From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #187 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Sunday, 22 January 1995 Volume 05 : Number 187 In this issue: X-30 NASP Aux Cart More NASP and HySTP Stuff X-31 Crash X-31 crash Re: The Aurora Myth Triangular Craft - Mail Gremlins Re: X-31 Crash Re: SR-71 /X.30 engine test bed? Re: Doug Nelson Re: Roving Sands Steve 1957's email Steve's email Dryden's WWW address. SR-71 Re: Aurora, maybe so? X-31A - general information Possible reason for SR-71 reactivation New birds ? SR-71 Propulsion RE: New Birds? 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: Emory Tate Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 16:37:05 -0500 Subject: X-30 NASP Aux Cart RUSSELL.B@GOMAIL wrote: >...the idea of a power cart device having to >trail the aircraft all the way to the runway >seems a bit much. APUs have been around on >larger aircraft for a long time and an APU >driven refrigeration system would seem to be the >appropriate mechanism for fuel temprature >control. (1) The concept wasn't for a power cart to trail around, but a refrigeration cart. (2) No onboard APU small light enough to be lifted into orbit could possibly keep the hydrogen cold enough, over a narrow enough range (mp -259, bp -252) to maintain 50% of it as _solid_ H2, the requirement driven by needing more H2 than would fit in the X-30's tank volume (n.b., every nook and cranny on the bird). Regards, Emory ------------------------------ From: Emory Tate Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 17:09:55 -0500 Subject: More NASP and HySTP Stuff In: >From: larry@ichips.intel.com >Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 10:04:41 -0800 >Subject: Re: NASP and HySTP Larry wrote: >... >The inlet variable geometry needed for a pure >airbreathing accelerator, coupled with the base >volume problems of the high speed, high altitude >nozzle, at low speeds, can also be solved with >the services of a rocket integrated into the >flowpath. >... >What aspect of the nosegear? >... >any comments on endothermics? How about the >BxHy's, the Boro-hydride combos? First, I'm not sure how much inlet variability they were counting on, since the entire fuselage (OK, that which wasn't fuel, or LOX for the exoatmospheric phase) was essentially the nacelle. If memory serves, the "rocket" part was supposed to come with what amounted to a combustion chamber formed by the shock wave, fed by onboard LOX when the air ran out. It wasn't just a motor problem, though; as an HTHL, NASP was gonna spend an awfully long time beating its way past air molecules. That wasn't just a heat problem for them, it was a bigass drag problem as well. What it came down to was a lack of oomph from the scramjet, as I recall. Because the forward fuselage was essentially the top of the inlet ramp, it was damn thin. And waaay up there. So in addition to having no place to stow a long-legged nosegear, said gear would've been pretty spindly. As a result, they'd really not gotten very far into figuring out how they'd come back down in a hurry if they got an abort without doing a pretty fair Hindenburg emulation. I discussed this issue with one of the NASP engineers at last summer's Dayton Airshow, pursuant to a dialog with Mitch Clapp re the same subject (i.e., mission aborts when fully fueled vis-#-vis BLACK HORSE). With respect to endothermics and other exotica, don't think you'll see too much of that in anything but missile (and perhaps small UAV) fuels. Just too damn difficult from a cost and logistics standpoint. Their main thrust is improving the behavior of their hydrocarbon fuels, but keeping those improvements within the realm of what you can easily buy from Exxon, etc. I got pretty firm "No way"s on my boron hydride queries (my client is concerned about having to fight weird fuel fires). They've already ridden that railroad, you see, with JP-7 and JP-10, etc., and I don't think they'll go back in any significant way. What's fine for a relatively small underwing missile gets really nasty logistically when you start talking needing any significant quantity at any given time; LRP aircraft suffer from these same problems, too, so you can't easily make that argument in favor of exotica. The use of a nonexotic, easily supported fuel package is one thing that got BLACK HORSE such a quick nod, BTW. There is some interest in cat-cracked higher napthenics (i.e., fuel + hot Pt catalyst array = acetylene, etc.), because of the ability to effectively stuff 80lbs of @#$% in a 10lb box, but my sense is that the interest is pretty much academic. For man-sized aircraft, anyway. HTH, Emory ------------------------------ From: DWalizer@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 17:39:14 -0500 Subject: X-31 Crash Attn: Mary Shafer Mary, maybe you can enlighten us as to the X-31 crash at Edwards AFB on Thursday, January 19. ------------------------------ From: czbb062 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 17:12:46 -0600 (CST) Subject: X-31 crash According to the CBS local news, an X-31 crashed today at Edwards AFB. The pilot ejected safely. Would some knowledgible subscriber post some info on this craft? Michael Eisenstadt (czbb062@access.texas.gov) ------------------------------ From: Christian Jacobsen Date: 18 Jan 1995 08:43:26 -0800 Subject: Re: The Aurora Myth Subject: Time:8:30 AM OFFICE MEMO RE>>The Aurora Myth Date:1/18/95 " If all those sonic booms people heard out here in California are indeed from SR-71's, They sure made a habit out of doing restarts at lower alttitudes..." Or one plane flying from a coastal base was having some engine troubles that they were trying to sort out. I did notice that the same day I heard the BOOM here in the SF Bay Area, I read similar reports from San Diego, and other coastal cities. Could be a plane had a few engine glitches while doing a coastal run (seems like a common flight plan, from pilot's comments in the Ben Rich book). This would also explain why the BOOM reports were very common for a short period of time... Just a thought... - - Christian ------------------------------ From: James Easton Date: Sat, 21 Jan 95 2:37 BST Subject: Triangular Craft - Mail Gremlins Grrr, having broken down the file into more manageable sections, it appears they have not arrived in the order in which they were carefully sent, despite a reasonable delay between forwarding each section. I know there have been considerable problems this week with the VAX mail management software which manages my mail and can only apologise for this. The first line of each section, in their correct order, should be as follows: Part 1. Most subscribers will be aware of consistent reports in recent years... Part 2. Just a quick one--- rather large UFO spotted by numerous people... Part 3. Some background info: I and all parties concerned live in Pittsburgh, PA... Part 4. Summary: - -------- Part 5. Finally, two topical cross-postings which will hopefully be of interest. James. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: TEXJE@VAXB.HW.AC.UK Internet: JAMES.EASTON@STAIRWAY.CO.UK - ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 21:57:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: X-31 Crash Not really--There's a mishap board working on this and I'm not going to release any information. I can tell you that Karl is just fine and should be back to work on Monday. He's a really nice guy and we were all greatly concerned about him. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html 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.... On Fri, 20 Jan 1995 DWalizer@aol.com wrote: > Attn: Mary Shafer > > Mary, maybe you can enlighten us as to the X-31 crash at Edwards AFB on > Thursday, January 19. ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 23:05:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SR-71 /X.30 engine test bed? That's the aerospike and it will probably fly no sooner than one year from now. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html 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.... On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, John Burtenshaw wrote: > Hi > > I've just been re-reading an article dated March 4 1992 in which it is > stated that a SR-71A was being prepared as a test bed for the engine of the > X-30 NASP. It was going to be based at NASA's Ames-Dryden facility. > A couple of questions: > > 1. Did it ever fly? > 2. Could this be the cause of the skyquakes? > > John > ============================================================================= > John Burtenshaw BOURNEMOUTH > System Administrator, The Computer Centre UNIVERSITY > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -Postal Address: Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, POOLE, Dorset, BH12 5BB > Internet: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk > Phone: 01202 595089 > Fax: 01202 513293 > Packet Radio: G1HOK @ GB7BNM.#45.GBR.EU > AMPRnet: G1HOK.ampr.org. [44.131.17.82] > Compuserve: 10033,3113 > ============================================================================= > > ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 23:10:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Doug Nelson We ferried 832 to Palmdale last Thursday, 12 Jan. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html 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: Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 95 21:43 EST Subject: Re: Roving Sands CircusMan@aol.com wrote: > >Message I picked up from Steve 1957, wish I could rove the sands there. >Thought I should share this with you Skunkers. >- ---------------------------------------------------------- >Subj: Roving Sands >Date: 95-01-17 18:10:34 EST >From: Steve 1957 [ ... big-time snip ...] What is "Steve 1957"'s email address? at the end of the message your forwarded from Steve, Steve invited people interested in attending to email him. But his email address is not listed, please clarify!!! I want to attend, so please PLEASE clarify! Christopher Zguris czguris@mcimail.com (just another happy MCI customer) ------------------------------ From: MiGEater1@aol.com Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 01:33:46 -0500 Subject: Steve 1957's email You can e-mail Steve at: steve1957@aol.com Ask him about his military monitoring news letter. Its great! Cheers to all, John ------------------------------ From: Illya Kuryakin Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 22:55:17 -0800 Subject: Steve's email "Steve 1957" is the clever way that AOL lets you imbed a space into your name/address. For us Internet types (the _real_ cyberspace) the correct address becomes steve1957@aol.com Simple enough, but it's the simple stuff that'll trip you up all the time. :} At least, it does me. X} Illya ------------------------------ From: Adrian Thurlow Date: Sun, 22 Jan 95 11:34:33 +0000 Subject: Dryden's WWW address. Hi Skunkworkers, I had a request from a fellow skunkworker for the URL of Dryden's WWW server. So everybody gets it, it is: http://www.dfrf.nasa.gov/dryden.html The photo archive is excellent. Adrian Thurlow / Det.4 9th SRW \ Technology Integration / \ BT Labs / _ \ Martlesham Heath ____(( ))_________/_/_\_\_________(( ))____ Ipswich \ \_/ / Suffolk U.K. Now only distant thunder Tel. +44 1473 644880 Fax. +44 1473 646534 e-mail. Adrian.Thurlow@bt-sys.bt.co.uk The views expressed above are not necessarily those of BT. ------------------------------ From: Adrian Thurlow Date: Sun, 22 Jan 95 11:56:55 +0000 Subject: SR-71 Hi skunkworkers, Just a thought. I know that this is unlikely and I can't really see it myself but is it at all possible that Lockheed have produced a small batch of new improved 'SR71's'. Say if the performance has been improved using new materials and an active stealth system (or improved stealth features) incorporated but the appearance of the aircraft was identical to the original the security cover would be superb. When the three stored SR71's to be returned to service appear they would be just that, complete with original serial numbers. To all onlookers, friendly or otherwise, it would be an SR71, the performance of which is well documented. This would also go some way to explaining why the SR71 optical sensors have been returned to the manufacturers for overhaul/upgrade. This happening, I believe, before it was announced that funds would be made available for return to service. I for one will be studying the first pictures of the aircraft when they reappear very closely. Mind you if there is anything in this the cover will be superb and nothing will appear out of place. Sometime ago somebody posted an article about an SR71 making an appearance at Beale. Mary stated that this was not a NASA aircraft. Just a thought. Makes you think though. Regards Adrian Thurlow / Det.4 9th SRW \ Technology Integration / \ BT Labs / _ \ Martlesham Heath ____(( ))_________/_/_\_\_________(( ))____ Ipswich \ \_/ / Suffolk U.K. Now only distant thunder Tel. +44 1473 644880 Fax. +44 1473 646534 e-mail. Adrian.Thurlow@bt-sys.bt.co.uk The views expressed above are not necessarily those of BT. ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 07:41:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Aurora, maybe so? John Regus wondered: >I am very interested in knowing how you Andreas, having come from Germany >merely two years ago have become so well versed in U.S. top-secret aircraft. The usual answer to this would be: "I could tell you, but than I have to shoot you". :) But the truth is, I am interested in aircraft since a long, long time, and my specific favorites are Lockheed aircraft. -- And I can read! :) - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl Absolute Software 313 West Court St. #305 schnars@umcc.ais.org Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 - --- --- ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 10:51:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: X-31A - general information The X-31A was built for the EFM (Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability) program, to test high AOA close-in aerial combat maneuvers. Two aircraft were built. The X-31 project is somehow unique, because it is the first time, that an X-Plane was co-developed with another country (Germany). The aircraft were assembled at Palmdale, by Rockwell International -- also responsible for flight testing -- and major hardware (like wings and thrust vector paddles) and the FCS software was built and developed by MBB (Messerschmitt-Boelkow- Blohm), now part of DASA (Deutsche Aerospace). The project was jointly sponsored by USN, DARPA and BMVg (German DoD). The first X-31A (BuNo 164584) made its first flight on October 11, 1990 at 12:37 p.m at Palmdale. The pilot was Rockwell's chief test pilot Ken Dyson. The flight lasted 38 minutes, and the aircraft reached 275 kts and 10,000 ft (the 2nd X-31A is BuNo 164585). Other pilots assigned to the program are MBB test pilot Dietrich Seeck and Luftwaffen test pilot Karl-Heinz "Charly" Lang from the WTD 61, NASA test pilot Roger Smith, and each one pilot from USAF and USN (maybe Al Groves). The X-31 has fully movable canards, a 'cranked' composite delta-wing, airbrakes and a single fin and rudder. The air-intake is below the fuselage / cockpit (as on the F-16 or more specific as on the Eurofighter). It is powered by a single, digital controlled General Electric F404-GE-400. The aircraft has a Honeywell/Sperry FCS, and uses FBW to achieve post-stall controlled flight. In the next phase of the test program, the system was intended to use only the three thrust vector paddles for maneuvering, so that the fin and rudder would have been unnecessary, and later even removed. Many parts were 'off the shelf', like the under carriage from the F-16, the tires from the A-7, the brakes from the Cessna Citation, the Martin Baker ejection seat and the canopy from the F/A-18A, the actuators from the V-22 and B-1B and the cockpit and the fuel pumps also from the F-16. Development and production of the aircraft cost about $145 million, 28% paid by Germany and 72% by the USA. After 108 flights and 97.5 hours (67 flights with aircraft 1, and 41 with aircraft 2) the first test phase at Palmdale was finished in 1992, and the next phase moved to Edwards AFB, where the NASA and the USAF were participating. Both X-31A are painted white, with blue trim lines. On January 19, 1995, Karl Lang apparently had an accident with one of the X-31A, which crashed. No other information, but that the pilot is well, has surfaced yet. In an interview in 1992, Seeck mentioned that aircraft number 2 did not handle as well as aircraft number 1, and I assume that the crashed X-31A would be number 2. Technical Data: - --------------- Crew: 1 pilot Engine: 1 General Electric F404-GE-400 Length: 42.5 ft. ( 13.21 m) (without pitot tube) Wingspan: 22.8 ft. ( 7.26 m) Height: 13.4 ft. ( 4.44 m) Wing area: 226.3 sq.ft. ( 20.79 m^2) Max thrust: 71.2 kN (with afterburner) Gross weight: 13,968 lbs. ( 6,643 kg) Empty weight: 10,212 lbs. ( 4,963 kg) Wing loading: ( 319 kg/m^2) Power loading: ( 93.3 kg/kN) Altitude (appr.): 40,000 ft. ( 12,200 m) Max speed: 0.9 Mach (at 10,675 m) Max AOA: > 75 degrees (controlled) PS: Ken Dyson is the same Norman 'Ken' Dyson, USAF pilot, who first flew the second XST "Have Blue" on July 20, 1978, at Groom Lake! - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl Absolute Software 313 West Court St. #305 schnars@umcc.ais.org Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 - --- --- ------------------------------ From: "Louis K. Scheffer" Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 10:34:05 -0800 Subject: Possible reason for SR-71 reactivation Here's another possible reason for the re-activation of the SR-71. Suppose a replacement plane does exist, and the government would like to use it, but keep it secret. Right now that's hard, because any high speed activity (Mach 3+) is suspicious. (The sonic booms tracked at high speed across Los Angeles being a prime example.) If the SR-71 was still operational, this would have been much less suspicious. People would have been questioning the military's reasons for the overflight instead of the existance of a new plane. Likewise, suppose the military is still ordering special high temperature fuel, weird borane starting chemicals, high temperature paint, and so on. If there is no SR-71 program, this is a dead giveaway. If the SR-71 is re-activated, it's not suspicious. Similarly, if the government wishes to release some pictures for political reasons (say to show that North Korea is building an atomic bomb), they need to have some way that the pictures could have been taken - otherwise they are admitting that some new platform exists. This is not to say the only use of the SR-71 is as deception - I'm sure that if they have it, they'll use it. However, simply basing the revived SR-71 at the same bases where the new high speed design is based would provide instant 'plausible deniability' for otherwise undeniable phenomina. -Lou Scheffer ------------------------------ From: JOHN Date: Sun, 22 Jan 95 14:20:45 EST Subject: New birds ? >From: THOMAS::"adrian.thurlow@bt-sys.bt.co.uk" "Adrian Thurlow" 22-JAN-1995 11:45:49.72 >To: "skunk-works@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu" >Subj: SR-71 > >Hi skunkworkers, > >Just a thought. > >I know that this is unlikely and I can't really see it myself but is it at >all possible that Lockheed have produced a small batch of new improved >'SR71's'. Say if the performance has been improved using new materials and >an active stealth system (or improved stealth features) incorporated but the >appearance of the aircraft was identical to the original the security cover >would be superb. When the three stored SR71's to be returned to service >appear they would be just that, complete with original serial numbers. To >all onlookers, friendly or otherwise, it would be an SR71, the performance >of which is well documented. According to Ben Rich's book, He stated that the Govt. required Lockheed to destory all the jigs and tooling used to build the original aircraft, so that Lockheed could not make any more aircraft of that type. This was to removed the threat to the F-111 project, which was Mcnamara,s pet. It appears to me that this is the same tactic, used to destroy the Northup flying wing , which was a threat to the B-36 project. (but we now know that its hard to keep a GOOD idea down) Unless Lockheed was able to find the money to reconstruct the jigs and tooling it is unlikely, that any new airframes would be built. Now, as far as refurbishing the old aircraft, there is quite a bit that could be done, to modernize them. New avionics, fly-by-wire ETC: but that would take time, lots of time. but it would be worth it. Much the same as Ben's stated, that the F-117 flying now is not the same as the one that flew into Iraq. The flight control systems are much improved. along with the nav systems. As soon as I get my copy of the book back, (loaned it a friend in the hospital) I,ll attempt to back-up my opinions. John Szalay Louisville, Ky jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com DISCLAIMER: GE and I rarely see eye to eye on anything. Why should I attempt to speak for them ? e ------------------------------ From: "Sherman D. Wagner" Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 18:09:22 -0600 (CST) Subject: SR-71 Propulsion This may be a stupid question, but I'll ask it anyway. I was wondering what the specifications of these engines are (at various heights and differing configurations of the inlets, etc.) Also I know that volatile chemicals were used to aid burning the fuel at high altitudes. If you could either give me some hard numbers, underlying theories, or references I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks for any help! ------------------------------ From: Illya Kuryakin Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 17:45:52 -0800 Subject: RE: New Birds? Having worked for Boeing in the Tooling organization for the 747/767... that little problem with the tooling being destroyed is really a detail, rather than a problem. The tooling can _always_ be recreated/redesigned/rebuilt. The thing is that it's one of the more expensive parts of the airplane, that's why the cost of a bird goes down the more you make. (Like the cost of the B2 rose as they made fewer... you had fewer vehicles to spread the overhead out over. You _could_ build more, new SR-71's. The question is why would you want to. The same thing that prevents us from building new P-51's also prevents us from building new SR's or whatever. The new technology that gets designed in the years after the original will make it pointless. You could probably refit the SR's to some degree, but the problem there is that the airframes are titanium. Not too much you can do to that after it's formed. Avionics are just about the only thing you can change. Well, sensor systems. Illya ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #187 ********************************* 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).