From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V3 #29 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 29 April 1993 Volume 03 : Number 029 In this issue: Re: Sea Shadow TARAN [sp2stes1: TARAN] Re: Undeliverable Mail Re: Sea Shadow Tshirts and hats Anybody know where the shuttle was? Re: Sea Shadow Re: Anybody know where the shuttle was? B-70 Re: Undeliverable Mail Re: Sea Shadow Re: B-70 Re: observations 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: Wed, 28 Apr 93 06:05:48 MDT Subject: Re: Sea Shadow johngm@BIX.com writes: >I must admit the first thing I thought of when I saw it was the >Merrimac (sp) from the Civil War. I looks almost exactly like it >except there is no stack. Yea, there certainly is a similarity. Although (of course), this new one has the hull raised up out of the water... >now that I think of it there isn't any obvious large air >intake so the turbine probably isnt' very large. Any production craft of this type would probably use a gas turbine engine, but this test version just uses diesel-electric propulsion. AW seemed to think the top central opening was for engine air. >One more thing, this thing is UGLY! Not that it matters when >it comes to warships but God its nothing to look at. Well, I can't agree with you on that. I think it has some really sleek lines, and is a pretty hot looking craft... - -dean ------------------------------ From: sp2stes1@caligula.his.se (Stefan Skoglund) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 93 14:18:14 +0200 Subject: TARAN From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) I was just wondering, since I hd never seen the word 'Taran' before, perhaps is is simply Russian for 'ram'. I seem to recall reading that WWII Soviet fighters were ruggedly built, almost suited in a bizarre way for ramming attacks. One plane that comes to mind is the Il-2 ground attack plane (can't spell the name for it though!) You mean the Il-2 Sturmovik - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Stefan Skoglund I "Viggen | i tiden *)" sp2stes1@sun5.his.se, I _____/0\_____ University of Skoevde, Sweden I ___________[|(.)|]___________ - --------------------------------I -+- O -+- I I *) Viggen with two Rb04 ------------------------------ From: sp2stes1@caligula.his.se (Stefan Skoglund) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 93 14:19:00 +0200 Subject: [sp2stes1: TARAN] From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) I was just wondering, since I hd never seen the word 'Taran' before, perhaps is is simply Russian for 'ram'. I seem to recall reading that WWII Soviet fighters were ruggedly built, almost suited in a bizarre way for ramming attacks. One plane that comes to mind is the Il-2 ground attack plane (can't spell the name for it though!) You mean the Il-2 Sturmovik - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Stefan Skoglund I "Viggen | i tiden *)" sp2stes1@sun5.his.se, I _____/0\_____ University of Skoevde, Sweden I ___________[|(.)|]___________ - --------------------------------I -+- O -+- I I *) Viggen with two Rb04 ------------------------------ From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 93 11:33:52 CDT Subject: Re: Undeliverable Mail > I remember from reading brief histories of the Northrop XP-79 that ramming > was considered to be a primary means of attack in its role as an > interceptor. I don't have the books here at school, but one of them (by > Lloyd S. Jones) explains that the craft's magnesium structure was designed > to withstand the impact as it attempted to sever the tail off of the > targeted aircraft. As I recall, the P-79 was one of Northrop's wings, > variously powered by rockets or jets in its purely prototype lifespan. > Designed as a point defender, the aircraft also featured a prone pilot > position (ostensibly to withstand the g's of impact) and four-point landing > gear. It's interesting how during the years right after WWII the Air Force actually experimented with the idea of a rocket-powered point interceptor, even though the idea had already tired and proven to be unsuccessful by the Luftwaffe during the war with the Me-163 and the Ba-345(?) Natter. The latter was essentially a manned SAM, vertically launched and designed to saturate a formation of bombers with a salvo of rockets. Unless I'm mistaken, the rocket-powered variant of the XP-79 even used hypergolic fuels just as the Komet and Natter used (the German planes used hydrogen peroxide and hydrazine, while the XP-79 used nitric acid and anniline-nasty stuff here!). Now I don't know how accurate this is, but according to one of the Time-Life 'Epic of Flight' books, it mentions that the engine used in the XP-79 was being discussed for use in the X-1. If the X-1 had used the XP-79's engine, it could have taken off under its own power. The X-1 designers changed their minds when seeing a crude demonstration of how violently the fuels reacted with each other. They simply tied a bottle of each chemical together and threw them against a rock in a dry riverbed. Or so the book claims.... After that the X-1 of course was designed to use a LOX/alchohol engine. > Incidentally, the Ilyushin aircraft mentioned earlier - wasn't it called > the Stormovik or somesuch? Again, I apologise for any detail mistakes, my > texts are all five hours south so I'm running on my faulty longterm memory > here. Yes, that's the plane I remembered reading about but I couldn't remember how to spell the name! Something like 'Strumovik' or something like that. I think the Il-2's (the Strumovik) ground-attack armament even surpasses that of modern-day ground-attack planes. The Strumovik carried two 75mm cannons, whereas the largest cannon today is on the A-10 at 30mm (although I think the Ju-87 Stuka might have also carried 75mm guns for tank-busting as well) I wonder how a Strumovik pilot managed to keep flying despite the massive recoil.... Anyway, the Sturmovik had something like 2 inches of frontal armor that pretty well protected everything from the engine to the cockpit, which means that ramming was probably survivable for the Il-2. I'm curious about what a ramming attack actually would entail- actually ramming the fuselage or simply trying to damage a wing or the tail of an enemy plane. Simon sorry about the 'undeliverable mail' as the subject, but I had to salvage this posting and I couldn't change the subject. > > > > > > > End of returned message > ------------------------------ From: gwh@lurnix.COM Date: Wed, 28 Apr 93 10:53:33 -0700 Subject: Re: Sea Shadow >So it was GONE for 2 weeks? Any idea where it went? Probably to Catalina Island, where the article said they have a radar and acoustic test range set up. Also where the photos likely were taken, since until this last month it's never been out in the daylight before ;-) - -george william herbert ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 93 12:00:22 PDT Subject: Tshirts and hats Hi guys. A few of you asked me for Boeing tshirts and hats... so to let everyone know, I went out and bought (payroll deduction) a sackful of shirts and a few hats. Some patches too. F-22 and B-2 tshirts and F-22 hats. Various patches. I'll sell them with enough markup to pay for gas and postage, so let me know if you might be interested and I'll fill you in on the details. Reply to kuryakin@halcyon.com Thanks, Rick ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 93 13:36:17 PDT Subject: Anybody know where the shuttle was? Hi, last night (a rare, clear night) my son and I saw a satellite and suspect that we saw the shuttle. (Discovery, right?) How would I go about finding out if it was the shuttle? 21:35hrs, PST, travelling NE over the Northwestern portion of the US. I'm pretty positive that's what it was, since I rarely see anything but polar satellites around here, and it was far brighter than any other satellite I've seen. (brighter than all but the brightest stars.) Now if I could just figure out what that smaller light that was trailing it was... (Just kidding.. ;-) Rick ------------------------------ From: rossix!philmc@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Phil Mcintosh) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 93 14:40:40 -0700 Subject: Re: Sea Shadow I went over to Lockheed at lunch today and asked a guy working on boat near where the barge holding the Sea Shadow was, if he knew where the barge went, and he said that it gets taken out to sea every year or so. It would be great to know if the barge is in fact at Catalina Island. It is very unique. Phil ------------------------------ From: Lee Levine Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 15:26:57 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: Anybody know where the shuttle was? Hi Rick. Actually, it is the Columbia that is currently in orbit. Check with NASA's Spacelink BBS (spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov). When you log off you can leave a message for NASA which is usually answered within 24 hours if they have the answer. Or you might try calling the U.S. Naval Observatory in San Diego. (Bellybutton observatory??? :) ) Good luck and let me know what happens! Lee Levine aka taliesin@pc2.pc.maricopa.edu An it harms none, do what thou will. --Wiccan Credo Gun Control is a steady hand and a good sight picture. On Wed, 28 Apr 1993, Rick Pavek wrote: > > Hi, last night (a rare, clear night) my son and I saw a satellite > and suspect that we saw the shuttle. (Discovery, right?) > > How would I go about finding out if it was the shuttle? 21:35hrs, PST, > travelling NE over the Northwestern portion of the US. > > I'm pretty positive that's what it was, since I rarely see anything but > polar satellites around here, and it was far brighter than any other > satellite I've seen. (brighter than all but the brightest stars.) > > Now if I could just figure out what that smaller light that was trailing > it was... > > (Just kidding.. ;-) > > Rick ------------------------------ From: sem@acsu.buffalo.edu (Scott E Mcwilliams) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 93 00:06:05 EDT Subject: B-70 Hi! I am currently reading "Angle of Attack: Harrison Storms and the Race to the Moon" In it they talk briefly about Storms' involvement with the B-70. I was wondering if there are any left--I think like 3 were built. I realize it wasn't built by Lockheed but it was a supersonic bomber and it was secret for awhile... And does anyone know what happened to Storms? Thanks!!!! -Scott ------------------------------ From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 93 23:09:34 CDT Subject: Re: Undeliverable Mail > > Uhuh. The germans had a variety of *-stoffs (stoffen???) > Everything from Gasoline to Lox to a buncha wierdities like the 99% H2O2. > > regards > dwp > What's interesting now that I think about it is that LOX was the only cryogenic liquid used by the Germans or anyone else. Some of those 'stoffen'(?) were various forms of solid fuels. The curious thing about the liquid fuels they used was that most if not all of them were hypergolics of some sort (I think hydrazine was used for something but I'm not sure). I think most of the Me-163's lost in action simpply either blew up on the ground or exploded on landing-residial fuel sloshing about. The peroxide was corrosive enough to eat through some of the materials used in the plane's construction. I mean, the 2 or 5% peroxide solution used as an antiseptic feels like it's burning the skin, so I can only imagine what the pure form of it could do.... I've noticed though that LOX/Alchohol or LOX/Gasoline were the most widely used fuels until after WWII. Off-topic but I think I read somewhere that the Russians stuck with LOX/kerosine until the present day for their space rockets, while the US went with LOX/LH2 for the shuttle. Before I forget, I recall the same 'Wings of the Luftwaffe' program talking about the German's use of JATO/RATO units for takeoff assistance on their bombers- liquid fueled rocket motor pods, using the same fuel as the Me-163. makes you wonder who thought up these ideas- put these rocket motors full of ultra-volatile fuels under the wings of fully loaded bombers.. Simon ------------------------------ From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 93 22:42:16 MDT Subject: Re: Sea Shadow gwh@lurnix.COM writes: I wrote: >>So it was GONE for 2 weeks? Any idea where it went? Well, the 2 weeks I was referring to here was a trip the barge apparently took BEFORE the longer voyage down south. Probably a check up of sorts to make sure it was seaworthy. >Probably to Catalina Island, where the article said they have >a radar and acoustic test range set up. The island they mentioned was Santa Cruz (been there! :), off the Ventura coast. Catalina is about 100 miles south of there, and mainly a tourist trap... Actually, the main remote tracking site for the Point Mugu range is located on the USN controlled San Nicolas Island. The Navy has a permanent installation out there with a multitude of radars and other hardware. >Also where the photos likely were taken, since until this last >month it's never been out in the daylight before ;-) Yep. I'm sure they were taken somewhere in the waters off Mugu. - -dean ------------------------------ From: rbarton@trincoll.edu (Ran Barton, III) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 01:01:14 -0500 Subject: Re: B-70 On Thu, 29 Apr 93 00:06:05 EDT, Scott E Mcwilliams said: >I was wondering if there are any left--I think like 3 >were built. Though I am sure many folks will reply with more detail, I can supply the basics. Two were built. The second, slightly more refined than the first, crashed after a midair collision with an F-104. The first survives today at the USAF Museum, Wright Patterson AFB, near Dayton. It is an impressive sight, and well worth a visit, as is the rest of the museum. My question for the Skunkers is about the B-70's proposed weaponry. I have in my references seen the bomb bay delineated, but I have never seen it given any dimensions. What sort of bombs were envisioned, and what sort of guidance? From the speeds and altitudes the B-70, even as a reconnaisance strike craft (it's late RS-70 incarnation which led to the Blackbird's final designation, I believe) the Valkyrie faced quite a task of dropping ordnance with any real hope of striking a target. Other books on the B-70 depict late North American proposals to fit Skybolts (GAM-87?) under the wings, at the expense of nearly all the speed. Lord only knows why this seemed like an improvement. If anyone knows, or can refer me to a source, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, Ran _____________________________________________________________ | | | | Ran Barton, III '93 | | | | rbarton@trincoll.edu | /O\ | | Trinity College-Box 955 | \_______[|(.)|]_______/ | | Hartford, CT 06106-3100 | o ++ O ++ o | | | | | A year passes apace and proves ever new; | | First things and final conform but seldom. -The Gawain Poet | |______________________________|______________________________| ------------------------------ From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 93 00:47:31 MDT Subject: Re: observations Rick writes: >last night (a rare, clear night) my son and I saw a satellite >and suspect that we saw the shuttle. (Discovery, right?) Oh, for shame! :-) Its the venerable Columbia 'o course! STS-55, Spacelab D-2 mission. Got some live NASA video on the screen right now. >How would I go about finding out if it was the shuttle? 21:35hrs, >PST, travelling NE over the Northwestern portion of the US. I'll bring up TRACKSAT and see where it was then... OK, according to my display, Columbia was over *India* at that time. Just to check that the elements were valid, I compared a current tracking display to the live NASA tracking screen and they matched up just right. I'm also not sure if the Shuttle is all that visible during a regular 28.5 degree orbit from as far north as you are. If it was, it would be at the extreme southern horizion, moving west to east across the sky. It looks pretty far south even from my SoCal location. BUT, I did some more checking and it seems that _MIR_ would have been crossing over the Northwest U.S coast right about 21:30 PT on 4/27!! If what you saw moved overhead from west to northeast, then i'd say this is likely the culprit! >I'm pretty positive that's what it was, since I rarely see anything but >polar satellites around here, and it was far brighter than any other >satellite I've seen. (brighter than all but the brightest stars.) Mir is even larger/brighter than the Shuttle. >Now if I could just figure out what that smaller light >that was trailing it was... Heh. That reminds me of the HST deploy mission, since I was lucky enough to see the Shuttle chasing Hubble across the sky. - -dean ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V3 #29 ******************************** 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 To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@ecn.purdue.edu". 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).