From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #427 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 19 September 1995 Volume 05 : Number 427 In this issue: Re: Jet engines SR71-Kelly comments Re: SR71-Kelly comments Re: Supersonic exhaust (was Jet Engines) Re: Does a small space glider exist? HF on F-117 Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #424 Re: F-117 on Carriers Re: Jet Engines RE: Skunk Works Digest V5 #426 Re: F-117 on Carriers Disappointment Re: Jet Engines Re: F-117's on Carriers Re: Disappointment Re: F-117s on Carriers Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #424 Boss of Skunk Works 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: erebenti@MIT.EDU (Eric S. Rebentisch) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 09:12:35 EDT Subject: Re: Jet engines Chuck said: >This is where jet engines fail. The thrust of a jet engine (turbo, fan, >SCRAM,,RAM, even >turboprops) falls off as the velocity increases. This can be easily >explained in terms >of momentum. The thrust is nothing more than the mass flow rate of air >multiplied >by the difference between the exit and inlet velocities. Since the Mach >number >at the exit of the combustion chamber cannot exceed Mach1, the fully >expanded >exhaust has a finite velocity. Since the exhuast velocity is fixed, as >the inlet velocity >increases (airspeed) the difference and hence the thrust, decreases >with speed. >Sooner or later the thrust will decrease to be equal with the drag and >you reach top speed. There are a number of limiting factors to jet engine performance at high speed (mostly related to the temperature). The exit velocity is not fixed, but depends on the expansion ratio of the nozzle (which depends on the altitude and freestream mach number, as well as the geometric constraints of the nozzle hardware). However, the range of exit velocities is not infinite, and eventually the difference between inflow and outflow become small. The primary theoretical performance limitation for jet engines in high-speed flight is that you can only add so much additional energy from fuel to an already highly energetic inlet flow. This problem is the primary motivation for investigating supersonic combustion since the more you slow down the incoming airflow, the more you convert its energy into heat. Hydrocarbon fuels only have so much energy content, so you would also eventually have to go with exotic fuels with higher speed flight at some point. The primary practical limitation to using jet engines for high speed flight is with materials. The turbine inlet temperature is a critical item, since it limits how much total energy can be handled by the engine (including air heated by compression and heat addition in the combustor). Another critical materials-related constraint is for materials for the final stages of the compressor. On an unrelated topic, the House armed services committee (or some subcommittee) gave the JAST program $150M to investigate a navalized version of the F-117 as a potentially cheaper and quicker alternative to the naval version of the JAST. Eric ------------------------------ From: mangan@Kodak.COM (Paul Mangan) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 09:51:16 EDT Subject: SR71-Kelly comments I just watched the SR71 AvWeek video that was presented on Discovery a few weeks ago. I thought that some of Kelly's comments were unique. One was that "the military probably wouldn't ever need anything faster than this" However all of his other comments separated the military and the CIA. I noticed the same thing from Ben Rich. As an example, It was stated that the military SR71 was designed to stay in international air space and gather intelligence but the CIA A12 was designed to go in right over the target and gather the info needed right there. There seemed to be consistant separation of Military and Government mission statements. Based on the above I have 2 questions. Did the CIA ever stop using the A12 or a derivative of it? and Does this imply that the CIA may have what we have been referring to as Aurora and that the Military doesn't. ( Replace the C in CIA with your favorite group of the month. ) Also, I noticed that the gauges in the SR71 indicated Mach 3 at 81,400 feet. Based on the recent conversations in this group, what speed does that really figure out to be. The referenced speed that the people being interviewed referred to was 35 miles per minute (2100mph) Other speeds have been referred to as Mach 1 being 620mph and 750mph. Is there one number that is generally referred to as Mach 1 in miles per hour. I also received my copy of Bell Aircraft Since 1935 and they have pictures of their U2 equivalent in there. I think they called it the DS-188( I'll recheck that). Neat piece of equipment. It was being built about the same time that my dad was going back and forth between The Skunk Works and Bell Aircraft(where he was employed). They also had a picture of the 4 fanned XV22 in there and talked about how it was short lived due to a crash in August of 1966. I saw it crash. After it hit the first time one of the rear fans sped up and twisted the rear section of the craft over 180 degrees. I helped the pilots get out as the crash truck came in from Bell Aircraft/Niagara Falls Airport. The crash site was on Hoover road in an open field on the Hoover Dairy property. The significance was that it was only a few feet from High Tension lines. I took photos of it and then had my camera taken away from me. Luckily I new several of the big shots there and they took it away from the security people and gave it back. Paul mangan@kodak.com ------------------------------ From: "Joseph F. Donoghue" Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 10:33:00 EDT Subject: Re: SR71-Kelly comments CIA pilot Frank Murray flew the final A-12 flight when he delivered the last aircraft to Palmdale from Area 51/the ranch/Groom Lake on or about June 18, 1968. The airframes remained in storage at Plant 42 until they were distributed to museums around the time of the first retirement of the SR-71 fleet. Joe ------------------------------ From: Mike.Mueller@jpl.nasa.gov (Mike Mueller) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 07:51:47 -0700 Subject: Re: Supersonic exhaust (was Jet Engines) Once upon a time, Chuck Smith arranged the phospers on my CRT to read: >>The thrust is nothing more than the mass flow rate of air multiplied >>by the difference between the exit and inlet velocities. Since the Mach >>number at the exit of the combustion chamber cannot exceed Mach1, the >>fully expanded exhaust has a finite velocity. Since the exhuast >>velocity is fixed, as the inlet velocity increases (airspeed) the >>difference and hence the thrust, decreases with speed. I'm not a propulsion dude (although I now work at the Jet Propulsion Lab) but I believe that exhaust can exit faster than Mach 1. This is why shock diamonds can be seen in SR-71 exhaust (and other afterburning engine exhaust). ------------------------------ From: David Windle Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 16:30:56 Subject: Re: Does a small space glider exist? >>I wrote: >Larry wrote: >>You can see that the HL-20 was far more than a >>paper plane..but whether it, or something like it ever got built is an >>open question..I still think niet Larry ! > >But I bet you wouldn't be surprised if it did! :) Not entirely :) Let's say it did.. how would you get it up there ?..I think I mentioned that the HL-20 would fit in the STS cargo bay..but that seems like a very expensive way to launch a prototype...what's your guess ?... I wonder if a smaller spacecraft could use Naiobium (Columbium) for the outer shell rather than the ceramic tiles of the STS Orbiter..I understand that this was considered for the Orbiter, but worked out to be too expensive. Alan "HOTOL" Bond's Skylon SSTO proposal would use an AEA ceramic composite reinforced with silicon carbide fibre called System 2 for the aeroshell to reduce maintenance..sounds like a very good idea to me. I don't know how much you know about Skylon, but it's well worth looking into. Best D ------------------------------ From: neil@bedford.progress.COM (Neil Galarneau) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 11:40:39 EDT Subject: HF on F-117 > I was not going to tackle the HF_antenna_on_F117 question, since all i can do > is speculate, but its semi expert speculation.... In World Airpower Journal Vol. 19 Winter 94, there is a large section on the F-117 including a 3D cutaway. It lists the following antennae: "Retractable VHF COMM antenna" which is a roundish rod just behind and below the window on the port side "Retractable communications antenna" which is blade-like and which is behind and to the starboard side of the refuelling receptacle (there may be another one of these on the undercarriage) and "Flush HF aerials" 2 patch like things between the apex and the refuelling receptacle - I don't know if there are more of them on other parts of the a/c plus a retractable rod-like one for the ILS. Apparently they are also testing stealthy satcom antennas for OCIP III. Neil neil@progress.com P.S. Someone commented that the 117's landing gear were strong to handle the heavy load of the aircraft. 2 2000 pounders isn't a heavy load. The AF would like to double it to 4 (according to WAJ). ------------------------------ From: Mike.Mueller@jpl.nasa.gov (Mike Mueller) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 08:58:22 -0700 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #424 Once upon a time, ConsLaw arranged the phospers on my CRT to read: >the F-117 as a replacement for the then-newly-cancelled A-12. No one knows >more about carrier aircraft than Grumman. It wouldn't surprise me if an >arrester hook was fitted to a F-117 on an experimental basis. Also, it is The F-117A has always had an arrester hook in the aft underbelly to stop the a/c should the parachute fail to deploy. Its breaks are rather weak due to space restrictions. Some (all?) base runways have wires near the ends for this purpose. The F-117A does not have the structure needed for reliably stopping on a carrier deck using this hook, however. ------------------------------ From: Mike.Mueller@jpl.nasa.gov (Mike Mueller) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 08:59:10 -0700 Subject: Re: F-117 on Carriers Once upon a time, ConsLaw arranged the phospers on my CRT to read: >the F-117 as a replacement for the then-newly-cancelled A-12. No one knows >more about carrier aircraft than Grumman. It wouldn't surprise me if an >arrester hook was fitted to a F-117 on an experimental basis. The F-117A has always had an arrester hook in its aft underbelly to stop the a/c (on land runways) in an emergency should the braking parachute fail to deploy. The original brakes were weak because of space limitations in the wheelwells needed to maintain a stealthy shape. It also has structure to support the hook, a central spar that splits the payload area into 2 bomb bays. In addition, I believe that the landing gear is the same as the F/A-18. Even with all of these things, the F-117A was not designed to land on a carrier. Lockmart is pushing a F-117N version (check the list archives) to the navy but it is a redesign with significant structural, material, and aerodynamic differences. ------------------------------ From: "R. Lee Hawkins" Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 12:03:20 -0400 Subject: Re: Jet Engines In your message dated: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 20:52:42 CDT you write: > >This raises a question in my mind about the maximum speed of the airframe, >since the maximum speed of a boat is 1.3 * (the square root of the length of >the boat), does the same axiom hold true for an aircraft. Actually, it's 1.3 * sqr(waterline distance) in *general*. For some designs, it can be as high as 1.6 * sqr(waterline distance). Cheers, - --Lee ------------------------------ From: Mike Freeman Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 12:05:35 -0400 Subject: RE: Skunk Works Digest V5 #426 - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BA8688.4B669C00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > No one knows more about carrier aircraft than Grumman.=20 Aren't you forgetting McDonnell Douglas? After all, they are the ones=20 still producing the F/A-18. When was the last time Grumman built an F-14? Well, the F-14D is just a couple of years old. It would surprise me. You have two problems with an arrestor hook on an F-117. The first is what to attach it to. The second is to make it = able to stand up to a carrier landing. I believe what this came from was an artist's conception of the = Navalized F-117 that Lockheed gave to the Navy. They ran this photo in = Popular Mechanics or Popular Science back around January or December. = The only thing that looked like the current plane was the nose section. = It had different, straighter wings, afterburning engines, and a couple = of other changes. The second problem is the main one. Just because a plane has a = tailhook, does not mean that it is suited to land on a carrier. I have seen = F-15's=20 with tailhooks. I have never seen or heard of one landing on a carrier. Pretty much all of our fighter planes have tail hooks, just so they can = opperate better from short "forward" airstrips. I heard that the first = time the F-117 went to Paris, they had to use the tail hook. They said = that because of the high landing speed, and the length of the = runway,despite having a drag chute, they deployed a wire system, and it = was a good thing too. That sucker plowed right into them. - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BA8688.4B669C00 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IgQQAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG AHABAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAGcAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAABza3Vuay13b3Jrcy1kaWdlc3RAZ2FpYS51Y3Mub3JzdC5lZHUAU01UUABza3Vuay13 b3Jrcy1kaWdlc3RAZ2FpYS51Y3Mub3JzdC5lZHUAAB4AAjABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgADMAEA AAAlAAAAc2t1bmstd29ya3MtZGlnZXN0QGdhaWEudWNzLm9yc3QuZWR1AAAAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+ DwYAAAAeAAEwAQAAACcAAAAnc2t1bmstd29ya3MtZGlnZXN0QGdhaWEudWNzLm9yc3QuZWR1JwAA AgELMAEAAAAqAAAAU01UUDpTS1VOSy1XT1JLUy1ESUdFU1RAR0FJQS5VQ1MuT1JTVC5FRFUAAAAD AAA5AAAAAAsAQDoBAAAAAgH2DwEAAAAEAAAAAAAAAwZSAQiABwAYAAAASVBNLk1pY3Jvc29mdCBN YWlsLk5vdGUAMQgBBIABAB8AAABSRTogU2t1bmsgV29ya3MgRGlnZXN0IFY1ICM0MjYAPQkBBYAD AA4AAADLBwkAEwAMAAUAIwACACQBASCAAwAOAAAAywcJABMACwA5AA0AAgBBAQEJgAEAIQAAAEU2 NDFGOTE0NzhGMkNFMTFCMjQxNDQ0NTUzNTQwMDAwANAGAQOQBgAkBgAAEAAAAAsAIwAAAAAAAwAm AAAAAAALACkAAAAAAAMANgAAAAAAQAA5AODU/MCphroBHgBwAAEAAAAfAAAAUkU6IFNrdW5rIFdv cmtzIERpZ2VzdCBWNSAjNDI2AAACAXEAAQAAABYAAAABuoapwPwU+UHn8ngRzrJBREVTVAAAAAAD AAYQHmco8AMABxBsBAAAHgAIEAEAAABlAAAATk9PTkVLTk9XU01PUkVBQk9VVENBUlJJRVJBSVJD UkFGVFRIQU5HUlVNTUFOQVJFTlRZT1VGT1JHRVRUSU5HTUNET05ORUxMRE9VR0xBUz9BRlRFUkFM TCxUSEVZQVJFVEhFTwAAAAACAQkQAQAAANYEAADSBAAAxwcAAExaRnWz2vT2/wAKAQ8CFQKoBesC gwBQAvIJAgBjaArAc2V0MjcGAAbDAoMyA8UCAHByQnER4nN0ZW0CgzN3AuQHEwKAfQqACM8J2Tvx Fg8yNTUCgAqBDbELYOBuZzEwMxRQCwoUUasL8hNQbxPQYwVAPgewBG8gAiBlIGtub+53BCAEYBYQ IAGgCGAFQE5jCsAIghxgaXIFAGEZAYAgdBGAA6BHcnUSbQOBLiAKi2xpM342GpEZ7xryCoUHEAnw J5UFQHkIYCACEHJnEcDKdAuAZwXQY0QCIBuQJmwDICNAdWcLYHM/XiAUsAGAHSIjkCwd0WX+eRxg HEElERtyBCAKhRPAxwMQAyAasWR1YyLiJaJARi9BLTE4HqAg9lclIAOgdyQQJZMkAR3B4wdxHiYg YnUDEAVAAHDlCoVGKBA0PwqHIAoevH0f/GMAQChgI4Ek8ytDRKIgBAAganUpYWEcwNcIYAtQJcFm IiBlEZEbcHhsZC4tBR7PH98axUn9BUB3CGAxoCaQCHATUAQAtxugB4AoQVkiQRGAdiWB/zUAJvIC YBPgBCAD8B3gKrEPJVEWEBPABbFob29rUxtxKrsxNyhBVCWxZvcdYClhL/F3EYAdwRtgOzB/AZAR cC/gO0I6FRGwBaBu7zVAL/E7YQDAaxugPAEBoP8w0C0FO2ETwABwNUAwsDtT+xzHGPFkIuExxi1/ LoVA1b5JKlAjgAiQNqE7FGgv8X8c0CmxA1IoszfzItATwCfTRFECIGNlBTBpOQExAc0lok42kAdA aXoJgDm0wx3SBUBMb2NrJSBHoe5nNpMbYEb1eR6gOkElQHcdkAOgRCNwOLA7YQuAINhQb3A1IArB TQWQHfHcaWMxcQXAS6ZTJ1AJ8H9GQCpQANA44ArACGA9AUrdAHB1CsAlQAWxRAWQE+DtQ1ByShMb cWwlQEQhJ3N/OzEVoDjQR6EzED2xJaJj/whwIdEFQAtRG5EoxhvQNcH/PMFGch6gNNERgDVAQIAN 0B8EkFKBJPATwB2QaWdo9ySCA/AZEHMk8B2hBJAqYPcEoCLiCfBnC4AHkFahPQG/MHoa0CUgBcBM QiKgc0DI/zOPIRkyv1rfPIk3FT0jJbHvAMBLcRuBKEFKMDJDUBzQfzAwHFFStRGARTEd0AtwbOU4 sixA1WRvB5Eb0AVA/weASpM7MTwBL/E1YDewR6H/O2FAUjjzHMYoQUMwNoMRsPsokStRNUXhQNU3 o2J2WeD/ZscbkDagJoFnYjiCMUFl0X9ZARuRQFVl7EDfQe9tMlD3FhACQCVAbSdAN9EjkVjy/whw OnFV9FLDBCA2hGKBOKN7VpEwI3NJcyVAHNBGoXB+cASQOzBN0SKxHSFEw3NzOLAAICAiInEowAsg Iv8dQlWhBSBpUWbhavNIMyWibzqEKZMvVUgBd1KCO2FQ/wrABAAk9VSyO2FhUiWichf9ShVzC3B3 RWEWRsVEMFXw/Wunc3QACYBYBCkDV5E3wctGxR5AbijAeSwNsH7Q72UhNnIi4jBwZB2QIwARcN0c oGUk9Q2wC1BvMTBYQvsD8BxBcxOzWAQ8AUUTSQD/OMB3QidjOMBKEjsxNWBIoH9xIxvgR6EFEFXx S2FJZG0LMcYVMQCJYAAAAwAQEAEAAAADABEQAQAAAEAABzDgXSeWqIa6AUAACDDgXSeWqIa6AR4A PQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAAAAAAJvU= - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BA8688.4B669C00-- ------------------------------ From: sschaper@pobox.com (Steve Schaper) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 11:33:52 -0500 Subject: Re: F-117 on Carriers Considering that they cancelled that A-12, we do need something. ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 13:09:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Disappointment I got blown out of my F-18 and F-16 VISTA flights by an ear infection. I'm rescheculed for either December in Buffalo or February here at EDW. In either case, I'll report the results immediately. 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: Dave Cox Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 10:57:52 +7 Subject: Re: Jet Engines >In your message dated: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 20:52:42 CDT you write: >> >>This raises a question in my mind about the maximum speed of the airframe, >>since the maximum speed of a boat is 1.3 * (the square root of the length of >>the boat), does the same axiom hold true for an aircraft. > >Actually, it's 1.3 * sqr(waterline distance) in *general*. For some >designs, it can be as high as 1.6 * sqr(waterline distance). Ahh, but this is for deep displacement hulls, not hulls which _plane_. ------------------------------ From: Brian R Hutchison Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 11:29:32 -0800 (PDT) Subject: Re: F-117's on Carriers LURK DISENGAGED Not to take anything away from AF pilots but, qualifying a pilot for carrier duty is an involved process. You also have to keep doing it to stay proficient. It would be quite an investment to make. I think the AF opts for longer missions with in-flight refueling. This is just my opinion from talking with carrier pilots and watching TV shows. It might be wrong but I haven't seen this aspect of the problem mentioned. Note: No service bias intended. Hi Mary! Thanks, ooOOOO ___ Brian Hutchison oo _____ ______|O|_____ _I__n_n__||_|| ________ | O O O | Microwave Technology Division >(_________|_7_|-|______|-_|__________|_- Hewlett Packard Company /o ()() ()() o oo oo oo oo INTERNET : brianrh@sr.hp.COM LURK ENGAGED ------------------------------ From: tullman.robert@ehccgate.sandoz.com Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 14:31:01 -0400 Subject: Re: Disappointment Mary, >I got blown out of my F-18 and F-16 VISTA flights by an ear infection. :( Gee I was looking forward to the stories and new pictures on the Web Site! >I'm rescheculed for either December in Buffalo AAACK! BRRRRR! I spent 4 very cold snowy Decembers in Buffalo (including the infamous Winter of '77). Don't count on much getting off the ground (except what's standing on Snow Drifts) BTW, have there been any trinket-laden SR-71 flights this year? Bob ********************************************************* Bob Tullman tullman@sandoz.com bobtull@planet.net http://www.planet.net/bobtull ------------------------------ From: hlapa@Zeus.signalcorp.com Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 14:19:58 EST Subject: Re: F-117s on Carriers No, it is not easy to modify an acft to be carrier-capable, especially these days. Check out the T-45A Goshawk lesson -- the BAe Hawk had delightful flight characteristics to start, won the fly-off, but turned out to be a *real bear* to navalize, esp wrt CV landing characteristics. It's hardly even a Hawk-derivative at this point. It is, however, relatively easy to design the capability in up front; it's just harder to be fast, long-ranged, maneuverable, etc, with all that extra structure. (F-18 w/warload procedure: Take off, look for tanker, update computer, look for tanker, talk to AWACS, look for tanker, drop bombs...look for -- you get the picture.) Forty-fifty years ago, you could get a Spitfire, Vampire, or even a C-130, onto the deck and back off again without a lot of muss or fuss. The limitations of current arresting gear almost kept upgraded F-14s from going to sea. I wonder if a F-117 has ever tried a simulated wave-off during some just-for-fun FCLP? By the time a '117 got sea legs, it wouldn't be a '117 anymore. It *will* need V/G. Seems like evidence of political ignorance of things military/technical. Someone in Congress expects to somehow save money with this bonehead idea? Maybe if they just gave a bunch of $$ to the "House that Kelly" built, but not if they want to be involved. It's not a matter of simply restarting the line and putting a few mods on the next block of black airplanes. Watch the slow-mo film of an F-14 being drop-tested at Bethpage to demonstrate meeting CV landing requirements. It takes much more than beefy landing gear!! Just a few somewhat informed opinions. Regards, Hank (Disclaimer, disclaimer, disclaimer . . . ) ------------------------------ From: clarence@spooky.chinalake.navy.mil (Clarence Dent) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 14:13:57 -0800 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #424 >From: ConsLaw@aol.com >Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 19:52:58 -0400 >Subject: F-117 on Carriers > It wouldn't surprise me if an >arrester hook was fitted to a F-117 on an experimental basis. It probably was omitted for stealth and weight concerns. The air force doesn't use them that much, but it is a nicety to have in some environs. I'm sure all AF pilots are trained in the use of them, as all Navy pilots *have* to be!... . Of course, >on the skunk front, U-2s have taken off from carriers. I don't know if >they've landed on the ships or not. Perhaps someone on this list would know. I have a picture of a U-2 that landed on a carrier at sea. I also have seen a picture of a C-130 that landed on the deck of a carrier (how else did it get there?). I think the C-17 could do it with the right wind conditions, but I'm not sure. I won't be surprised if I see the pictures of it sometime soon though!... >The bottom line: From an engineering standpoint, it's not that difficult to >modify an aircraft for carrier operations. In addition to adding the hardware >for stopping and starting, sometimes there has to be structural strengthening I disagree. Not just sometimes. Always. The F/A-18 is such an example. The losing aircraft of the Air Force flyoff had to be somewhat redesigned structurally. The result was the F/A-18 with almost half the range of the YF-17 and considerable more weight. Compare the landing gear sometime. It is considerably different. If you ever get to go to Pensacola Florida, they have one of these birds in excellent condition. I highly recommend the museum... Another thought, the paint, the finish, the electronics, the bombs, the structure itself all have to be able to weather salt spray corrosion adequately. That is one significant reason why air force aircraft can't be used on Navy carriers. Many AF planes have tailhooks for short field landing, but it stresses the airframe significantly. An AF plane with tailhook probably could not land on a carrier more than once without significant repairs. And it couldn't take off again with the catapult if it actually landed without damage. >to handle the arrested landings. Some modifications are more successful than >others. The best carrier planes tend to be those designed for it from >scratch, but if it would serve a vital mission, I wouldn't be surprised if an >F-117 has been, or will be modified for the task. I agree here. I've heard talk of a Navy F-117N proposal. Don't expect a prototype though. It would be even more difficult (and probably more toxic) to produce a stealth paint finish that wouldn't allow corrosion of the metal underneath. I think the Navy also uses a different kind of fuel than the AF as well. Anyone out there with more thoughts on this?... Clarence@spooky.chinalake.navy.mil "Jet Noise: The sound of a paycheck" ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 18:33:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Boss of Skunk Works Hello. I just want to ask a very stupid question (sense I have been in the Skunk Works mailing list for 3 months): Who is the head of the actual Skunk Works team? I mean the succesor of the Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich. Thanks in advance... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #427 ********************************* 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).