From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #109 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 15 June 1994 Volume 05 : Number 109 In this issue: Re: External Combustion Black Aircraft Re: Doughnuts on a rope Ben Rich's new book Blackbird taken out of mothballs for Korea Situation 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, 14 Jun 1994 11:03:27 -0700 Subject: Re: External Combustion Black Aircraft I wrote: >>Contrast that against the multiple independent witness reports >>of the XB-70 like aircraft. There is more in support of the >>XB-70 >>like aircraft than the diamond shaped aircraft you mentioned. Frank Markus responds: > The XB-70 like aircraft that you refer to is probably the >"mothership" of the Aurora pair. Yes, that is the conjecture. > It is apparently unrelated to >the external combustion aircraft described in the same article Yes, that is correct. >(which I think was more recent than 1990 although I could be >mistaken.) No, it was 12/24/90, pgs 41-44, I have it in front of me here, check it out. Remember, the most recent period of flying reports began in the summer of 1989. > I would be very interested in the source for the assertion >that external "external burning for propulsion has been >discredited as of late ... [and [i]t turns out that you can get >much more thrust by putting a shroud around the heat addition >parts of the engine (where the fuel gets added) so that the >combustion waves have additional hard surfaces to act against >and produce thrust against." OK. get your hands on a copy of: "Research on Supersonic Combustion" by Fred S. Billig, presented as the Dryden Lectureship on Research at the AIAA 30th Aerospace Sciences Meeting Jan. 6-9, 1992, Reno, NV. AIAA paper number 92-0001. This paper is basically a summary of scramjet technology development that has gone on since the late 50's. Quite illuminating! Since the first thrust producing scramjet in 1958 was an external burner, Fred's paper above discusses why scramjets evolved to have exclosed combustors, instead of the original scramjet's open combustor (external burning). This is not to say it is impossible to get propulsion from external burning, it's just that it works out a lot better if you shroud the engine. Speaking about that first external burning scramjet engine. I had the pleasure of meeting Fred Billig and talking to him at length last Friday. I actually got to touch that external burning engine - the very first positive thrust producing scramjet engine, as Fred held it in his hand and explained it. However, that engine now is no longer an external burning engine! It has been modified with a cowl for the reasons I mentioned above - enhanced thrust. Quite an experience! I'm hooked! > Have there been tests reported of aircraft/engines in >which the shock wave is the (virtual) external wall of a >virtual rocket engine in which the afterbody of the aircraft is >the inner wall? Yes. You're talking about external burning for propulsion. There is a large reference on external burning that Fred and other researchers published in the early 60s. It covers ramjets and scramjets. It covers the applications of propulsion, drag reduction, stability and control, and lift enhancement. There are more recent papers on external burning for propulsion as well. you could do a literature search through AIAA or on the AIAA database. > This is to be distinguished from applications >in which external combustion other active means are employed to >alter the aerodynamic charactaristics of an aircraft. Yes. >propusion system should not be confused with a device or system >that enhances the flight charactaristics of an airframe. Yes. I didn't think that I did confuse them. Sorry. Larry ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 11:20:58 -0700 Subject: Re: Doughnuts on a rope John writes: >I hate to burst the myth of the doughnuts on a rope contrail, but I >spotted one over my house here in Ottawa. I couldn't see the plane that >made it, and I was hopping mad. That is, I was hopping mad until I realized >that I saw another plane coming towards me (B-747) making the exact same >contrail! Just shortly after that there was another one (I live under >a fairly busy traffic lane to YYZ). I've seen the original picture, and >all of these contrails looked exactly the same. Must have been some >strange crosswinds... Yes John. As far as I'm concerned, it's very difficult to look at a contrail that's been lying up there, that happens to look like doughnuts on a rope, and say for sure that it is a real pulser contrail. Rest assured that on the best sightings, people have reported seeing the contrail coming out that way, immediately behind the aircraft (aircraft too high to resolve) or hear both the pulsing sound and see the contrail coming out that way. So in other words, it is necessary to filter the reports. There is a gray area however, where some people who haven't seen the contrail being laid, have described some of the features of the "real thing". But as I said, those are filtered into their own category. Larry ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 11:30:10 -0700 Subject: Ben Rich's new book I had dinner last Sat. evening with a former SR-71 pilot who works in the Pentagon. He had read Ben's new book, in its entirety, according to what he said. He said that there had been some cuts in the security review, but that there was still a lot of great stuff that they were going to let Ben keep in the book. He said it was a great book and should be out soon. I don't know what the title is, or any details on when it's coming, but watch for it. Maybe someone wants to run down more of the details. Larry ------------------------------ From: Freedom*Liberty* Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 15:09:09 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Blackbird taken out of mothballs for Korea Situation From the Los Angeles Times Sat. June 11, '94: Senate Panel's Defense Bill Includes Spy Plane Funds From Reuters [reprinted w/out permission] WASHINGTON-The Senate Armed Services Committee approved a $263-billion defense authorization bill Friday, including money that might put the SR-71 spy plane back in operation to watch North Korea's nuclear program. The authorization for next year's defense spending also would keep more bombers than President Clinton wants for fighting two Persian Gulf-type wars at nearly the same time, and hold out the hope of buying more B-2 Stealth bombers. Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) said the committee added $100 million to the bill for the SR-71 spy plane and said it might be used to watch what U.S. officials say is North Korea's attempt to produce nuclear weapons. "Particularly with the Korean situation that we face, the SR-71 could be useful," Nunn said. "We hope it will not be required in that situation but it could be useful." Senate sources said the money would fund a study on putting three of the spy planes back into operation. The Air Force retired them in 1990 because of high flying costs. Nunn said the bill would also keep 190 U.S. bombers flying next year, and preserve an option for buying more B-2 bombers. He said he may lose a fight for more bombers in the full Senate, but added he would rather do that than "sit back and do nothing on it and end up with a Korean [war] situation where all of a sudden everybody realizes we don't have enough bombers for two scenarios." Nunn said at least 185 bombers would be needed to fight two wars at the same time. But he noted that a Clinton Administration plan would eventually cut the U.S. bomber force to about 100. The most controversial bomber provision in the bill is $150 million to keep Northrop Corp.'s full B-2 bomber production line open another year in case Congress and the Administration decide to build more of the bombers. Congress declared last year that no more than 20 of the bombers are to be built, primarily because of their high cost of $44 billion, or $2.2 billion per plane. Northrop has said it could build 20 more B-2 bombers for $12 billion, raising the total cost to $56 billion but cutting the cost per plane to $.1.4 billion. The Senate bill also includes $2.2 billion for President Clinton's request for six C-17 military transport planes built by McDonnell Douglas Corp. - --------------end article Hope you enjoyed it. Sorry if there are typos. - -Steve ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #109 ********************************* 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).