convair disagreed. This is why so many people are so curious about the loosing Convair proposal. >Dean Adams writes: >Well... I think we can forgive him a little "rivalry" with Convair. :-) Yes, this is the healthiest thing to keep in mind, on both sides! Kelly does seem to have been a bit miffed that the X-7 research could have been used against Lockheed on a competing bid, for the A-11 contract. Larry ------------------------------ From: Randy Gobbel Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 10:47:53 PST Subject: SR-71 manual A couple of days ago at the Point Loma Bookstar in San Diego, I saw a copy of the "SR-71 Pilot's Manual" on sale for ~$100. I looked through it (of course :-)) and if it's not real, it sure is a good fake. Complete with instrument panel layouts, normal and emergency procedures, performance charts, etc., etc., etc. Does anybody out there have any info about this thing, like how it is that it's being published like this? And yes, indeed, it does have a chart that lets you figure the *real* top speed: Mach 3.3 at 85,000 feet, "only with permission of the Commander", or some phrase like that. Max cruise is about Mach 3.15, above 70,000 feet, if I remember right. - -Randy ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 10:54:13 -0800 Subject: Neat Catalog! AWESOME!!! I just got to see a real neat catalog advertising aerospace art and photographs! It's the Mach 1 Inc. catalog. LOTS of neat Lockheed stuff in it, including color shots for the enjoyment of the catalog owner (and to sell the book of course) from "Sled Driver" (written by former SR-71 driver Brian Shul). Evidently the NEAT surrealistic painting I saw at SMOF for the M-12 party IS available. It is entitled "Power Is Peace" and was done by Jarrett L. Holderby. It depicts a beautiful and yet ominous purple, pink, and light blue sky with the sun in place, and a SR-71 BLASTING and ROLLING its way into it, with plasma shock diamonds etc .... . Ever since I saw it at SMOF I've wanted a copy. There are other neat SR and F-117 and U-2 pictures and drawings. Also there are other military aircraft pictures and paintings as well. There is also a NEAT painting of the Space Shuttle by Holderby as well, entitled "Discovery". The book also indicates that for 1993-94 release, there is another book on the SR-71 coming out entitled: "The Untouchables" by Brian Shul and Walter Watson (neat cover shot in color - shows a Driver and RSO standing in front of an SR with pressure suits on). You can obtain a copy of the catalog, I just called and ordered mine, by calling Mach 1 at: 1-800-955-MACH. The catalog was free. The Mach 1 address: MACH 1, Inc. P.O. Box 7360 Chico, CA 95927 ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 11:02:04 -0800 Subject: Re: SR-71 Flight Manual Randy writes: >A couple of days ago at the Point Loma Bookstar in San Diego, I saw a >copy of the "SR-71 Pilot's Manual" on sale for ~$100. I looked through >it (of course :-)) and if it's not real, it sure is a good fake. >Complete with instrument panel layouts, normal and emergency procedures, >performance charts, etc., etc., etc. Does anybody out there have any >info about this thing, like how it is that it's being published like >this? > >And yes, indeed, it does have a chart that lets you figure the *real* >top speed: Mach 3.3 at 85,000 feet, "only with permission of the >Commander", or some phrase like that. Max cruise is about Mach 3.15, >above 70,000 feet, if I remember right. Yes, it is the REAL thing. It's the dash-0 or some such. Anyway, we won't mention the story behind how that flight manual was gotten, or the fact that it's something that you probably already own, so why should you spend $100 on it, or why should someone charge such a huge amount for a POOR photocopy, and therefore make so much profit on something that was public originally. We also won't mention that the manual was originally advertised as "complete" and it isn't! If you go page by page you will find 80 pages missing. Some of them at the most crucual parts of the story. I guess we just won't mention anything about it! Larry ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 12:09:36 -0800 Subject: Re: SR-71 Flight Manual I wrote: >I guess we just won't mention anything about it! I should have said: I guess I won't mention anything about it. I apologize for the tone of my posting. I think I broke one of my private posting rules, to not get hot about a posting. And I'm certainly not upset an Randy for bringing this up! I didn't mean to imply that I could stop anyone from saying anything they wanted, about it. So please do talk about it, if anyone wants to. If you want to buy a copy, go ahead, of course! Nice picture on the cover of the long-tail bird! Some people said that I should tell the story. Well, I've only heard second hand information, through some of my BEST contacts, about the story. I have not bothered to research the story. By the way, the story found me, I did not look for the story. Evidently it was talked about quite a bit in certain SW aerospace community circles, back when the document came out. Personally, I find there are more important things to research. The story is not something someone should publish unless he or she is sure they have the facts. But I do own a copy of the manual, and to my chagrin, it was as I described it. There is a chance that I may be able to claim some of it as an expense, because of my research activities with AW&ST, and some future things we're working on. If I were really interested in obtaining a copy, I might try and find it through some government agency, or get someone with a copy to allow you to photocopy it (I'll have to check, but I don't see how Zenith could claim a copyright on a govt. document - all govt. docs. I've ever seen, are non-copyrighted - I don't recall, in my copy, if there was a copyright). Heck, maybe I should just make photocopies of mine and make them available to skunk works listers!; if that's legal, of course. I don't know if I would really do such a thing. I'm just sounding off here (actually I thought about this after I obtained my copy and inspected it). Larry ------------------------------ From: 9132457j@lux.levels.unisa.edu.au (9132457j) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 92 19:36:00+100 Subject: mail Hi, I was wondering if I can be include on the skunk-works mailing list. One of friends subscribes and the stuff he shows me is intresting, so he told, me to join up. Thanks a lot. Bye the way by address is 9132457j@lux.levels.unisa.edu.au James " snickers " Lenon ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V2 #14 ******************************** 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).