From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V4 #32 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Friday, 8 October 1993 Volume 04 : Number 032 In this issue: Swedish DC-3 lost SR71 losses ? SR-71 losses Re: SR-71 losses And another one passes... GRUMMAN Aircraft is calling it quits! Re: GRUMMAN Aircraft is calling it quits! U2 field restrictions Re: GRUMMAN Aircraft is calling it quits! Re: U2 field restrictions Re: U2 field restrictions Re: U2 field restrictions More Armenian Hercules 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: urf@ki.icl.se (Urban Fredriksson) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 93 12:45:37 MET Subject: Swedish DC-3 lost Ian Wraith writes: >I know a Sweedish DC3 went missing over the Barents sea in the late 1940s [...] I can imagine Murmansk would be interesting, but I don't recall any DC-3 beeing lost north of it. The only DC-3 our air force lost was shot down over the Baltic in June 1952, but exactly where and by whom is still in doubt, as the stories now coming from the xUSSR are partly conflicting. No wreckage was ever found, nor any trace of the crew. It is clear that it was there on an Elint mission, and that we did share military intelligence data with USA in exchange for equipment (presumably electronic). This was not contrary to the laws of that time, as long as the intelligence gathered was gathered for purely Swedish purposes. Both of these facts remained very secret for decades. One of the SAR Catalinas looking for it was shot down by MiG-15s. It made an emergency landing just barely on international water (so we don't know if it was shot at on Soviet territory or not) and the crew rescued from their life rafts shortly thereafter by a German freighter. - -- Urban Fredriksson urf@icl.se ------------------------------ From: Joshua Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 16:04:11 +0100 (BST) Subject: SR71 losses ? I understand an SR71 went down in the South China Sea shortly before it was due to retire . This was the information given over the tannoy at the air show at RAF Mildenhall , UK , and gave the reason as hydraulic failure . Subsequently , the fleet was apparently grounded , preventing the display at the airshow . Was this the real reason or where there some outside forces at work ? Also , how many Blackbirds were lost in accidents in total ? Joshua ------------------------------ From: ron@habu.stortek.com (Ron Schweikert) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 93 10:30:50 MDT Subject: SR-71 losses phueq@csv.warwick.ac.uk writes: >I understand an SR71 went down in the South China Sea shortly before it was >due to retire . This was the information given over the tannoy at the air >show at RAF Mildenhall , UK , and gave the reason as hydraulic failure . >Subsequently , the fleet was apparently grounded , preventing the display at >the airshow . Was this the real reason or where there some outside forces at >work ? > > Joshua That's disturbing. > Also , how many Blackbirds were lost in accidents in total ? As far as I know there were 8 when I left, plus this one. I don't have any information on what the failures were of each one -- does anyone else? Ron ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 10:09:37 -0700 Subject: Re: SR-71 losses According to our last verbose list (published back in Dec. 1990 by Duane Mantick), there were 12 SR-71 Losses. SR-71 Losses: - ------------ 64-17950 2001 prototype. first flew 22 Dec 1964. lost 10 Jan 1967. ****Aerofax claims lost on 11 April 1969 following take-off accident. Crickmore - Lockheed pilot Art Peterson was conducting anti-skid brake trials. At 200 knots the braking 'chute failed to deploy properly. After leaving the wet test area and finding dry surface, the brakes locked and all six main tires blew. The magnesium wheel hubs caught fire which spread to the rest of the aircraft. Peterson was injured but escaped the aircraft. '950 was destroyed in the fire. 64-17952 2003 disintegrated 25 January 1966 in high speed flight. pilot survived. ****Aerofax claims RSO did not survive. Crickmore - Piloted by Lockheed employee Bill Weaver and RSO Jim Zwayer, aircraft experienced an "inlet scheduling malfunction" followed by an unstart on the right engine while in a 30 degree bank at 80,000 feet and Mach 3+. Aircraft broke up; both pilot and RSO escaped from aircraft but RSO was found dead after parachuting to the ground. Pilot survived. 64-17953 2004 lost 18 Dec 1969 Crickmore - USAF pilot Lt. Col. Joe Rogers and RSO Lt. Col. Gary Heidelbaugh were on a test sortie after ECM modifications. After going supersonic, there was an explosion and a loss of power and control. Both crewmembers ejected safely; aircraft was destroyed. 64-17954 2005 written off 11 April 1969 after aborted takeoff and fire ****Aerofax claims lost 9 Feb. 1966 Crickmore - USAF pilot Lt. Col. Bill Skliar and RSO Maj. Noel Warner had just rotated for takoff when a left main gear tire blew. As they aborted the takeoff, shrapnel from the disintegrating wheel hubs caused the aircraft to catch fire. Pilot and RSO both escaped. 64-17957 2008 second SR-71B. lost 11 Jan 1968. ****Aerofax dates loss as 12 Jan 1968 during an approach to Beale AFB Crickmore - During a training flight, the aircraft suffered a double generator failure over northern Washington state. Displaying great skill, the pilot was able to coax the aircraft back to Beale (California), only to have serious unstarts while in the approach pattern. The crew ejected safely; the aircraft crashed inverted about 7 miles north of the field. 64-17965 2016 lost 25 Oct 1967 Crickmore - USAF crew "E18" were descending on autopilot over central Nevada. The INS gyro platform failed and aircraft entered a steep dive. Unable to recover the aircraft, the pilot and RSO ejected at Mach 1.4; they survived but the aircraft crashed near Lovelock, Nevada. 64-17966 2017 lost 13 April 1967 Crickmore - USAF crew "E12" were climbing after an in-flight refueling and over-extended their angle of attack. Control of the aircraft was lost; both men ejected safely but aircraft was lost. 64-17969 2020 lost between 1970 and early 1971 during operational mission from Kadena ****Aerofax lists as operational with 9th SRW Crickmore - shortly after refuelling, pilot attempted to climb over clouds but attempted too great of a climb attitude. Both engines flamed out and could not be restarted; crew ejected safely and aircraft crashed near Korat, Thailand. 64-17970 2021 lost 17 June 1970 following collision with KC135Q tanker ****Aerofax lists as operational with 9th SRW Crickmore - USAF crew "E08" had just disconnected from a KC135Q when the pilot lost sight of the tanker briefly and then hit the horizontal stabilizer. Both pilot and RSO ejected safely and landed about 20 miles east of El Paso, Texas while the SR71 crashed nearby. 64-17974 2025 ****Aerofax lists as operational with 9th SRW A posting in sci.military from Michael Tighe states that '974 was lost shortly after takeoff from Kadena AFB, Okinawa and went into the South China Sea. Pilot Lt. Col. Dan House and his RSO survived. Date precisely unknown, sometime in 1989. AW&ST reported in their Jan. 29, 1990 issue that, according to Lt. Col. Dan House the left engine "blew up" inflight. Shrapnel hit the hydraulic lines, causing a loss of flight controls. Pilot and RSO punched out without injury. The aircraft was recovered 10 days later; AW&ST quoted Col. Tom Henicheck, commander of Det. 4 of the 9th SRW as saying "It was the first loss in 17 years." 64-17977 2028 lost 10 Oct 1968 ****Aerofax gives no date but indicates loss due to aborted take-off both crew members survived Crickmore - a wheel failure sent shrapnel into the fuel tanks, catching the aircraft on fire on an aborted takeoff. The RSO ejected safely While the pilot rode the aircraft across the ground and escaped with only bruises and sprains. The aircraft was almost brand new and was written off. 64-17978 2029 "Rapid Rabbit" lost sometime in May 1973 at Kadena. AT time of writing, last SR-71 *KNOWN* to have been written off. Crickmore - This aircraft accumulated more sorties in Southeast Asia than any other SR71. Returning from an operational mission, a maximum crosswind landing was attempted. First landing was aborted and brake 'chute was left behind. On the second attempt '978 left the runway and struck a concrete barrier housing. Both crewmembers were unhurt but "Rapid Rabbit" was deemed too badly damaged to be saved and was broken up for spares. Larry ------------------------------ From: Rick Pavek Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 12:56:37 -0700 Subject: And another one passes... Michael Jordan has hung up his wings for the last time... We'll miss him and all the.... Hey wait. It says here that "Air Jordan" is a marketing campaign for a tennis shoe... Cancel Air Hero Eulogy. End Message ;-) ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 13:35:32 -0700 Subject: GRUMMAN Aircraft is calling it quits! The maker of the famous Navy 'cat' fighter planes - Grumman - is calling it quits as an airframe vendor! from: AEROSPACE DAILY, 10/6/1993 > ... >Grumman, maker of military and civil aircraft since the 1930s and >premiere builder of carrier aircraft since before World War II, is leaving >the airframe business permanently, company chairman Renso Caporali said. >Caporali, .. said >"there's no room for us, or many of our competitors, in the airframe >business." ... >... the [A/F-X] program's indefinite >postponement means Grumman can no longer afford to wait to eliminate its >airframe capacity. >The company wanted "desperately to hold onto" its airframe >division, but without A/F-X or new orders for F-14 fighters, "we can't keep >people and facilities when we don't have work for them," he said. ^^^ >He added that he considers Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas - holding >contracts for the F-22 and F/A-18E/F, respectively - to be the "favorites" >to win future combat aircraft work. This is VERY SAD!! Poor Long Island! First it was Republic Aircraft going under and now Grumman (however Grumman will continue on in the military electronics field)! What does this say about the future of aerospace? Is it too expensive to do aerospace research these days? Does the government have to fund everything? Larry ------------------------------ From: thack@cthulhu.Tymnet.COM (Thomas Hackwood) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 93 14:35:20 PDT Subject: Re: GRUMMAN Aircraft is calling it quits! From Larry (larry@ichips.intel.com): >from: AEROSPACE DAILY, 10/6/1993 >> ... >>Grumman, maker of military and civil aircraft since the 1930s and >>premiere builder of carrier aircraft since before World War II, is leaving >>the airframe business permanently, company chairman Renso Caporali said. Did the article say who was going to get the production facilities? I think the F-14 Tomcat is undergoing an upgrade process. If Grumman gets out of the business, someone is going to have to pick it up. Is McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, Lockheed, Northrup, or General Dynamics going purchase the remains of Grumman's business? >Is it too expensive to do aerospace research these days? Does the government >have to fund everything? Northrup is still reeling from the F20 Tigershark. Back in the mid 1980's when I was just out of school looking for a job in the LA area, it was "commonly known" among the aircraft industry that Grumman was working on the Stealth Bomber, and that was the ONLY reason why Grumman is still around. Unfortunately it seems that research into unproven or cutting edge tech- nologies is a too expensive to do without some sort of "safety net" (like goverment funding) or a "cash cow" (Boeing's 747 program comes to mind.) Bummer 'bout Grumman. Tom ------------------------------ From: pete@frosty.rational.com (Pete Coe) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 15:22:51 -0700 Subject: U2 field restrictions I was just driving up highway 101, when a NASA U2/TR-1 came swooping over so low it nearly left skid marks on my roof. Well a slight exageration, but I would have said it cleared the freeway by only 30ft. This is much lower than the P-3's come over. What is the reason? From what I could see it stopped pretty quickly, so I would have thought that runway length was not the problem. Anyway, over to the experts. - -- - -- Pete Coe - -- Rational - -- Object-Oriented Products ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 18:30:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: GRUMMAN Aircraft is calling it quits! A good ten years ago there was an article in AvLeak/Flight International/Jane'e Defense News/Interavia that Grumman had put so much of their own money into the X-29 because they hadn't built a new airplane in such a long time and they felt that they had to do something to keep their design people up to speed.. The article pointed out that all they'd done was offer upgrades to existing planes. There was also something about their relationship with the Navy--as I recall, it said that the Navy was quite unhappy with Grumman's acting like they were the only game in town, especially after MacAir was treating them so nicely over the AV-8 and the F-18. Anyway, I'm not particularly surprised. I'm also not sure if Grumman is entirely innocent here. On the other hand, I'm really sad to see them get out of the business. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com ------------------------------ From: megazone@WPI.EDU (MegaZone) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 18:44:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: U2 field restrictions Once upon a time Pete Coe shaped the electrons to say... >the P-3's come over. What is the reason? From what I could see it stopped >pretty quickly, so I would have thought that runway length was not the >problem. The U-2 simply doesn't have a high sink rate on landing. Watch sailplanes landing, they're much the same. They come in on a shallow glideslope and sort of kiss their way onto the ground. You don't flare the U-2 was a normal aircraft does, you fly in at a shallow angle and just sort of fly it onto the runway. A conventional aircraft you point the nose at the ground, and then flare out to bleed speed and lift to drop the mains onto the runway. (for a pilot, that description sucks... :-) ) - -- megazone@wpi.wpi.edu megazone@world.std.com megazone@hotblack.schunix.dmc.com "I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity. Use your mind, think!" Moderator: WPI anime FTP site, 130.215.24.1 /anime, the anime FanFic archive; rec.arts.anime.stories, questions to anime-dojinshi-request@wpi.wpi.edu GTW d-- -p+ c++(++++) l u+ e+ m+(*)@ s++/+ !n h- f+ !g w+ t+@ r+@ y+(*) ------------------------------ From: freeman@MasPar.COM (Jay R. Freeman) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 93 17:04:51 -0700 Subject: Re: U2 field restrictions He was probably just a little low on final. I work under the final approach for Moffat (when they are landing to the northwest). To be a little more specific, if anyone has trouble on final and can't make it to the Sunnyvale Golf Courss -- I'm history! Anyway, the U2 final approach path is not noticeably different from the P-3 one. - Jay Freeman ------------------------------ From: freeman@MasPar.COM (Jay R. Freeman) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 93 17:11:40 -0700 Subject: Re: U2 field restrictions > They come in on a shallow glideslope ... I have the impression that with gear down and miscellaneous drag-inducing and lift-spoiling airframe disassembly enabled, they have no problem maintaining a three-degree glideslope, or thereabouts. But I suspect there are people in this news group who know for sure. Mary Shafer, are you there? -- Jay Freeman ------------------------------ From: I.Wraith@sheffield.ac.uk Date: 8 Oct 93 08:34:44 BST Subject: More Armenian Hercules I have just had a look in the book SPYPLANE by David Donald who claims aircraft shot down was a RC-130A.He also says the aircraft was shot down by several MIGs near the town of Jerevan.There were 17 crew of which 6 were known to have died (were bodies returned?) leaving 11 unaccounted for.At the time the US claimed the aircrafts navigation systems had been interfered with electronically by the Soviets to lure it over the border. Another book of mine US sky spies by Michael O'Leary says the RC- 130A was a photomapping and recon platform.Only 16 aircraft were converted to this mark serials 54-1632 and 57-510 through 57-524 most of which were converted back to cargo carriers later. I find it very hard to believe the aircraft has just been found.I am sure the Soviets would have searched very hard for an aircraft packed with the latest optical and electronic gear once they knew it had crashed on their land. Ian Wraith Dept of Electronic Eng, University of Sheffield England I.WRAITH@SHEFFIELD.AC.UK ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V4 #32 ******************************** 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).