From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #392 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 22 August 1995 Volume 05 : Number 392 In this issue: AE Re: Su-35 Re: Faster Than Light Travel Re: Su-35 Re: Su-35 TU-2000 Aerospace Plane LLV Launch Fails Pine Bush Sightings Off topic posts Re: Pine Bush Sightings 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: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 03:48:58 PDT Subject: AE To whom it may concern (and you know who you are!) I`m an engineer, I deal in the facts. If you want the truth, go see a freakin philosopher. Chuck ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 16:37:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Su-35 On Sun, 20 Aug 1995 Pionusman@aol.com wrote: > In a recent Popular Science, there was an article about the F-22 (sound > familiar.) The was about the simulator that the author got to test drive. > The article said that there were 4 threats on the display, and they were > Sukoi Su-35s. I have heard about the Su-27 (nato name "Flanker", but never > the Su-35. Is it under development like the F-22, or is it just a made up > aircraft. > > pionusman@aol.com > > PS What happend to The Su-28 through -34? If my memory doesn't fake me... I saw a picture of Su-35 model in AW&ST about 2 years ago. I don't know if they built it already or not (because of the military budged cut in Russia). The mission of the Su-35 is figther, very similar mission of the F-16. Look like a doble delta wing with canard (the shape is very similar to the Sweden J-37 Viggen). This is a one engine type aircraft too. I believe is a not a long-range interceptor like the Su-27 rather than short-range light-weight figter. The Su-32MK is a side-by-side bomber derivade from the Su-27. Basically, the similar airframe with upgrade in avionic and system (I believe is fly-by-wire). Two-seater was designated Su-34 when it first flew in 1993. There is a upgrade version of the Su-27 for landing in carrier with canard, I believe is assign as Su-27K... I am not sure. Live Long and Prosper Su Wei-Jen wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 01:28:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Faster Than Light Travel On Sat, 19 Aug 1995 Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com wrote: > Big question about FTL is: > If I travel at the speed of light, the distances in the direction of my velocity > become zero. The trip would take no time at all! How can I go any faster > than that!? So, if I am understanding... you guys are talking about time machine?? > > And if I could go faster than light, how long would it take? Negative time? > If that happened, velocity which is a relationship between distance and time, > would go negative. Oops. Now I`m going away from my intended destination. Travel to the past? Well, if you studied the physic theory "swirl", they "re-define" the time and space in different way. The space is no consider points, lines, etc in 3-D anymore... The theory talk something about chain of "swirl". I didn't really understood the theory because is physic for PhD. Too deep for my poor knowledge :P > The big problem with the "space warp" theories is that even if it could work, > the energy requirements would require you carry the mass of several Suns > along with you! Proponents of supra-light travel tend to omit this little > tidbit. > > "Why stabbest thou thus at the poet`s heart, > Vulture, who`s wings are dull realities?" E.A.Poe "Sonnet to Science" > > Chuck Smith > "Aerospace Engineer to the Stars" > > Live Long and Prosper Su Wei-Jen wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: Ian Deeley Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 17:00:12 +0100 Subject: Re: Su-35 At 16:37 20/08/95 -0400, you wrote: > > If my memory doesn't fake me... I saw a picture of Su-35 model in >AW&ST about 2 years ago. I don't know if they built it already or not >(because of the military budged cut in Russia). The mission of the Su-35 >is figther, very similar mission of the F-16. Look like a doble delta >wing with canard (the shape is very similar to the Sweden J-37 Viggen). >This is a one engine type aircraft too. I believe is a not a long-range >interceptor like the Su-27 rather than short-range light-weight figter. > As I understand it, the SU-35 is a SU-27 derivative, featuring the canard/foreplanes of the "sea flanker", vectored thrust capability, & advanced FBW. The airframe is identical to the SU-27, & therefore is twin engined. I'm almost certain that the SU-29 & SU-31 are prop driven specialist aerobatic aircraft, one of them is a two seater, the other solo. Which one is which, I'm afraid I couldn't tell you! ttfn, Ian. Ian Deeley Computer services "..even with an I.Q of 6000, School of Engineering it's still brown trouser University of Sussex / ^ \ time!!" Falmer, Brighton ---(.)==<-.->==(.)--- Holly R.D U.K '88 ZX-10 Mag Sport, BMF, Ogri #100, Tufty club. ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 12:02:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Su-35 On Sunday, August 20, 1995, wrote: >In a recent Popular Science, there was an article about the F-22 (sound >familiar.) The was about the simulator that the author got to test drive. >The article said that there were 4 threats on the display, and they were >Sukoi Su-35s. I have heard about the Su-27 (nato name "Flanker", but never >the Su-35. Is it under development like the F-22, or is it just a made up >aircraft. >PS What happend to The Su-28 through -34? In the USSR and, in some ways, now in the CIS, aircraft are designed by OKBs (construction bureaus), which also build the prototypes, while the series aircraft are usually built by different aircraft manufacturing plants. The OKBs assign their own designations to projects and prototypes, while the military later assigns their own military designations. Here are some OKB prototype designations and the later military designations: - Sukhoi prototype T-8, military designation Su-25, NATO 'Frogfoot'; - MiG prototype Ye-6, military designation MiG-21, NATO 'Fishbed'; - MiG Product 9, military designation MiG-29, NATO 'Fulcrum'; - Tupolev Tu-95, military designation Tu-20, NATO 'Bear'; For not very clear reasons, the USSR military used odd numbers for their fighter aircraft, and even numbers for bomber, attack, transport and other aircraft. This rule was not strictly enforced, and there are quite a few exceptions. Some prototype designations might have been used mainly for deception and security reasons. Non-military aircraft, and aircraft which were not procured by the military, are usually known by their OKB designations. In later years, export versions of military aircraft received different designations, like a Mi-24 'Hind' export version, which is known as Mi-35M; a MiG-29 export version called MiG-30, etc. The OKB Sukhoi -- named after Pavel Osipovitsh Sukhoi -- is not only known for its fighter and attack aircraft, but as well for its excellent aerobatic competition and trainer aircraft. They used a lot of different designation systems (as did MiG and others) and the assignment of designations to their prototypes and series aircraft was not necessarily always in numeric, sequential or chronological order: - DB-2, long-range bomber, 1930s; - Su-1, prototype I-330, high-altitude interceptor, 1940; - Su-2, military designation BB-1, ground attack aircraft, a modified version was known as ShB, 1940s; - Su-3, prototype I-360, high-altitude interceptor, 1941; - Su-4, ground attack aircraft, Su-2 version, 1941; - Su-5, prototype I-107, piston engine and jet engine, 1944/45; - Su-6, ground attack aircraft, in competition to Il-2, 1941; - Su-6/II, ground attack aircraft, in competition to Il-10, 1942/43s; - Su-7, modified Su-6, fighter with piston engine and jet engine, 1946; - Su-8, ground attack aircraft, two piston engines, 1944/45; - Su-9, more or less a copy of Me 262, aka Su-9(K), 1946; - Su-10, medium jet bomber prototype, 4 engines, 1947/48; - Su-11, modernized Su-9 with different engines, aka Su-11(LK), 1947/48; - Su-12, reconnaissance/observation aircraft, Fw 189 look-a-like, 1948; - Su-15, jet fighter with two jet engines (one exhaust under fuselage, like the MiG-9 etc. and one in the tail) and swept wings, aka Su-15(P), 1949; - Su-17, jet fighter with swept wings, like MiG-19 with one engine, aka Su-17(P), 1949; Sukhoi was closed down in 1949 (and integrated into the Tupolev OKB), but was re-established in 1953. Prototypes with swept wings were then usually given S-x designations (S - Strelovidnoye / arrow-shaped) and prototypes with delta wings (or straight wings) received T-x designations (T - Treugolnoye / triangular): - Su-7, jet fighter bomber, swept wings, prototypes S-1, S-2, S-22, etc. (originally believed to be designated 'Su-19'), + Su-7B, Su-7BM, Su-7BKL, NATO 'Fitter A'; + Su-7IG, Su-7G, S-22I swing wing prototypes, NATO 'Fitter B'; + Su-7U, trainer version, NATO 'Moujik'; - Su-9, like Su-7 but with delta wings, prototypes T-1, T-3, T-7, PT-7, T-43, T-431, T-49, T-405, etc., with modified air-intakes, engines, etc., (originally believed to be designated 'Su-21'), + T-3 prototype, NATO 'Fishpot A', + Su-9, fighter, Sukhoi T-43, NATO 'Fishpot B', + Su-9U, trainer version, NATO 'Maiden A'; - Su-11, modernized Su-9, prototypes PT-8, T-47, + Su-11, fighter, Sukhoi T-47, NATO 'Fishpot C', + Su-11U trainer version, NATO 'Maiden B'; - Su-15, jet fighter with cranked delta/double-delta wing and two engines, prototypes P-1, T-37, T-5, T-58, etc.; + Su-15, interceptor, prototype T-58, NATO 'Flagon A', + Su-15VD VTOL version, aka Su-15 DPD, T-58VD, NATO 'Flagon B', + Su-15U, trainer version, NATO 'Flagon C', + Su-15 with modernized engines, believed to be designated 'Su-21', NATO 'Flagon E', + Su-15 with modernized radar, believed to be designated 'Su-21', NATO 'Flagon F', - Su-17, jet fighter bomber, based on swing wing prototypes S-22I, Su-7IG, Su-7G, + Su-17, Su-17M, prototypes S-21, S-22, S-23, S-211, NATO 'Fitter C', + Su-17MK, modernized radar/engine, NATO 'Fitter D', + Su-17U, Su-17UM, trainer versions, NATO 'Fitter E', + Su-17M-3, modernized, NATO 'Fitter H', + Su-17M-4, modernized, NATO 'Fitter K', + Su-17R, armed reconnaissance version; - Su-20, export version of Su-17M, + Su-20, NATO 'Fitter C', + Su-20U, trainer version, NATO 'Fitter E'; - Su-22, advanced export version of Su-17MK/M-3/M-4, + Su-22, NATO 'Fitter F', + Su-22M, NATO 'Fitter J', + Su-22M-3, NATO 'Fitter H', + Su-22UM-3K, aka S-52UM-3K, trainer version, NATO 'Fitter G', + Su-22M-4, aka S-54M, NATO 'Fitter K'; - Su-24, jet attack aircraft/light bomber, prototypes T-6, T-6-1, T-6-2, etc., (originally believed to be designated Su-19), NATO 'Fencer', + Su-24 pre-production, NATO 'Fencer A', + Su-24, early production, NATO 'Fencer B', + Su-24, with RWR, NATO 'Fencer C', + Su-24MK, modernized, NATO 'Fencer D', + Su-24MR, reconnaissance/ELINT, NATO 'Fencer E', + Su-24MP, ELINT/ECM, NATO 'Fencer F'; - Su-25, jet attack aircraft, prototypes T-8, T-8-1, etc., NATO 'Frogfoot'; + Su-25, single-seat ground attack aircraft, SU-25K export version, NATO 'Frogfoot A', + Su-25UB, two-seat ground attack aircraft, Su-25UBK export version, NATO 'Frogfoot B', + Su-25BMK, target tug, + Su-25UT, aka Su-28, two-seat trainer, + Su-25UTG, two-seat aircraft carrier ground attack, + Su-25UBP, two-seat aircraft carrier trainer, + Su-25T, aka Su-34, anti-tank aircraft, Su-25TK export version, - Su-26, competition aerobatic aircraft; - Su-27, jet fighter, prototypes T-10, P-42, NATO 'Flanker', + Su-27, pre-production, NATO 'Flanker A', + Su-27B, air-superiority fighter, NATO 'Flanker B', + Su-27UB, two-seat trainer, NATO 'Flanker C', + T-10-24, aircraft carrier test aircraft, NATO 'Flanker B2', + Su-27 LL-PS, modified Su-27UB, test aircraft with canards and thrust vectoring (two-dimensional), + LMK-2405, modified Su-27 with sidestick controller, + T-10-?, aircraft carrier test aircraft with folding wings, + Su-27K, aka Su-33, aircraft carrier version with canards, NATO 'Flanker D', + Su-27PS, modified Su-27UB with air-refueling receiver, + Su-27IB, aka Su-27KU and Su-34, improved version (?), side-by-side two seat precision attack aircraft, + Su-27KU, military designation of Su-27IB, aka Su-34, side-by-side two seat precision attack aircraft, + Su-27M, aka Su-35, with canards and FBW, NATO 'Flanker Plus', - Su-28, military designation of Su-25UT, two-seat trainer; - Su-29, competition aerobatic aircraft, modernized Su-26; - Su-30, military designation of projected two-seat long-range strike/ interceptor/SEAD version of Su-27; - Su-32, two-seat primary trainer; - Su-33, military designation of Su-27K, aircraft carrier version with canards, folding wings, etc., NATO 'Flanker D'; - Su-34, military designation of Su-25T, Su-25TK, anti-tank version; - Su-34, improved Su-27IB or Su-27KU version (?), side-by-side two seat precision attack aircraft; - Su-35, military designation of Su-27M, with canards, FBW and axi-symmetric thrust vectoring; - Su-37, Multi-Role-Aircraft (MRA) project, Eurofighter 2000 / JAS-39 class; - Su-100, prototypes T-4, supersonic jet bomber; - T-60 bomber project; - S-80 STOL twin engine transporter project; This list is most likely incomplete, and could contain some errors -- any corrections and additions are, as always, appreciated. - -- 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: "Terry Colvin" Date: Mon, 21 Aug 95 10:15:01 EST Subject: TU-2000 Aerospace Plane Forwarded from Space Tech mailing list: Date: 19 Aug 1995 17:52:22 GMT From: Damon Hill Subject: Tu-2000 Aerospace Plane almost complete? The limited testing the Russians did with scramjet engines hardly qualifies the TU-2000 as a real vehicle if it doesn't have real engines. It's a very long way from engines that operate at low thrust for a few seconds to many thousands of pounds of thrust for many minutes or even hours. There's no reason to believe even Russian engine technology can get around the development challenges that scuttled the X-30 without a similar amount of money and effort. So I have difficulty believing this report is in any way accurate. - --Damon ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Mon, 21 Aug 95 12:31:31 EST Subject: LLV Launch Fails Date: 16 Aug 1995 20:31:32 -0400 From: DPEALER Subject: LLV Launch Fails Happened to be there to photograph the launch and attend the de-brief, where Rusty Schweikert (CTA Corporation - Gemstar satellite payload) appeared. The countdown was delayed by low visibility in the launch area until improving around 15:00:00. Ignition and liftoff at 15:30:10.25 (PDT) and first stage performance (Castor 120) was nominal by all indications. Appearing late in the burn a high pitch rate developed and control of the vehicle became questionable. Once in the coast phase, the first stage remained attached to second stage for a period of 1 minute. Payload fairing separation occurred nominally on time. Second stage ignition and separation occurred apparently nominally but under a high pitch rate condition. Velocity was low because of the vehicle's high AOA. The vehicle did not disentegrate but remained intact. The thrust vector control attempted to correct. Destruct command was issued by the range by 15:33:00 with the vehicle about 290.0 nm downrange and altitude about of 485,000 ft. The command was issued because the vehicle was no longer making velocity downrange and pointed in the wrong direction. They're not sure if it was a tumble with a high pitch. No damage to people or property and the debris impacted in deep water. There are no plans to recover the debris but analyze the available telemetry. Lockheed-Martin is still getting data to analyze to determine the actual cause of the high pitch rate. It will be several days before the board can make some conclusions. Tentative plans for the two other launches are still for next summer. Don Pealer Quest Magazine Writer ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Mon, 21 Aug 95 13:47:03 EST Subject: Pine Bush Sightings Near the end of this message are two legit questions germane to the readers of skunk-works. Skeptics may analyze at their leisure. Forwarded by: Terry W. Colvin or Fort Huachuca (Cochise County), Arizona USA "No editor ever likes the way a story tastes unless he pees in it first." -Mark Twain ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Pine Bush Sightings Author: Terry Colvin at FHU2 Date: 21/8/1995 10:39 AM I was at Pine Bush on August 11th and 12th. On the 11th I was with Paul Carleton and saw the same two unusual crafts. The first craft was seen from Albany Post Road as we were driving to the observation area on West Searsville Road. The second craft was seen from West Searsville Road. Paul's description matches what I saw. In addition I would like to note that the second craft flew over us. I estimate it was only a few hundred feet above us since it flew very close to the tree line in the distance. It appeared to be about 200 feet long. It made no sound whatsoever until after it passed us, at which time it made a sound like a jet engine but much softer. I estimate its speed at no more than 200 miles per hour, but I may be off somewhat on this since I have no reference point. I could clearly see the outline of the craft. It was delta shaped and clearly had no tail nor fuselage, as Paul stated. I have never seen a military or commercial jet travel so slowly as did this craft. It traveled only in a straight line (no hovering or abrupt turns). I photographed both crafts with ASA 400 color film. The photos show the lighting pattern Paul described, but were too dark to show the delta shape. I am going to enlarge two photos to see if the shape can be seen by doing this. I have never been to Pine Bush before this trip. I can not determine the source of these two crafts but I was very impressed that they looked and behaved differently than anything I've ever seen. I have seen pictures of the Stealth bomber and it's shape is different than what I saw at Pine Bush. The Stealth bomber is wider than it is long. The crafts at Pine Bush were longer than they were wide, thus I refer to them as delta shaped. I'd appreciate knowing if anyone knows if our military has any plane with this shape. Also, can anyone tell me what is the minimum speed needed to keep a jet in the air? Is there any explanation for why the craft was absolutely silent until after it passed over our head, at which point the jet sound was heard. Thanks Michael Borland,M.D.,Ph.D. - -> Send "subscribe FocusUFO-L" to misc@interport.net FAQ for FocusUFO-L is available at: http://www.interport.net/~misc/ ------------------------------ From: ConsLaw@aol.com Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 20:30:48 -0400 Subject: Off topic posts If you complain about a post being off topic, then you quote the off-topic post in full, are you really helping things? - -Conslaw (quotes deleted) ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (BYRON WEBER) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 18:02:44 Subject: Re: Pine Bush Sightings What you described sounds an aweful lot like the B-2. Two flew over my house at dusk on a Friday about two months ago. The sound, lights and slow pace were the same. I guessed their stealthiness extended even to the visual spectrum since it was difficult to estimate velocity, altitude and shape. I was only sure they were B-2's after seeing the lights and watching a banking turn that made the shape more identifiable. It almost looked the the plane pivoted instead of banked. If they were not B-2s, could they use the same technology? An aside note: what happened to Bissell after he was fired from the CIA for the Bay of Pigs event? Did he continue his interest in platforms? Anyone? The theoretical postulate to faster than light travel hypothesises more than 4 dimensions. Got a long way to go to prove more. Its still SMF despite claims to the contrary. (science mathmatical fiction) Byron Weber ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #392 ********************************* 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).