From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #190 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Friday, 27 January 1995 Volume 05 : Number 190 In this issue: Re: USAF SR-71 (fwd) Re: starts, restarts (fwd) Re: First acknowlgment of SR-71 Re: TR-3A plane id Two different craft? Re: Two different craft? Re: SR unstarts Re: USAF SR-71 Re: Planes of the Right Stuff Re: Planes of the Right Stuff Crash of Lauda Air 767 Re: USAF SR-71 (fwd) NF-104 Lauda Air 767 Re: TR-3A 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: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 13:54:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: USAF SR-71 (fwd) Once upon a time hendefd@mail.auburn.edu shaped the electrons to say... >What about aerial refueling? Will there be a KC-135Q available? NASA has been using KC-10s. There is no need for KC-135Qs, as long as the tanker can keep the fuel seperate it can handle the job. - -- megazone@world.std.com megazone@hotblack.gweep.net (508) 752-2164 "I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity. Use your mind, think!" Moderator: anime fanfic archive, ftp.std.com /archives/anime-fan-works; rec.arts.anime.stories Geek Code 2.1: GTW/H d-- H+>++ s++:++ !g p? au+ a24 w++@ v++@ C++(++++)$ UU+$>UL++++ P+ L>++ 3 E N+++ K+++ W-- M- V-- -po+ Y+>++ t+@ 5@ j@ R@ G' tv@ b++(+++) D+@ B--- e++ u** h- f+ r@ n+(----) y++@(*) ------------------------------ From: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 14:05:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: starts, restarts (fwd) Once upon a time Richard Soundy shaped the electrons to say... >engine, but (and here comes question 1) does the engine ever "flame out", >and is this as much of a problem as it can be on a civilian jet? Ever? Yes, that *can* happen. BUt everything I've seen indicates that it is rather rare. >from that engine. Does this not cause all sorts of problems when travelling >at the higher mach numbers. At first it was more of a problem, but there is an automated system that compensates instantaneously with opposite rudder. It is a rough ride, but not out of control. - -- megazone@world.std.com megazone@hotblack.gweep.net (508) 752-2164 "I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity. Use your mind, think!" Moderator: anime fanfic archive, ftp.std.com /archives/anime-fan-works; rec.arts.anime.stories Geek Code 2.1: GTW/H d-- H+>++ s++:++ !g p? au+ a24 w++@ v++@ C++(++++)$ UU+$>UL++++ P+ L>++ 3 E N+++ K+++ W-- M- V-- -po+ Y+>++ t+@ 5@ j@ R@ G' tv@ b++(+++) D+@ B--- e++ u** h- f+ r@ n+(----) y++@(*) ------------------------------ From: Diane Pask Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 13:51:14 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: First acknowlgment of SR-71 I just watched some coverage of the SR-71 on the Discovery Channel, and it raised some questions in my mind: 1 - When did rumours of the existence of the SR-71 first start? 2 - When did the US officially acknowledge its existence? 3 - When was the first picture of the SR-71 become available? Just curious. Lech Lesiak Diane Pask Lech Lesiak Faculty of Law,The University of Calgary, Information Systems Ph:(403)220-7183 Alberta Pool Email:dpask@acs.ucalgary.ca (403) 290-5503 ------------------------------ From: jackg@holobyte.com Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 12:31:23 -0800 Subject: Re: TR-3A It seems that James is combining two different sightings into one aircraft. From what I remember of his previous posts, I believe there was an eyewitness statement saying that a triangular object some hundred-odd feet in length hovered over their house. I really think we're talking about two different aircraft here. I doubt that the TR-3 would be able to hover. What would be the advantage, other than providing a good target for AA? Reconnaissance planes either fly very high, very fast, very stealthy or a combination of all of the above. They don't usually hover. You can take as good a picture at mach3 as you can hovering. As far as the sighting of an object skimming the trees over a father and daughter's yard, I doubt that secret aircraft would be overflying known populated areas, not to mention drawing attention to themselves by buzzing people. I'm not saying it couldn't or didn't happen, I just think it is unlikely and it wasn't the TR-3 that this couple saw. I find the profile observed over the desert much more characteristic of Air Force procedure. "I've done it over and over.. You see, I kill breeders." "God is dead." -Nietzche "Nietzche is dead." -God Lumber ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: TR-3A Author: James Easton at Internet Date: 1/26/95 1:36 PM An experienced aviation watcher says that he and his companions saw an unacknowledged delta winged aircraft about 35 miles east of Groom on Nov. 23. This was a triangular craft with rounded corners, as has been described in the press as the "TR-3A." The witness works for a major aircraft developer in California and says that he knows aircraft well. He says the sighting took place around 7 or 8 in the evening (long after dark) as he and several companions were traveling north on US-93 for a visit to the Tikaboo Valley. South of Alamo, they stopped to watch some orange flares being dropped by jets on maneuver. These flares, intended to distract heat-seeking missiles, are a common sight in the area, but the jets themselves were not. The witness was drawn by the unusual lighting of the jets: Four had only a single red strobe on the bottom about midway down the fuselage. About four others had only three steady lights: red lights in the front and rear and a white light at mid-fuselage. The witness says that the moon had just risen, so he was able to see the outline of the aircraft from below, using low-power binoculars and looking almost directly upward from their location near the Pahranagat Lakes. The planes with the single red strobes he recognized as F-117A Stealth fighters. The other four aircraft had a distinctive triangular shape with rounded corners. Both the witness and his companion, also an aviation worker, insist that these aircraft were not B-2s, the only acknowledged craft in the U.S. arsenal that resembles that shape. [END] "My daughter and I saw a triangular-shaped craft fly very low over our yard. It had rounded corners and lights in the corners and though it just skimmed the trees, it made no engine sound - only a "whoooosh"-like noise. It was not flying fast and there were one or two others in the area at the same time but not as close. It almost seemed as if they were surveying the area. There were newspaper reports soon after that confirmed our sighting but we never reported it." And: "The craft seemed to be at about 2,000 feet but it is hard to estimate distances at night. All the while no sound was heard until it was directly above us. It slowed and paused in mid-air for a second and emitted a real low but audible rumble which seemed to come on instantaneous, as if someone said "OK, turn on the sound". Most jets, civilian and military are pretty loud at this height when they are directly above you. Anyway all of us agreed it was strange but pretty much agreed that it was some kind of military aircraft. We could see a faint outline of an elongated, acute triangle with rounded edges..." ------------------------------ From: czbb062 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 19:14:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: plane id Just saw *The Right Stuff* again. Perhaps some kind subscriber to the list can (and will) tell me (1) Is the X-1 in the movie a facsimile? (2) What plane was used in the concluding scenes of the movie (to represent a late X series model that Yeager would have flown)? Of course, many thanks in advance. Michael Eisenstadt (czbb062 ------------------------------ From: rh@craycos.com (Robert Herndon) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 95 18:26:55 MST Subject: Two different craft? jackg (?) states: > I really think we're talking about two different aircraft > here. I doubt that the TR-3 would be able to hover. What would > be the advantage, other than providing a good target for AA? > Reconnaissance planes either fly very high, veryfast, very stealthy > or a combination of all of the above. They don't usually hover. > You can take as good a picture at mach3 as you can hovering. I disagree strongly. Not that I'm an expert, but given the hypothesized mission of the TR-3, it would be a substantial asset to be able to hover. Since the TR-3 is supposed to supply real-time reconnaissance, specifically to stealth attack craft and presumably to other aircraft, being able to loiter unobserved would be a considerable advantage. One or two of these, unheard, unobserved, and not showing on radar over a city at night would be invaluable. Such data as it could provide, in helping attack aircraft avoid AAA, missiles, etc., in redirecting routes, in taking pictures and doing damage assessment after an attack, in re-routing subsequent attack craft if a target was missed, etc., would be of superlative value. I also must take exception to "you can take as good a picture at mach3 as you can hovering". I don't know of any craft that can fly mach 3 on the deck, and pictures taken from 25,000m cannot have near the quality of pictures taken from 5,000m or less. As well, pictures taken from 5,000m or less while traveling at mach 3 would likely be substantially inferior to pictures taken while hovering. This also assumes that one "takes pictures" -- real-time video links showing "the big picture" to attack aircraft on the deck would be even more useful. Whether it actually need hover or not is another question. Certainly flying slowly, e.g., 30 knots, would be close enough for most intents and purposes. Even a very mild wind aloft would allow such a craft to hover effectively. And of course, being able to scoot if observed would also be useful... This may sound a little silly, but it would also be useful for pilots to have a fair idea of when they can be observed or heard by persons on the ground. For all of the wonderful radars in the world, the MK I ear and eyeball are still among the most acute and sensitive detectors. Understanding the practical limitations against detection by eyeball and ear, even those belonging to unwary civilians rather than alert enemy trooops, would likely help TR-3 pilots avoid doing anything foolishly observable in more hostile circumstances. I also have to wonder if this craft has any active measures to help its visual stealth characteristics. Certainly the basics of luminance matching were understood in WWII (e.g., for night fighters a dark flat grey was least observable) and even some active techniques were known to be useful in the day (active lighting of an aircraft made picking it out against a bright sky much more difficult). I very much doubt that nobody has done anything in this field for 40 years. Might the TR-3 have more modern active camouflage to help it hide against day or night skies? Robert Herndon ------------------------------ From: Ralph the Wonder Llama Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 20:51:30 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Two different craft? > I also have to wonder if this craft has any active measures to >help its visual stealth characteristics. Certainly the basics of >luminance matching were understood in WWII (e.g., for night fighters >a dark flat grey was least observable) and even some active techniques >were known to be useful in the day (active lighting of an aircraft >made picking it out against a bright sky much more difficult). I >very much doubt that nobody has done anything in this field for 40 >years. Might the TR-3 have more modern active camouflage to help >it hide against day or night skies? > >Robert Herndon I wondered about this when I saw the post (about a week ago?) which compiled many eyewitness reports about seeing a very large black flying wing. One observer noted that it disappeared when he saw it during the day as if someone had flipped a switch. Another report noted that this craft appeared to have a row of lights along the leading edge. I would say that this craft almost certainly employs active camouflage ala the WWII project Yehouti (sp?) program. It would certainly be possible that the TR-3A uses the same technique, although a fighter-sized aircraft is a lot easier to hide (visually) than a monstrous flying wing.... - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Guslick / ^ \ IRC: HaveBlue NAR #53962 TIP #112 ---(.)==<-.->==(.)--- Klein bottle for sale - michaelg@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu SR-71 Blackbird Inquire within. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 18:58:37 -0800 Subject: Re: SR unstarts Regards Richard Soundy >>And question 2 - after following skunk works for some time (lurking in the >>back) I seem to recall that when the engine unstarts all thrust is lost >>from that engine. Does this not cause all sorts of problems when travelling >>at the higher mach numbers. Ron Schweikert responds: >I'll defer the "full" answer to experts, Well, how about a jet engine nut! > but my understanding is that >the engine is still producing full thrust duing an unstart. The throttle setting is still the same right after the inlet unstart. > What happens >during normal operation is that a shock wave is attached to the front >of the spike. As the speed increases, the shock wave "bends" further >and further back. At M1.4, it goes inside the inlet. At this point the >spike's computer carefully positions the shock wave into a small area >called the "shock trap" which is a 5/8" wide opening in the inner >part of the nacelle. Since the J58 can handle only subsonic air, >this positioning is critical. As the supersonic air passes through >the shock wave, it becomes subsonic (well, okay, something like that). That is correct, it IS subsonic, low subsonic by the time it combusts in the J-58's burners or/and afterburner. But thrust IS lost, after an inlet unstart, even though the throttle setting may be set to max AB on that engine. The reason for the thrust loss is non-optimum compression in the inlet. A normal shock is generated by nature in these inlets, just before the flow goes subsonic. Normal shocks are called 'normal' because they are at right angles to the flow (ie: normal to the flow). Optimum compression in the inlet requires the normal shock to be in the throat of the inlet (point of maximum constriction). If the normal shock isn't there, then the compression process isn't optimum and losses occurr which reduce the thrust in that engine. Why? The real technical reason for why losses occurr when the normal shock isn't in the throat is that the faster the air goes through the normal shock, the larger the losses. Therefore, you definitely want to encounter the normal shock when the flow is right at Mach 1 (the slowest supersonic speed that can support a shock), and the flow is at Mach 1 in the throat of the inlet. If the normal shock is anywhere else in the inlet except the throat, the flow Mach No., by definition, will be greater than Mach 1 at that point, and therefore the losses in the air going through that normal shock will be greater. Such additional losses reduce the thrust in the engine, even though the throttle may be still at MAX AB on that engine. It's as simple as that! Keeping the nornmal shock in the throat, has always been a balancing act, using upstream/downstream pressures for the weights. We're talking about supersonic inlets that support subsonic burning here. Scramjet inlets don't have to have throats, not physical throats anyway. Those inlets are different! Larry ------------------------------ From: "Michael William Freeman" Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 22:20:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: USAF SR-71 > From: hendefd@mail.auburn.edu > Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 10:07:57 +0600 > Subject: Re: USAF SR-71 > > > As I understand from conversing with some ex-SR crew members that have > > been helping the with the reactivation of the SR. (Mary, please correct > > if wrong) that the NASA SR #832(#971) will be used until the 2 of 3 the > > SRs in storage have been checked out, then #832 will be returned to > > NASA. But the B(trainer; NASA #831; USAF #956) model will be shared > > between NASA and USAF. > > What about aerial refueling? Will there be a KC-135Q available? > > # Frank Henderson | Div. of Univ. Computing > # Network Services /0\ Security Administrator > # X-500/Gopher Manager \_______[|(.)|]_______/ > # Auburn University o ++ 0 ++ o hendefd@mail.auburn.edu > That won't be necessary. Towards the end of their originall service life, the SR's were using KC-10s. I have a really nice picture of a KC-10 refueling a Blackbird over some mountains. ------------------------------ From: Marc Studer Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 19:36:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Planes of the Right Stuff Read your post on the Planes of the Right Stuff: The X-1 in Kaufman's film that was shown on the ground was a replica built by the studio. All the air to air stuff was done with models or archival footage of real X-1 flights. If you closly, you can spot a continuity error on the B-29 that was used to air launch the X-1. In some shots the underside is painted black and in others the B-29 is an all aluminum bird. The F-104's used in Yeagers flight in the movie were real aircraft. (Except when it goes into a flat spin. As you've guessed, that was a model.) The film company got two West German 104's one to match Yeager's (NF-104?) plane and the other as a camera ship because the only thing that could keep up with a F-104 was another F-104. Yeager's plane in the movie was one of a series of F-104's NASA and the Air Force had modified with a booster motor so that the plane could fly extremly high and reaction control motors on the nose and wings so that it could be controlled once it reached maximum altitude where the air was too thin for normal control surfaces to work. The idea was to give astronauts experience in flying spacecraft in a near airless enviorment. ************* Marc Studer *************************************************** ************ "Life is all you can eat or all you can stomach." ************** ******************************************** -Jacques Portman *************** On Thu, 26 Jan 1995, czbb062 wrote: > Just saw *The Right Stuff* again. Perhaps some kind subscriber to the list > can (and will) tell me > > (1) Is the X-1 in the movie a facsimile? > > (2) What plane was used in the concluding scenes of the movie (to > represent a late X series model that Yeager would have flown)? > > Of course, many thanks in advance. > > Michael Eisenstadt (czbb062 > ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 01:56:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Planes of the Right Stuff Marc Studer mentioned the X-1, B-29 and F-104s of this movie, I want to add some of the others: The lost man formation was flown by 4 T-33A, one of which was also shown solo. The "Douglas D-558-II" was represented in some of the black and white ground-shots, mixed into archive material, and in the very short overflight scene, by a Hawker Hunter. The three F-104N, purpose built for NASA, were pretty much F-104G standard aircraft, used mainly for high speed chase. Type Serial c/n Markings, Remarks - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- F-104N-LO --- L-683C-4045 "NASA 011", acquired 19/07/1963, to "NASA 811", registered "N811NA", mothballed at Edwards AFB F-104N-LO --- L-683C-4053 "NASA 012", acquired 07/1963, to "NASA 812", registered "N812NA", mothballed at Edwards AFB F-104N-LO --- L-683C-4058 "NASA 013", acquired 09/1963, to "NASA 813", registered "N813NA" (?), collided 06/08/1966 with XB-70A "62-0207", NASA test pilot 'Joe' Walker was killed The NF-104A, with additional rocket engine and reaction control system, were F-104As, modified in 1963 by Lockheed for the USAF's Aerospace Research Pilot School at Edwards AFB, to be used for astronaut training. They were never used or owned by NASA. Type Serial c/n Markings, Remarks - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- F-104A-10-LO 56-0756 L-183-1044 "NF-756", disposition ? F-104A-10-LO 56-0760 L-183-1048 "NF-760", displayed at Edwards AFB on pole, with "0-60760" on tail F-104A-10-LO 56-0762 L-183-1050 "NF-762", crashed 12/12/1963, near Edwards AFB, pilot 'Chuck' Yeager ejected with minor injuries - -- 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: "Stefan 'Stetson' Skoglund" Date: Fri, 27 Jan 95 08:46:48 +0100 Subject: Crash of Lauda Air 767 A spanking new 767 from Lauda Air crashed some year ago. According to Niki Lauda it was a construction fault. What kind of fault was it ? - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Stefan 'Stetson' Skoglund I | sp2stes1@ida.his.se I | http://www.his.se/ida/~sp2stes1/ I _____/0\_____ I ____________O(.)O___________ Högskolan i Skövde, Sverige I I-+-I O I-+-I I I Viggen with two Rb04 - --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Alistair M Henderson Date: Fri, 27 Jan 95 11:45:20 GMT Subject: Re: USAF SR-71 (fwd) hendefd@mail.auburn.edu wrote: >What about aerial refueling? Will there be a KC-135Q available? I believe that the KC-135Qs are currently being upgraded to KC-135T standard. This involves re-engining them with the CFM-56 engines that currently power KC-135Rs. Ali Henderson. ceeamh@caledonia.hw.ac.uk ------------------------------ From: George Allegrezza 27-Jan-1995 0735 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 95 07:34:58 EST Subject: NF-104 I believe the original intent of the NF-104 was to train USAF astronauts on the terminal descent characteristics of the X-20. Thus they were owned by the ATPS rather than NASA. Corrections invited. George George Allegrezza | Digital Equipment Corporation | "Dumber than advertised." Mobile Systems Business | Littleton MA USA | -- Dot Warner allegrezza@tnpubs.enet.dec.com | ------------------------------ From: George Allegrezza 27-Jan-1995 0803 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 95 08:06:56 EST Subject: Lauda Air 767 This is a bit off-charter, but was this the 767 where the thrust reversers deployed in flight? As I remember, Lauda claimed this was the cause of the crash and Boeing claimed it was impossible. Boeing later did numerous simulations trying to reproduce the hypothetical reverser deployment. Don't know if it was ever resolved to anyone's satisfaction. Niki's a pretty tenacious guy, though, and I expect he stayed in Boeing's face until he got a direct answer. Amplifications and corrections (perhaps off-list) invited. George George Allegrezza | Digital Equipment Corporation | "Dumber than advertised." Mobile Systems Business | Littleton MA USA | -- Dot Warner allegrezza@tnpubs.enet.dec.com | ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 05:25:18 -0800 Subject: Re: TR-3A >>"The craft seemed to be at about 2,000 feet but it is hard to estimate >>distances at night. All the while no sound was heard until it was directly >>above us. It slowed and paused in mid-air for a second and emitted a real >>low but audible rumble which seemed to come on instantaneous, as if someone >>said "OK, turn on the sound". That to me sounds like someone seeing an aircraft TURING, which would both explain it seeming to "pause" briefly from certain viewing angles, AND a increase in engine noise if the exhaust were to suddenly be aimed in your direction. jackg@holobyte.com says... >I really think we're talking about two different aircraft here. I doubt > that the TR-3 would be able to hover. What would be the advantage, other > than providing a good target for AA? I agree. Besides, most of the "hovering" talk seems to originate from "UFO" type reports and circles. I don't see any serious reason to imagine a TR-3A type craft having such capability. It also would not likely be very compatible with STEALTH operation, both at IR and probably radar wavelengths as well, given the directed thrust requirements for VTOL flight. Big exposed lift-fans or downward jet exhausts just makes one a big target from the ground. > Reconnaissance planes either fly very high, very fast, > very stealthy or a combination of all of the above. Yep. Nothing about the TR-3A in either (speculated) form and mission suggests it would, or need to, hover. The current state of the ASTOVL program also seems to indicate we have a while to wait for any new stealthy VTOL aircraft. The primary role for VTOL is to allow operation of tactial attack aircraft from small, forward landing sites, not to "hover" over a target... that only makes YOU a target. Any mission like that would be the realm of a smaller, cheaper, and more expendable UAVs, not something like a TR-3A. BTW, speaking of the TR-3A, am I the only one wondering if "Air International", et al have borrowed some writers from the Enquirer or something? :) To be speaking so matter-of-factly, about something we have yet to get *any* hard facts yet seems a little strange to me. I think this is also the same publication which stated NASA was in the process of returning the YF-23 to flight status, which (unfortunately) is not the case. ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #190 ********************************* 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).