From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #188 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 25 January 1995 Volume 05 : Number 188 In this issue: Re: Boom Re: New birds ? Re: SR-71 Propulsion Re: SR-71 Propulsion Re: MiG-25: discrepancies and precisions Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #187 SR booms on startup starts, restarts Re: MiG-25: discrepancies and precisions Re: New birds ? Re; Booms Re: New birds ? Political Correctness Re: MiG-25: discrepancies and precisions Nazi advanced projects X-31 id's USAF SR-71 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: blacksun@netcom.com (stealth) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 21:29:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Boom I recently was in New Zealand where I noticed a article about a large "Boom" that had shook the Christchurch area. This was one of a series of sky quakes that have struck the area in the past year. Much larger than a sonic boom, the local military was at a loss to explain what it was. Looks like they are restarting SR-71 engines down there as well. I wonder what the flying time from Groomlake to Pine Gap is? Blacksun ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 00:54:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: New birds ? Just a titch of information--we no longer refer to the tooling as jigs. I don't know why this piece of jargon fell out of use, but it has. (I've heard a couple of hypotheses, but they sound totally improbable.) 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: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 02:18:29 -0800 Subject: Re: SR-71 Propulsion Sherman D. Wagner writes: > 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! I agree this is a fascinating subject! If you really want to delve into the SR, you have to get your hands on a copy of the SR-71A Flight Manual. The DASH-1 version has been published by Zenith. It's expensive, but some libraries or other enthusiasts might have it. You're library may be able to get it via inter-library loan if they don't have it on their shelves. The important parts of the propulsion system are: The inlet, the turbojet (J-58), the nozzle, the fuel controllers on the J-58, the DAFICS (Digital Automatic Flight and Inlet Control System) the fuel itself, which is used as a hydraulic fluid and a coolant, and of course the chemical ignition system, which is used to ignite the fuel in the main burners and afterburners (used to get burning started). The SR-71A DASH-1 has a lot of specific information on all of the above, as they apply to the SR. As far as the theory on the above components is concerned, there are many engineering textbooks that cover each of the above subjects. A good engineering textbook on propulsion in fact will cover just about all of the above theory. Some that I like are: "Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Propulsion", by Hill and Peterson 2nd Ed, Addison-Wesley, ISBN-0-201-14659-2 And one that is a real sleeper! Its 2nd edition was in 1964 and it's very good! It describes the theory behind bleed-bypass turbojets pretty well! It also has fascinating accounts of other ways of getting enhanced thrust out of jet engines: "Jet Propulsion For Aerospace Applications" by Hesse and Mumford, Pitman Publishing. Check college libraries and used book stores (check out pg 380 for the example of the bleed-bypass turbojet which is what the J-58 in the SR is)! As far as engines similar to the SR's are concerned: The French, who gave us the ramjet through Rene Lorin, in 1913, have done a lot of turboramjet development in the past! In fact, two French companies were flying turboramjet aircraft before the Lockheed A-11 was even on paper! I'm speaking of Leduc, and Nord with their Griffon II aircraft. The Leduc 022, which was a proposal for a turboramjet powered interceptor, could climb to over 82,000 feet in 4 minutes in 1956, and could fly at Mach 2.4 ! The endurance at that speed wasn't good, but it was still quite an achievement! The Nord Griffon II, first flew in Jan. 1957. By October 1958, flights at Mach 2 were routine, with the best being Mach 2.1 at 61,000 ft! Both aircraft were still accelerating at that speed but had to be throttled back due to compressor inlet temperature (CIT) restrictions on their turbojets. CIT is also a major control input to the SR's propulsion system as well. If any of our French members know of any good books on the history of these French efforts, let me know, please (even if they're in French)! On the American side, the turboramjet powered Republic XF-103, dating back to an Oct. 1947 Republic brochure to the USAF, on interceptor proposals, was a good effort. Larry ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 03:08:56 -0800 Subject: Re: SR-71 Propulsion Larry says... >If you really want to delve into the SR, you have to get your hands on >a copy of the SR-71A Flight Manual. The DASH-1 version has been published >by Zenith. It's expensive, but some libraries or other enthusiasts might >have it. You're library may be able to get it via inter-library loan if >they don't have it on their shelves. >The important parts of the propulsion system are: >The inlet, the turbojet (J-58), the nozzle, the fuel controllers on the >J-58, the DAFICS (Digital Automatic Flight and Inlet Control System) the fuel >itself, which is used as a hydraulic fluid and a coolant, and of course the >chemical ignition system, which is used to ignite the fuel in the main >burners and afterburners (used to get burning started). >The SR-71A DASH-1 has a lot of specific information on all of the above, >as they apply to the SR. And for even MORE detail you'd want to track down some of the following SR-71 manuals: SR-71-2-4 Powerplant manual (J-58) SR-71-2-3 Hydraulic System (covers inlet control) SR-71-2-5 Fuel System SR-71-2-7 Volume II (covers DAFICS) ------------------------------ From: hoel@umiacs.UMD.EDU Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 08:44:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: MiG-25: discrepancies and precisions To add a little to what J. Pharabod wrote: > On the other hand, Doug Richardson, in his book "Stealth", says that > the MiG-25 was conceived against bombers flying at high altitude. > But Belyakov and Marmain affirm that "contrary to what has often been > put forward, this program was not launched to counter the threat > which the Mach 3 bomber XB-70 'Valkyrie' could represent [...], but, > as we have already said, the Lockheed A-11". Piotr Butowski and Jay Miller, in "OKB MiG, A History of the Design Bureau and its Aircraft" indicate the same. They claim that Soviet intelligence became aware in the mid-1950s that the USAF had initiated a number of programs to explore the possibility of developing bombers, fighters, and recon aircraft with max speed capabilities in excess of Mach 3. They claim that the Soviets were particularly troubled by the WS-110 project (which yielded the Valkyrie). The Soviets developed the Ye-155 in response to these threats. The Ye-155's airframe was primarily nickel steel alloys, with some critical components being constructed of titanium. The Ye-155 project also yielded the RP-25 Smerch radar, a radar designed to burn through any known jamming system at a range of up to 50 miles. It generated 600 kW, with pulse-Doppler search and track, and weighed in excess of 1,100 lbs. The powerplant was a Turmansky R-15B-300, which provided 24,728 lbs. of thrust in afterburner. The Ye-155 first flew on March 10, 1964. The Ye-266 was announced on March 16, 1965. At the time, intelligence analysts in the West believed it was a slightly improved version of the Ye-166 > They say also that, though in theory the MiG-25 maximum Mach is 2.83, > sometimes it went at slightly more than Mach 3, without deterioration. > > Finally, they speak of an advanced version, the Ye-266M, which has > (had?) the absolute record in altitude: 37,650 meters (A.V. Fedotov, > August 31, 1977). The Ye-266 was used by Fedotov to set a number of impressive records: 4/08/73 Ye-266 100 km closed course speed - 1,618.7 mph 7/25/73 Ye-266 absolute altitude - 118,898 ft. 7/25/73 Ye-266 altitude w/2,000 kg payload - 115,584 ft. 5/19/75 Ye-266 time to 25,000 m (77,083 ft.) - 2 min 34.2 sec 5/19/75 Ye-266 time to 35,000 m (112,292 ft.) - 4 min 11.3 sec 7/22/77 Ye-266M altitude w/2,000 kg payload - 118,965 ft. 8/31/77 Ye-266M absolute altitude - 120,794 ft. Erik Hoel ------------------------------ From: "Michael William Freeman" Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 10:21:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #187 I don't see how the booms over California can be explained as SR-71 restarts. The only reason it booms on the ground during start-up is because of the injection benzine into the combustion chamber. The engine never stops running in flight, which has been explained many times here, the shock wave entering the engine gets out of the correct path into the engine. ------------------------------ From: ron@habu.stortek.com (Ron Schweikert) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 09:25:22 MST Subject: SR booms on startup "Michael William Freeman" said: >I don't see how the booms over California can be explained as SR-71 restarts. >The only reason it booms on the ground during start-up is because of the >injection benzine into the combustion chamber. The engine never stops running >in flight, which has been explained many times here, the shock wave entering >the engine gets out of the correct path into the engine. Just a couple of nits. The J-58 carries a small tank on the side that holds the chemical ignition system: TEB for Tri-ethyl-borane (okay, spelling here is probably wrong). Each time the engine is started, OR they go from military power into afterburner (like on takeoff or after refuelling) another 50ccs gets injected into the number 3 burner can. They carry enough for approximately 12 shots if memory serves. While it does produce a huge flash and ball of flame out the back (I captured it perfectly on film (you'll soon see them!) it doesn't make a 'boom.' If an SR really was having that many unstarts all over the country, I can recommend some good engine and airframe folks that could help them fix it (Just kidding Mary, I lean more towards the explanation of a different aircraft). Cheers! Ron ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 11:46:46 EST Subject: starts, restarts >I don't see how the booms over California can be explained as SR-71 restarts. I tend to concur, unless they coast subsonic before getting the other engine back on line. (Is there a typical performance here? Does the second engine typically get restarted while still supersonic? Or do both cases occur?) >The only reason it booms on the ground during start-up is because of the >injection benzine into the combustion chamber. Benzine? The only additive i am aware ofe is TEB (Tetra Ethyl Borane.). Which is, as near as i can tell, used in all starts, at any speed/altutude. >The engine never stops running in flight, which has been explained many times >here, Once, that i noticed. And we could get into a semantic debate over "stops running". It may or may not spool down, but if the thrust drops it could be argued it has stopped.... >the shock wave entering the engine gets out of the correct path into the >engine. This has been mentioned here in the past month or so. ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 18:08:10 MET Subject: Re: MiG-25: discrepancies and precisions > 8/31/77 Ye-266M absolute altitude - 120,794 ft. >Erik Hoel (Mon, 23 Jan 1995 08:44:23 -0500 (EST)) This is a minor point, but in the book "MiG 1939-1989" (Paris, 1991), by R.A. Belyakov (then boss of the OKB MiG) and J. Marmain, it's 37,650 m = 123,524 ft (assuming 1 ft = 0.3048 m). J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: steveje@videocrash.TV.TEK.COM Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 09:54:48 -0800 Subject: Re: New birds ? (Message inbox:82) Received: from tv by videocrash.TV.TEK.COM (5.61/7.1) id AA14334; Sun, 22 Jan 95 22:08:22 -0800 Received: from tektronix.tek.com by soul.tv.tek.com with SMTP id AA01712 (5.65c.tv/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Sun, 22 Jan 1995 22:03:20 -0800 Received: from orca.wv.tek.com by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/8.2) id AA04781; Sun, 22 Jan 95 22:03:12 PST Received: from tektronix.TEK.COM by orca.wv.tek.com (4.1/8.0) id AA27249; Sun, 22 Jan 95 22:05:16 PST Received: from EMAIL.ENS.TEK.COM by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/8.2) id AA04778; Sun, 22 Jan 95 22:03:10 PST Received: from email.hub.tek.com by email.ENS.TEK.COM (PMDF V4.3-8 #5809) id <01HM5UXDSUBK0000YV@email.ENS.TEK.COM>; Sun, 22 Jan 1995 21:58:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from tektronix.TEK.COM by email.ENS.TEK.COM (PMDF V4.3-8 #5809) id <01HM5UX9CMKG000159@email.ENS.TEK.COM>; Sun, 22 Jan 1995 21:58:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from inet2.tek.com by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/8.2) id AA04760; Sun, 22 Jan 95 22:02:59 PST Received: from gaia.UCS.ORST.EDU by inet2.tek.com id ; Sun, 22 Jan 1995 22:03:11 -0800 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.6) id VAA27293 for skunk-works-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jan 1995 21:56:52 -0800 Received: from ursa-major.spdcc.com (URSA-MAJOR.SPDCC.COM [140.186.80.3]) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.6) with SMTP id VAA27285 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 1995 21:56:47 -0800 Received: by ursa-major.spdcc.com with sendmail-5.65/4.7 id ; Mon, 23 Jan 95 00:56:01 -0500 Received: with PMDF-MR; Sun, 22 Jan 1995 21:58:27 PST Mr-Received: by mta EMAIL; Relayed; Sun, 22 Jan 1995 21:58:27 -0800 Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 21:54:29 -0800 (PST) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: New birds ? In-Reply-To: <9501221920.AA17983@thomas.ge.com> Sender: skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu To: JOHN Cc: skunk-works@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Message-Id: Autoforwarded: false Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X400-Mts-Identifier: [;72851222105991/980906@EMAIL] Hop-Count: 1 Precedence: bulk Mary wrote: > Just a titch of information--we no longer refer to the tooling as jigs. I > don't know why this piece of jargon fell out of use, but it has. (I've > heard a couple of hypotheses, but they sound totally improbable.) > From the time I was quite young, my Dad (he worked aerospace, Army Air Corp and Air Force) -always- correct me when ever I inadvertanly used the term "jig" ..... He said it was a quite racist term. The terms to use were "fixture" or "tooling". I still hear the "jig" on T.V., etc. from time to time. Regards, Steve Jensen ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 10:45:35 -0800 Subject: Re; Booms Regarding the confusion over inlet unstarts and booms that seems to be still confusing people. What Mary and Ron are saying, is that the only boom they know of, is the normal source of sonic booms, namely the classic shock wave off the airframe in supersonic flight. This shock wave is produced by all supersonic aircraft, and causes an audible and very sudden over-pressure followed by a rapid under-pressure in your ear (the N-shaped-wave Mary spoke of), if a part of the wave passes over you. As the aircraft goes faster the wave gets stronger, and it can readily break windows, or crack structures on the ground if the energy in the wave isn't weakened by distance (altitude) from the source, before the wave hits the ground. Other atmospheric factors can effect the strength of the boom as well. In fact each supersonic aircraft produces a characteristic N-wave. One of the goals of scientifically oriented researchers, has been to try and get an N-wave from the recorded data, on the So. Ca booms. The N-wave could then be compared to existing N-wave data for known aircraft. There is also a rich theory on N-waves, which could possibly give some information about the aircraft producing the N-wave. I know of no results on this analysis. The USAF had MIT Lincoln Labs do an analysis of the boom incidents. The USAF conclusion was that the booms were caused by an F-14. But, the USAF response didn't explain ALL incidents. There was a TV program planned about the scientific analysis of these booms, but I don't think it ever aired. Back to the original subject. What Ben was trying to say in his book about blackbird unstarts causing booms, was that the blackbird's engine(s) experienced an unstart, which when it happens causes large losses in thrust, which can cause, if it isn't corrected quickly, large losses in altitude. The situations in Ben's book were very rare incidents where a restart wasn't successful (at least one was a double unstart - each engine was unstarted - perhaps a flameout on top of it all as well). The aircraft would have approached closer to the ground, still in a supersonic configuration, giving less altitude for the shock wave to attenuate or weaken. So the shock wave would have still been strong and could have (and DID) cause unfortunate damage as it swept over the ground, on the ground track of the aircraft. Regarding the mysterious booms in Southern California. The SR was ruled out of those incidents as well, on an incident by incident basis. Larry ------------------------------ From: czbb062 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 18:06:22 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: New birds ? Mary wrote: Just a titch of information--we no longer refer to the tooling as jigs. I don't know why this piece of jargon fell out of use, but it has. (I've heard a couple of hypotheses, but they sound totally improbable.) Steve Jensen wrote: From the time I was quite young, my Dad (he worked aerospace, Army Air Corp and Air Force) -always- correct me when ever I inadvertently used the term "jig" ..... He said it was a quite racist term. The terms to use were "fixture" or "tooling". I still hear the "jig" on T.V., etc. from time to time. Jig: A name for various mechanical contrivances and simple machines, often merely with the sense 'dodge', 'device', 'contrivance' (Oxford English Dictionary). I suspect Steve's father was confusing jig with the N-word. Unfortunately, no 'titch' in my dictionary. Is this a typo? On another subject: I downloaded the 3 images of the X-31 from nasa.dryden. Nice shots but rather than being scanned from the original slides or photo prints, I suspect that they were scanned from printing press prints. The dithering patterns of printing press prints might explain the oatmeal-like blue skies. Can someone tell us whether the X-31 in these images is the downed craft or the other one? Michael Eisenstadt (czbb062@access.texas.gov) ------------------------------ From: "RUSSELL.B" Date: 24 Jan 1995 07:43:07 GMT Subject: Political Correctness Date: Tuesday, 24 January 1995 7:42am ET To: Internet From: RUSSELL.B@GOMAIL Subject: Political Correctness Please let's not all go "Politically Correct" here. Among my other bad habits I do some wood-working and I constantly use patterns, forms, templates and "jigs" and never have impure thoughts while using these tools. Lets let Lockheed et. al. use them as well. Bob Russell Systems Programmer State of Georgia DOAS ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Tue, 24 Jan 95 15:12:13 MET Subject: Re: MiG-25: discrepancies and precisions I have compared the values given by Piotr Butowski and Jay Miller, in "OKB MiG, A History of the Design Bureau and its Aircraft" (as posted by Erik Hoel) with the values given by Rotislav Apollossovich Belyakov and Jacques Marmain, in "MiG 1939-1989". It seems that Butowski and Miller use a variable foot, ranging from the correct value (0.3048 m) to 0.3243 m... Butowski&Miller Belyakov&Marmain Butowski& metric English/Am. metric English/Am. Miller's ft 7/25/73 118,898 ft. 36,240 m 118,898 ft. 0.3048 m 7/25/73 115,584 ft. 35,230 m 115,584 ft. 0.3048 m 5/19/75 25,000 m 77,083 ft. 25,000 m 82,021 ft. 0.3243 m 5/19/75 35,000 m 112,292 ft. 35,000 m 114,829 ft. 0.3117 m 7/22/77 118,965 ft. 37,080 m 121,654 ft. 0.3117 m 8/31/77 37,650 m 120,794 ft. 37,650 m 123,524 ft. 0.3117 m Also (but this is less strange) it should be 5/17/75 instead of 5/19/75 (if Belyakov and Marmain are right). J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk (John Burtenshaw) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 13:47:41 +0000 Subject: Nazi advanced projects Hello Skunkers For a long time I've been puzzled about reports that I've read about Nazi Germany's Project Saucer (for the want of a better phrase) that was described in Major Rudolph Lusar's book German Secret Weapons of World War 2 published in London 1959. In it he describes work by Drs Habermohl, Miethe and Flugkapitan Rudolph Schriver on advanced flying machines. He claims that they built flying discs and that one flew in August 1943 near occupied Prague. The specs of this were: Diameter: 137.76 ft Height (ground to top disk): 104.96 ft Altitude during test flight: 40,000ft Speed reached in test flight: 1,250 mph Powerplants: Jet engines of unknown make It was constructed in the East Hall of the BMW plant at Prague. Schriever announced that although Germany did have a flying disk and was under going ground testing in April 1945, the S.S. who controlled the project ordered its destruction in the face of the Allied advance. However there was a report that a machine called the Kugelblitz flew from Kahla, Thringia in February 1945. It was claimed that this machine was an advanced supersonic fighter aircraft. After Schriver's death in the 1950's his research papers were discovered at his home some of which were reproduced in Luftfhart International which showed detailed designs of the disk described above. The papers also showed that he was convinced that the allies had continued his work after the war and this explained the spate of UFO sightings reported since 1947. During the 1950's (the exact date escapes me) the British company A.V.Roe (AVRO) Aviation, the builders of the RAF's wartime Lancaster bomber, built a prototype flying saucer for a joint U.S.A.F. and U.S.Army project at their Canadian plant (it was on display in the U.S.Airforce Museum at Fort Eustis Virginia during the 1970's and may still be there). The project was publicly dropped as a failure, unless anyone knows differently. BTW Avro carried some artist impressions of more advanced aircraft in their publications during the early 1950's and the RAF's own publication RAF News included a report about AVRO's developments. This prompts a question: why did the Penatgon award a contract for an advanced design to a foreign company, that's like the SR-71 being built by British Aerospace ;-) Also, during the same period the British aircraft company Armstrong Whitworth built and successfully flew the AW-52-G all-wing glider and the AW-52 Boomerang flying-wing jet aircraft demonstrating the latter at the Farnborough Airshow in the early 1950's. Both were similar in appearance to the German designs and both were cancelled when the British Government cut their funding. We all know that the Allies took secret German rocket research back to both sides of the Iron-Curtain, I wonder if they took something else as well? This may explain sightings of strange craft after the War and if the allies did do research and created revolutionary propulsion systems/designs would it not feasible that which ever country (USA, Britain, Russia) would want to keep their discoveries to themselves and not disclose it to either their citizens or the World especially in the climate of the Cold War. And what better way to do it than to construct an _UFO myth_ to pass any sightings of these advanced designs of as figments of the imagination? Just a thought... 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: czbb062 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 11:20:23 -0600 (CST) Subject: X-31 id's I apologoise for just posting a dumb question about which X-31 crashed. Looking again at the 3 X-31 images avabilable from the http://www.dfrf.nasa.gov/dryden.html image bank, 2 hull numbers are visible: 164594 164595 The latter is the one with the curtailed tail and the rear fusilage pivoting foils(s) behind and above the trailing edge of the delta wing. The caption calls it "quasi-tail." Michael Eisenstadt (czbb062@access.texas.gov) ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 05:36:53 -0800 Subject: USAF SR-71 Blackbird to rejoin Air Force by MSgt. Louis A. Arana-Barradas Air Force News Service WASHINGTON -- The first of three SR-71 Blackbird reconnaissance jets flew into Palmdale, Calif., Jan. 12 for a complete overhaul and refitting before rejoining the Air Force. The NASA-flown and operated A-model jet was delivered to the Lockheed Aircraft Corp. plant where it will be restored to operational status. By Sept. 1, two A-model jets and one B-model pilot trainer are scheduled to become operational, said Maj. Brian Bergdahl, the Air Force SR-71 program manager. Congress appropriated $100 million in the fiscal year 1995 defense budget to reactivate the aircraft. Where the high-speed aircraft will be based has not yet been determined, but they will be operated by Air Combat Command, Bergdahl said. ACC officials are formulating a concept of operations, but Bergdahl said the aircraft will not be used to collect day-to-day reconnaissance. "They will deploy overseas to support contingency or crisis operations," he said. The Air Force program office for the reactivation of the Blackbirds is at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. It's that office's job to get the aircraft -- the other two are in storage at Lockheed's Palmdale plant -- outfitted and flying again. Blackbirds have unique systems not found on other aircraft. "We've found some stuff that will take time to fix, but that won't break our backs," an official at Wright-Patterson said. Additionally, because the Blackbird was designed to expand during flight, it has had a history of fuel tank leaks on the ground. But the officials said each fuel tank will be inspected and any leaks resealed before the aircraft go operational. But barring any other really major problems, the SR-71s should be returned to active-duty service by deadline, the official said. For its reconnaissance mission, the aircraft will be outfitted with an advanced synthetic aperture radar system, an optical bar camera and a technical objective camera wet film system. All were once part of the aircraft's original equipment. The reactivation will be an ongoing process, Bergdahl said. "Tasks will be assigned as the need arises. The aircraft and supporting equipment, defensive systems and collection sensors were all placed in storage." How many people will be needed to support the program is still to be determined. Crewmembers and support workers are presently being identified so they can be assigned. NASA will train the aircrews, since no crewmembers are currently qualified to fly the airplane, Bergdahl said. Training of "two or three crews" is to start March 1. - -end- ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #188 ********************************* 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).