From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #29 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 9 March 1994 Volume 05 : Number 029 In this issue: Re: tie-tacks etc Re: Ram tubes/scramjet design Flying tie tacks, a clarification What If.... Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #28 SR-71 Rear Cockpit Re: What If.... F-117N Orbital launch from a fast aircraft Re: Orbital launch from a fast aircraft Interesting article 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: Charles Hattendorf Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 09:50:37 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: tie-tacks etc > > From: Mary Shafer > Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 11:15:55 -0500 (EST) > Subject: The flight of the tie tacks > > We flew the tie tacks, patches, and keyrings on Friday. ... > The next flight will be in April at the soonest and they'll allow me to > put another package on it, so there's plenty of time for everyone to send > me small items. > > Regards, > Mary > Mary, Can you tell me if the flight was heading somewhat southbound over the southern Sierras (around Olancha Pk/ Owens Pk), near 10am? I heard dis- tinctive rumbling around that time on friday. Also, any possibility to disclose the flight time for the April flight? I would like to see it fly, perhaps there are others in the L.A. area who would appreciate the view from an appropriate area...(the next question,!) Has the appearance of the SR-71 been altered? I was wondering about the somewhat requisite white color used on most test beds from Edwards. Thanks for your time, Charlie ***************************************************************************** * Charlie Hattendorf "Realtime computer support - while you wait!" * * Halifax Tech Rep livin' it up 30 miles from Death Valley * * coyote@ins.infonet.net Linux, gold mining, bass fishing - in any order * * 619 939 9252 "build a computer any fool can use, and a fool will use it"* ------------------------------ From: Thomas Gauldin Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 10:58:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Ram tubes/scramjet design Discovery magazine had an interesting article this month on a sort-of cannon. The device was a tube filled with an explosive mixture of gasses with a projectile at one end. The projectile fitted loosely in the tube, with a tight-fitting disk, or obturator, behind it. The reaction began with compressed air forcing the obturator forward, compressing the gas between it and the projectile. The resulting heat caused the gas to explode between the two. The projectile moved forward and in doing so, the gas mixture in front of the projectile was forced around it and subsequently compressed. As the compressed mixture reached the flame front of the exploding gas at the rear, it too was ignited and continued to drive the projectile forward. Amazingly, the projectile could exceed the speed of an unconfined explosion of the gasses. The developers explained this as the shock wave of the passing projectile creating a zone of pressure sufficiently high as to ignite the compressed gas mixture regardless of where the existing burning was. In otherwords, the projectile was a sort of "inside out diesel engine" and created a continuous combustion. I wonder if the good folks at the skunk works have taken this design further and have some kind of plane flying that relies on the shock wave of the craft to confine an explosion to propel a craft? The earlier design would probably rely on pulses (probably ignited by a laser) to drive the craft forward. Later designs might be able to use dual shock waves to obtain continuous combustion through compression. Wouldn't it be fun to think that the "doughnuts on a string" could be a prototype grandchild of the diesel trucks moving across the landscape? Tom Gauldin ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 14:47:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Flying tie tacks, a clarification It appears that there's some rampant confusion going on about getting trinkets flown on the SR-71. Here's how it works: 1. You have a small item that you want flown. You send it and a stamped, self-addressed mailer to me. I get it flown and send it back to you. If you're not in the US, send the item and a self-addressed mailer to me, with either IRCs or some small item of roughly the same value as the postage. In particular, I like patches. Do not send expensive or irreplacable items, either to be flown or to exchange for postage; I don't wan't to be responsible. 2. You don't have a small item that you want flown. I'll buy something at our gift shop and get it flown. You'll send me a check for the item plus the mailer and postage. The possibilities are: diamond-shaped Mach 3+ patch for $3.50, SR-71 tie tack for $4.00, pewter SR-71 keyring for $5.00. Charms are the same price as the tie tacks. 3. You don't have a small item but none of these above thrill you. Call the Dryden Gift Shop at (805) 258-3954 and ask them to send you their pricelist. I am limited in the size of the packet that I ask them to fly for me, so please don't send a lot of things or anything big. They're doing me a favor and I won't risk the relationship by inconveniencing them. Also remember that I'm doing this for you as a favor and that it may take a while to get things sent out, etc. I will send a slip of paper with the flight number, crew, aircraft, maximum Mach, and maximum altitude for you. This will not be suitable for framing. My address is: Ms Mary Shafer P O Box 4230 Lancaster, CA 93539-4230 The next flight will be sometime in April, probably toward the end. You will have to get everything to me by about 15 April, as I'm going on a 17-day cruise on the 21st. Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Tue, 8 Mar 94 13:48:00 PST Subject: What If.... Its been quiet. Is it just me? The thought struck me: What if, one put an orbital payload on an "sr71" in place of the MD21? Different motors, or pure rocket "boosters" for the payload. I suppose this is an old hat idea.... regards dwp ------------------------------ From: "Michael F. Peyton" <0003248388@mcimail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 94 15:31 EST Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #28 OK, I can't stand it any more! What's the chance that someone could post a note as to how the BLM hearing went, for those of us who on the other coast. I personally love to hear the details of swirming bureaucrats. I am going to be in the area (400 miles is "in the neighborhood" when talking about NV, Groom, and skunkers :-) next winter. When is it guessed that the USAF will take control? What's the chance I will ever get to take the Holy Trek to Freedom Ridge and face west. Mike Peyton mpeyton@mcimail.com The USAF's strongest confirmations are it's denials. ------------------------------ From: Geoff.Miller@corp.sun.com (Geoff Miller) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 94 16:22:50 PST Subject: SR-71 Rear Cockpit I was looking at a book about the SR-71 at a bookstore last night (don't recall the title, but I believe it was published by Motorbooks International). The book featured a couple of color photographs of the simulator. The guy occupying the aft cockpit portion of the sim appeared to be seated very low -- the top of his head looked to be a good two feet below the bottom edges of the windows. Is the actual airplane configured that way? It seems to me that in all the pictures I've seen of the SR-71 with the canopies open, the RSO was seated at the same level as the pilot -- high enough to rest his arms on the sills. In fact, the fuselage doesn't seem to be deep enough for there to be any other possibility. Was this just a quirk of the photograph? Is the simulator set up this way for some reason, while the actual airplane is not? - --Geoff ------------------------------ From: Dave Cox Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 16:20:39 Subject: Re: What If.... >The thought struck me: > > What if, one put an orbital payload on an "sr71" in place of the > MD21? > > Different motors, or pure rocket "boosters" for the payload. > >I suppose this is an old hat idea.... > >regards >dwp Dunno. Miller mentions that a D-21 weighs 11Klb. What's a Pegasus weigh? They get into orbit from a B-52. IF you could do the separation, how much farther/higher could a `71 throw one? Alas, the XB-70 would have been the one for this job. - --dave ------------------------------ From: Min Chen Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 19:27:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: F-117N It seems as if the people who built the F-117N can't get enough of their own planes. Lockheed proposed a naval version of it's stealth fighter for a possible replacement for the now defunct A-FX project. The idea is that the F-117N would be modified so that it could undertake strike operations against shore installations, and once the ground strikes are complete, it would be modified for air combat patrols by slapping on pylons with air to air missiles. The entire idea seems kind of crazy considering the nature of the F-117, since it was built to be just a deep penetration tactical bomber with specific targets in mind. It seems that a conversion into general purpose fighter/attack aircraft is just kind of lame. It would mean upgrading the F-117s with a entirely new set of avionics and probably a radar (if it wants to engage at a distance) for the interceptor scheme, and then changing it again so that it could conceivably land and take off on a carrier. There is also probably a problem of corrosion of the RAM material by the ocean water. Finally, an addition of afterburning engines, it seems more practical just to make a naval variant of the F-22 since it was suppose to be (sort of) a multirole fighter anyways, and with stealth (ok, it isn't as stealth as the Nighthawk) and the afterbuners to boot. The idea seems impractical and probably not really a good replacement for either the A-6 (lack of paylaod, and probably range) or the F-14 (no speed, no Phoenixes). It would be probably a better idea to use the F-18E/F or the F-14 derivative (the Bombcat?) as a stop gap between the retiring A-6 and F-14As and the new naval strike aircraft. M.C. mc96@Andrew.cmu.edu ------------------------------ From: freeman@maspar.com (Jay R. Freeman) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 94 17:26:43 -0800 Subject: Orbital launch from a fast aircraft > Alas, the XB-70 would have been the one for this job. Weren't the Pegasus folks at one time talking about trying to arrange for a Soviet supersonic bomber as launch vehicle? -- Jay Freeman ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 18:22:36 -0800 Subject: Re: Orbital launch from a fast aircraft >> Alas, the XB-70 would have been the one for this job. > Weren't the Pegasus folks at one time talking about trying to arrange for > a Soviet supersonic bomber as launch vehicle? Hmmm. I don't recall that. I do remember that OSC was picking up a used L-1011 to use as a launch aircraft. They also announced some time back that they were working on TurboPegasus - featuring drop-away and recoverable jet engines. The jets were to get TurboPegasus to Mach 4 at 90,000 ft. At that altitude the airbreathing hardware including airbreathing fuel tanks were to drop away and then the first stage of its rocket was to ignite. The airbreathing was to allow OSC to double Pegasus's lifting capability. If all went well, TurboPegasus was to fly in 1995. Larry ------------------------------ From: Richard_Pineda Date: Tue, 08 Mar 1994 21:41:06 -0600 Subject: Interesting article There is an interesting bit about Dreamland/Groom Lake in Spin (of all places). The issue of the music magazine is the April 1994 one, titled Special 9th Anniversary Issue. Just thought you all would like to know. Richard Pineda ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #29 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.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@mail.orst.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.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 mail.orst.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).