From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #349 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 11 July 1995 Volume 05 : Number 349 In this issue: Re: Mach, TAS, et al. Re: SR-71, F-117, P-38 SR-71 top speed SR 71 Vne (the last word?) Re: SR-71, F-117, P-38 Re: Mary Shafer Re: Mary Shafer Re: Mary Shafer Re: Mary Shafer Weasel breath Re: Mary Shafer Re: Mary Shafer Re: Mary Shafer Mary, et. al. Re: JP-7 fuel re: RF-4C's last flight Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #325 Re: Mary Shafer miscellaneous high speed stuff 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_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 03:53:01 PDT Subject: Re: Mach, TAS, et al. The Mach meter works on the diference between stagnation and static pressure. The Mach meter assumes adiabatic flow, so it will only be accurate out to about Mach 4. The pitot tube creates a bow shock when the Mach number reaches unity. Since the flow is assumed adiabatic and isentropic, the total pressure will remain unchanged across the shock, while the ststic pressure changes. The Rayleigh Pitot Formula is used to calibrate the instrument. It has two expressions "chain ruled" together. One part is near unity for M<1, the other goes to unity as M>1, so it works for both sonic and subsonic conditions. Pretty smart, really! This formula can be found in most compressible flow texts (try Anderson, or e-mail him). It also appears in Nelson`s flight dynamics text. So in answer to the question, the speed of sound is a temp phenomina, but the EFFECT can be measured with a pitot-static system. Chuck Smith "Aerospace Engineer to the Stars" ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 07:10:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SR-71, F-117, P-38 I don't know if this is meant seriously, or if it is a flame, but Wei-Jen Su wrote the following: >Mary, with all respect, the machmeter of the SR-71 goes to 6. I got >pictures of the back and front seat of the SR-71. Some of those pictures >you can get it in the internet which the site I forgot (sorry :) ). After >dowload, you can use a zoom-in and see the limits of the machmeter. >People in this mailing list has to take care of something that in Russia >language call: "Maskirovka" You did not look at the Mach number '6' but at the '6' for '600 KIAS' (Knots Indicated AirSpeed). You may see the word 'KNOTS' between the two '6's on top of the instrument. The Mach number is displayed inside the little window (at 12 o'clock) on the instrument. You may see the words 'MACH' to the left and 'NO.' to the right of it. Quote from the flight manual -- Section V, page 5-8, Change 2: "MAXIMUM MACH Mach 3.2 is the design Mach number. Mach 3.17 is the maximum scheduled cruise speed recommended for normal operations. However, when authorized by the Commander, speeds up to Mach 3.3 may be flown if the limit CIT of 427 deg. C is not exceeded." CIT = Compressor Inlet Temperature >1) During Desert Storm, one of the F-117 was hit by a Iraqui missile >loosing one of her V-tail. The pilot didn't know until he landed and he >saw with his eyes because he didn't feel it any change (the cause is the >highly sophisticate Fly-by-Wire system of the F-117). You are confusing two different incidents. First, the only 'serious' damage to an F-117A during Desert Storm was apparently (and of course you never know for sure, what is kept secret) a blown nose-wheel tire, suffered by '790' (maybe '80-0790') on landing, after a mission. The other incident, where the first FSD F-117A '780' (maybe '79-10780', sometimes referred to as YF-117A, which is now preserved on a pole at Nellis AFB, NV), lost one of its tail fins during a side slip while performing a high speed test flight in 1987. The pilot was unaware of the incident, until he was informed by the pilot of a chase plane. He landed safely. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk (John Burtenshaw) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 14:03:02 +0100 Subject: SR-71 top speed Hi All Can I add my two-cents worth. At an airshow in the UK during 1983 I asked a SR-71 driver what the top speed was. All he said was that the Machometer was red-lined at quote about Mach3 end quote. He also added that he was sure she was capable of a lot faster but he personally had not pushed it higher then than the manfacturers limits, he said with a grin. So make what you will out of that. =========================================================================== John Burtenshaw Systems Administrator, The Computer Centre, Bournemouth University - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Postal Address: Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, POOLE, Dorset, BH12 5BB U.K. Internet: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk Phone: 01202 595089 Fax: 01202 513293 AX.25: g1hok@gb7bnm.#45.gbr.eu. AMPRnet: g1hok.ampr.org. (44.131.17.82) CompuServe: 100336,3113 =========================================================================== ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 06:54:13 PDT Subject: SR 71 Vne (the last word?) Its this simple. Take the structural limiting temperature for Iconel. go to std atmosphere tables, figure out what Mach number`s total temperature equals this, and rest assured, it won`t go any faster. method b: Figure capture area for engines. approximate shape as wedges, cones, and cylinders. Calculate wave drag and surface friction as functions of M (use superposition theorem) Thrust = (Mdot air x(i+f) )x (Vout-Vin) V out is function of thermal choking (f(M)) This means the velocity at the end of the combustion chamber CAN NOT EXCEED M=1. Use the limiting case and assume the flow is fully expanded to the ambient pressure. Thrust = Drag Note that Vout is constant. This means as velocity increases, thrust decreases. This is true for any airbreathing propulsion system.(ie. jet or prop) This "eyeballs" out to about Mach 3 or so. The top speed of the SR71 is a "secret" only to about 0.5 M. There is so magic to it. It`s just another airplane. It proves that if you spend enough money you can go really fast. To get hypersonic you need rockets, or supersonic combustion chambers and they don`t exist yet. Nobody knows how to handle the flame impingement on the reflected shocks yet. Also, how do you handle the stagnation streamlines going to the flame holders. -at present, you dont. Chuck ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 11:45:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SR-71, F-117, P-38 Er, I just went over and looked at the SR-71 and I'm right and you're not. Come back when you can play in the big leagues. 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 Tue, 11 Jul 1995, Wei-Jen Su wrote: > 1) > MS> The Machmeter only goes to 4, too. > > Mary, with all respect, the machmeter of the SR-71 goes to 6. I > got pictures of the back and front seat of the SR-71. Some of those pictures > you can get it in the internet which the site I forgot (sorry :) ). After > dowload, you can use a zoom-in and see the limits of the machmeter. > People in this mailing list has to take care of something that in > Russia language call: "Maskirovka" > > Does anyone heard about the following stories? I don't know if it was > true... > 1) During Desert Storm, one of the F-117 was hit by a Iraqui missile > loosing one of her V-tail. The pilot didn't know until he landed and he > saw with his eyes because he didn't feel it any change (the cause is the > highly sophisticate Fly-by-Wire system of the F-117). > > 2) The first sketch of the famous Lockheed P-38 was done in a > bathroom tissue by the famous Kelly Johnson. If it is true, the invention > of one of the best fighter of WWII was done in "the seat of thinking" :). > > How many books Ben Rich (one of his codename: Ben Over) has > published to the general public? If I am understand, he only published > "Skunk Works" bye Ben Rich and Leo Janos. I heard about some book name > "Memories of Ben Rich". It is the same book? > > I appreciate to any that want and can answer these questions. > > Live Long and Prosper > > Su Wei-Jen > > ------------------------------ From: Gerald.Welch@Corp.Sun.COM (Gerald Welch) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 09:23:35 -0700 Subject: Re: Mary Shafer > Er, I just went over and looked at the SR-71 and I'm right and you're not. > Come back when you can play in the big leagues. > Regards, > Mary My my, aren't we special. Major Mary you left out "Neener, neener, neener". Su Wei-Jen was firm in his convictions, and could have handled himself a tad bit more conservatively. Not all of us "civilians" have access to the cool dribble that you do, but a lot of us make more money than you. Neener.....neener.........nnneener! 8^) ------------------------------ From: Michael D Tissandier Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 13:07:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Mary Shafer Lurk mode: Off >> Er, I just went over and looked at the SR-71 and I'm right and you're not. >> Come back when you can play in the big leagues. >> Regards, >> Mary >My my, aren't we special. Major Mary you left out "Neener, neener, neener". >Su Wei-Jen was firm in his convictions, and could have handled himself a >tad bit more conservatively. Not all of us "civilians" have access to the >cool dribble that you do, but a lot of us make more money than you. >Neener.....neener.........nnneener! 8^) Gang, Let's NOT start this. It wastes bandwidth and only drives people who are here for the fine, intelligent discussions away. UFOs (the extra-terrestrial kinds) are bad enough, but this is pointless. Mary is a fine avenue for top-flight info, as is a number of people who contribute. Let's just stop this and get back to what really matters, finely designed and constructed aircraft. Lurk mode: On --Mike - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Russians can give you arms, but only the United States can give you a selection ---Anwar Sadat mtissand@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ From: The I-Way Hobo Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 13:15:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Mary Shafer On Tue, 11 Jul 1995, Gerald Welch wrote: > > > Er, I just went over and looked at the SR-71 and I'm right and you're not. > > Come back when you can play in the big leagues. > > > Regards, > > Mary > > My my, aren't we special. Major Mary you left out "Neener, neener, neener". > Su Wei-Jen was firm in his convictions, and could have handled himself a > tad bit more conservatively. Not all of us "civilians" have access to the > cool dribble that you do, but a lot of us make more money than you. > Neener.....neener.........nnneener! 8^) Unfortunately, I have to agree. The tone of Mary's message was uncalled for. NASA gets a few AF hand-me-downs and suddenly they think they're Sierra Hotel. Looks like snobbery is alive and well. Howard 9th SRW 1968-69 ------------------------------ From: Gerald.Welch@Corp.Sun.COM (Gerald Welch) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 10:46:27 -0700 Subject: Re: Mary Shafer > Gang, > Let's NOT start this. It wastes bandwidth and only drives people who >are here for the fine, intelligent discussions away. UFOs (the >extra-terrestrial kinds) are bad enough, but this is pointless. Mary >is a fine avenue for top-flight info, as is a number of people who >contribute. Let's just stop this and get back to what really matters, >finely designed and constructed aircraft. >Lurk mode: On > --Mike - ------------------------- OK, I'm sorry. ------------------------------ From: Gerald.Welch@Corp.Sun.COM (Gerald Welch) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 10:59:19 -0700 Subject: Weasel breath > Let's see how to put this.... ah .... ``screw off, weasel breath!'' > Yeah, that's about right. I'm not familiar with the art of flaming, > so I hope I got it right. > Don't bother with the smiley next time. It doesn't make it less > offensive--just greasier. > Mike - ------------ Mike Hmmm....Weasel Breath, I like it! That'll be my handle from now on. What I did was uncalled for, and I deserve to be flamed. It won't happen again. It's probably just me, but some of Mary's messages seem overbearing at times. Like this one: > > Come back when you can play in the big leagues. Just for one second, I thought about what it might be like to be in Su Wei-Jen's shoes, so I came to his defense. I'll keep my Weasel Breath opinion to myself from now on. ------------------------------ From: Gerald.Welch@Corp.Sun.COM (Gerald Welch) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 11:05:41 -0700 Subject: Re: Mary Shafer >Where do I begin ... how about "Gerald, you stupid fuck!" >Thanks for your attempt to defend Su Wei-Jen's fatuous post with an even >stupider response. Time to add another entry to the BozoFilter. >Truely pathetic. >Erik Hoel >hoel@cs.umd.edu - ----------------- Erik, You're absolutely correct, and I apologize. ------------------------------ From: mangan@edac1.kodak.com (Paul Mangan) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 95 14:04:30 EDT Subject: Re: Mary Shafer As I said in a letter to Su: If Mary says its so then I believe Mary, especially when it comes to the SR71. Thanks again Mary for the input. Paul mangan@kodak.com > From skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Tue Jul 11 13:56:04 1995 > To: wsu02@barney.poly.edu, shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com > Subject: Re: Mary Shafer > Cc: skunk-works@gaia.ucs.orst.edu > X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII > Sender: skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu > Content-Length: 490 > X-Lines: 15 > > > > Er, I just went over and looked at the SR-71 and I'm right and you're not. > > Come back when you can play in the big leagues. > > > Regards, > > Mary > > My my, aren't we special. Major Mary you left out "Neener, neener, neener". > Su Wei-Jen was firm in his convictions, and could have handled himself a > tad bit more conservatively. Not all of us "civilians" have access to the > cool dribble that you do, but a lot of us make more money than you. > Neener.....neener.........nnneener! 8^) > > > > ------------------------------ From: Gerald.Welch@Corp.Sun.COM (Gerald Welch) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 11:08:56 -0700 Subject: Re: Mary Shafer >Please don't make fun of Mary. She and Chuck are the reasons I read this >list. Please don't make this an unwelcome place for them. >-- >Tim - -------------------- This is true. Mary makes many contributions to this list, and I can't recall making any myself. I understand that being on this list is a priviledge, not a right. It won't happen again. ------------------------------ From: "RUSSELL.B" Date: 11 Jul 1995 14:31:14 GMT Subject: Mary, et. al. Date: Tuesday, 11 July 1995 2:30pm ET To: Internet From: RUSSELL.B@GOMAIL Subject: Mary, et. al. Ya'll talk about airplanes again, PLEASE. PRETTY PLEASE ÿÿÿ Just another software type question. Bob Russell Systems Programmer State of Georgia, DOAS ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 16:55:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: JP-7 fuel I don't think that JP-7 is much thicker than JP-5. Now, JP-4, which was avgas-based, was thinner, but I just don't see that much difference between JP-5, JP-7, and JP-8. It's not viscosity, but volatility that's the issue. Incidentally, people make a lot over being able to drop a lit match in a pool of JP-7 and not have it burn, but you can also do that with regular old gasoline, as my driver's education teacher illustrated. The sealant isn't exactly injected into the seams of the tanks. Rather, it's spread carefully all over the inside of the tank. If you get a leak in a fuel tank, you have to empty the tank and go in and scrape off all the old sealant from the area that you think is leaking. Then you spread new sealant very carefully over this area, let the sealant cure, and refill the tank. Then you discover that either the leak was coming from some place else or that you didn't get it sealed right and the fuel is still soaking the drogue chute. At this point you're down to exactly one gallon of tank sealant and the one guy who is really good at spreading it is going on vacation. OK, this only happened once--usually the resealing works quite well. One of the things that we're doing while we've got the plane laid up for the mods is to completely reseal that tank--none of the usual patching here and there, but resealing the whole thing in one piece. The Air Force ordered new sealant, enough for _years_ of leaking tanks, with only five planes flying. 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 Thu, 6 Jul 1995, ALBERT DOBYNS wrote: > > Date: Wed, 5 Jul 95 13:55:01 +0200 > > Message-Id: <9507051155.AA00627@glas1.awi-bremerhaven.de> > > Subject: Re: SR-71, tail, smoke, h > > From: jfiresto@AWI-Bremerhaven.DE (John Firestone) > > JF> In article uuout@mwbbs.com, albert.dobyns@mwbbs.com writes: > > >This Explodes Brightly!! Bad joke, eh? Actually it stands for > > >TriEthylBorane although some books use Tetra in place of Tri. It > > >is used to ignite the JP-7 fuel used (or that used to be used) in > > >the P&W J58 engines.... > > JF> Out of curiousity, what do they use to thicken the JP-7 to slow the > > rate at which it oozes out of the wings? > > Actually I have never seen JP-7 fuel so I am not sure if it is thicker > than other jet fuels. I have read in a few books that a sealer of some > sort is injected into the seams of the planes fuel tanks (much of the > fuselage and the inner sections of the wings). The sealer slows the > leaks to an acceptable value but it can't seal them completely. Also I > think the material breaks down after some number of hours of Mach 3 > flight so the sealer has to be replaced. I wish I had more concrete > numbers to post, but I never had the experience of working on any of > those planes. Some of the NASA folks might tell us some numbers or > perhaps some of the other major Blackbird fans know the answers. > > Al -- always looking for the last piece of info on the SR-71. > --- > ~ SLMR 2.1a ~ Nostalgia: the good old days multiplied by a bad memory. ------------------------------ From: (SSG, ANTHONY, MAA, 565) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 95 13:48:15 PDT Subject: re: RF-4C's last flight John wrote: >I just read your post in the Skunk Works forum. I was out at Roswell for >Operation: Roving Sands this year. I'm a military aviation photographer and >one of the main subjects was the last of the USAF Phantoms. I got lots of >pictures of the High Rollers, both on the ground and in flight around the >airfield. Were you out there for the excercise? As a matter of fact, some >of the F-4 pilots were just a couple of doors down from me in the hotel I was >staying at. > >When are the Phantoms scheduled to be retired? I've heard September thru the >grapvines. Has there been a replacement designated to take over the >Phantom's Recce duties? Yes, I was at Roving Sands this year. I probably saw you there. I was staying in the Sally Port, so not in the same hotel as the aircrews (oh, darn). As usual, the end users of our product can't get enough of it, but the AF won't pay to keep it going. There was a white fifth-wheel parked on the ramp next to us and manned only by civilians. We heard later (rumor?) that it was the downlink for the "U-2's" and the pix were being taken directly into the intel bldg and uplinked to the attack A/C as targets. I don't know how much is true, but it sounds acceptable. With all of the new recce out there (Tier, etc.) I'm not surprised that our unit is not needed. BTW, our new mission is C-130's. A deserved reward for being the best tac recce unit in the free world. The following is the press release for the last flight: "RECCE PHANTOM FAREWELL" "The Nevada Air National Guard will be hosting a farewell salute to the RF-4C Phantom II that has served for twenty years with the unit. The ceremony will be held on 26-27 September in Reno, Nevada at the High Rollers' base located at the Reno-Tahoe Int'l Airport [Reno]. On Tuesday, 26 September, a golfing "get together" will be held. A barbeque will be held at 5pm at the base's all ranks club (SANGA). On Wednesday, 27 September, an open house will be held from 10am to 3pm. Farewell ceremonies will begin at noon with the celebration ending with the final four RF-4C's departing for final storage at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona. A social will follow." All are invited to see the last of the DOD's RF-4C's leave to the bone- yard. If anyone happens to come up, ask for me (Tony Midmore). Have a good one (got one, thanks). Tony ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 17:09:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #325 Actually, I think that's 22, not 23, and they assure me that they can have it flightworthy in a month or so for about $100,000 if I've got a program for it. As to what they're doing with it, well, it's on the same contract as the TIFS (Total In-Flight Simulator), the NT-33A, and the VISTA. They've agreed to maintain and operate these four aircraft for the Air Force. They're not really testing it but they're keeping it available for others to use as a testing tool. (I should mention that the two Learjets that I'm always using belong to Calspan, not the Air Force, but the only real difference to me is what kind of paperwork I have to generate to move the money.) 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, 7 Jul 1995 KavanaghNY@aol.com wrote: > What you described sounds like an experimental aircraft....the XV-23 I > believe. We have one of the experimental aircraft in a hangar owned by > Calspan here in buffalo. I do not know why they would still be testing that > aircraft unless the airframe happened to fit a the requirements for some new > equipment being tested. > > KavanaghNY ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 15:22:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Mary Shafer > > > Er, I just went over and looked at the SR-71 and I'm right and you're not. > > > Come back when you can play in the big leagues. > > > Regards, > > > Mary > > My my, aren't we special. No, she just has access to nicer "toys" than most of us... :) > > Major Mary you left out "Neener, neener, neener". > > Su Wei-Jen was firm in his convictions Indeed he was, which was a big part of the problem. > Unfortunately, I have to agree. The tone of Mary's message was uncalled for. Well, I thought she was right on the money. Anyone making such an obviously ridiculous claim about the SR-71 Machmeter deserves to be put in their place, and Mary did it quite expertly. > NASA gets a few AF hand-me-downs and suddenly they think they're Sierra Hotel. With "hand me downs" like that, i'd say they have every right. :) ------------------------------ From: MITErebent@aol.com Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 22:28:28 -0400 Subject: miscellaneous high speed stuff Larry said: >There is some CONJECTURE (on my part), based on what I've seen of >the internal geometry of the inlet, and what the shock trap does, and >also aided by general supersonic inlet theory, that, due to the internal >shapes of the inlet spike and cowl, that the inlet runs supercritical (the >normal shock is swallowed) while the inlet spike is retracting, until >the widest part of the inlet spike is seated in the shock trap, forming >the throat. At that point the inlet runs critical, the lowest loss >configuration. That seems reasonable based on what I know about supersonic inlets. By way of explanation, a supersonic inlet runs "supercritical" when the normal shock has passed aft of the inlet throat (the smallest area in inlet, where the flow velocity is mach 1). As the inlet geometry diverges from the throat, the flow re-accelerates above mach 1 and then terminates in a normal shock, taking the flow below mach 1. Supercritical operation is the most stable way to operate a supersonic inlet, and in order to become supercritical, the inlet has to "swallow" the shock past the throat, which may require variable geometry (to make the throat larger than needed for cruise airflow requirements) or bypass doors of some type. So, the SR inlet spike would have to move forward to first swallow the shock, then retract to position it as close to the inlet throat as possible (for the greatest pressure recovery efficiency), as well as position the external shock system on the cowl lip (clever folks, those LADP engineers). I do doubt that the SR-71 inlet runs "critical" (the normal shock is positioned at the inlet throat) since that is such an unstable operating condition. If you look at the normal shock tables you see that very small changes in area (i.e., on the order of boundary layer thicknesses) can result in significant changes in mach number, which in practical terms results in inlet buzz. Since the SR has a rather stable cruise point, it probably can operate its inlet much closer to critical than can a fighter, for instance, which may have a number of variable conditions such as rapid changes in altitude, angle of attack, or throttle setting, which would change the inlet operating conditions dramatically. In another posting, Larry said: >But, there was something in this chapter that should be of great interest >to this list. Milt said, in this high speed X-15 chapter, that one of the >experiments they flew (he indicated it was Pete Knight that actually flew >it - Pete's 4th flight in the A-2, if I recall), was an imaging test flight >at Mach 6! In other words, a flight to see what kind of image resolution >one could get at Mach 6! There's no indication as to what the results were. NASA has a rather nice film in their archives that was taken by the X-15 during one of those imaging flights. The film, if I remember correctly, was taken through a fused-quartz window mounted aft of the cockpit canopy that was staring aft. The film shows a nice view of where the X-15 had been, including shots of the Earth during climbout. They put the window in that location because of heating problems. I think that they put a similar system on the vertical tail of the space shuttle years later to look at the shuttle flow field. Eric ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #349 ********************************* 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).