From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #430 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 21 September 1995 Volume 05 : Number 430 In this issue: IRC Re: F-117/U-2/C-130s on carriers Re: why units don't work out in the formula for boat speed [was: Re: Jet Engines] Re: why units don't work out in the formula for boat speed [was: Re: Jet Engines] Re: IRC To catch a UFO... F-117 call signs Re: F-117/U-2/C-130s on carriers Lessons from the cancelled A-12 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: Wei-Jen Su Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 17:51:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: IRC Hello "Hot Shots" Hey, why don't create a channel in IRC name #Skunk-Works ? That is a way we can communicate more directly and faster... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: John Clear Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 17:47:51 -0500 Subject: Re: F-117/U-2/C-130s on carriers In message , you wrote: > >I've got the video tape of the C-130 going onto and off of the carrier. > >It's my understanding that this was an experiment and the aircraft was as > >light as they could make it. > > I'm curious Mary, did they use the JATO rocket packs on takeoff? I saw the > plane land, or maybe it was a still of it already on the carrier, but I had > no additional info than that. I've been on carriers, and they are really > wide, but not long. How much of the deck did the plane need to land? Do > you think we could get a C-17 on a carrier? I grabbed this off of usenet awhile back... - ---------- From: geoffm@purplehaze.EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military Subject: C-130 carrier Trials (was: carrier launch without catapult) Date: 31 Aug 1994 18:11:04 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Message-ID: <342h3o$9jk@male.EBay.Sun.COM> References: <33vq6t$9jk@male.EBay.Sun.COM> Reply-To: geoffm@purplehaze.EBay.Sun.COM NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.ebay.sun.com Okay, the straight dope on the C-130 carrier trials is as follows: The trials were conducted aboard USS Forrestal (CVA-59) in October, 1963. The aircraft involved was a USMC KC-130F. Modifications to the aircraft comprised the installation of an improved antiskid braking system and the removal of the external fuel tanks. A sink rate of 9 feet per second was employed, with the first landings made with a 40-knot wind over the flight deck. The crew included a pilot, copilot, flight engineer and a Lockheed flight test pilot. Twenty-nine touch and goes and 21 full-stop landings were made without the benefit of arresting gear. The propellers were reversed while the aircraft was still a few feet above the flight deck. These were followed by 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights ranging from 85,000 to 121,000 pounds. (To put that into perspective, the maximum takeoff weight for the C-130E, on which the KC-130F is based, is 135,000 pounds, with 155,000 pounds permitted in emergency wartime situations.) At the lower weight, the airplane came to a stop in 270 feet, which was just over twice its wingspan of 132 feet. At the higher gross weight, landings required 460 feet. Takeoffs required 745 feet. A special offset "centerline" was painted on the flight deck for the trials. Reference: _C-130 Hercules_, by Arthur Reed (Ian Allen, 1984) Geoff - -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems geoffm@purplehaze.EBay.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Milpitas, California - -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- - ---------- ------------------------------ From: Dick King Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 16:33:05 PDT Subject: Re: why units don't work out in the formula for boat speed [was: Re: Jet Engines] - -------- >> >> From: Nick Barnes >> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 09:37:28 +0100 >> Subject: Re: Jet Engines >> >> > 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). >> >> Bzzt. My bad dimensionality detector just went off. Can someone >> explain how this formula is derived, so those of us who don't choose >> to work in nanoparsecs per fortnight (or whatever) can figure out the >> constant for themselves? >> >> Nick Barnes, speaking for himself I don't know the fine detail but the key issue is the speed of waves whose wavelength is comparable to the waterline distance. This speed varies as the square root of that wavelength. I guess that means that there would be no identical phenomenon for aircraft, since the speed of sound is the same at all wavelengths. However, if you double the dimensions of an aircraft you quadruple the wing area but octuple the weight, so you must fly sqrt(2) times as fast to generate enough lift [since lift is approximately proportional to square of speed, all else being equal]. - -dk ------------------------------ From: Dick King Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 16:40:12 PDT Subject: Re: why units don't work out in the formula for boat speed [was: Re: Jet Engines] - -------- >> >> From: Nick Barnes >> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 09:37:28 +0100 >> Subject: Re: Jet Engines >> >> > 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). >> >> Bzzt. My bad dimensionality detector just went off. Can someone >> explain how this formula is derived, so those of us who don't choose >> to work in nanoparsecs per fortnight (or whatever) can figure out the >> constant for themselves? >> >> Nick Barnes, speaking for himself I don't know the fine detail but the key issue is the speed of waves whose wavelength is comparable to the waterline distance. This speed varies as the square root of that wavelength. I guess that means that there would be no identical phenomenon for aircraft, since the speed of sound is the same at all wavelengths. However, if you double the dimensions of an aircraft you quadruple the wing area but octuple the weight, so you must fly sqrt(2) times as fast to generate enough lift [since lift is approximately proportional to square of speed, all else being equal]. - -dk ------------------------------ From: Brad Swanson Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 18:50:34 -0500 Subject: Re: IRC Not everyone has IRC capabilities. I am just a user. The corporate entity that signs my paychecks would probably not go for the IRC software and/or server space needed for "chat sessions." That may or may not apply to others on the list, but I, as a faithful reader, like to read my e-mail at my leisure. In other words, I don't want to miss anything. > Hello "Hot Shots" > Hey, why don't create a channel in IRC name #Skunk-Works ? > That is a way we can communicate more directly and faster... > May the Force be with you > Su Wei-Jen > wsu02@barney.poly.edu Brad Swanson !nterprise Networking Services from U S West ------------------------------ From: Michael G Schwern Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 22:07:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: To catch a UFO... [I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but this is probably the best place for this post...] I hate gross technical inaccuracies in films (a la "Hackers")... I'm writing a screenplay and I want try to be as precise as possible, so I ask you skunkers for a bit of help. The question... how could one detect and shoot down a UFO? A few clarifications: A UFO meaning joe-average flying saucer. The kind that flies rings around conventional aircraft, gives radar operators headaches and then flies straight up at Mach 10, disappearing. When I say shoot-down I mean just that, somehow force the thing onto the ground, landing or crashing, doesn't matter. The setting is 1999, a multinational, "black" organization funded by world governments is attempting to stop a covert alien invasion (stop laughing, its a serious film... really...) and its a movie, so reality can be pushed. So you can have fun with all the theoretical technologies you want...(this is the skunky part of the message) pulse-jets, S-CRAM jets, sub-orbital gliders, the "Aurora" project, elaborate EW techniques, SDI, whatever you can come up with from any country. Anything modern and post-modern technology can throw up against a vastly technologically superior but badly outnumbered foe. As this post is off-topic, please respond to me via email... Thanks. BTW This screenplay is based off the Microprose computer game "X-Com: UFO Defense" ("UFO: Enemy Unknown" is the Microprose-UK release for those of you in Europe) ------------------------------ From: "Dave Batcho, N5JHV" <74603.1052@compuserve.com> Date: 20 Sep 95 22:35:10 EDT Subject: F-117 call signs Kathryn and Andreas -- In answer to your question about how the F-117's are assigned radio callsigns: The truth is I don't think we know for sure. I'll forward your post to the comm monitors listserv and see what response we get. In the mean time, after having monitored this stuff for several years my opinions are: (1) most tactical calls for ACC aircraft seem to be based on the either the mission and/or the unit and probably not based on the pilots or crew. For example the Brit F-117 jockey (whose accent is of course quite distiguishable) has been heard using several different calls although he usually is heard using SPEAR ##. (2) the number seems to be associated with day/operation/mission (or a 'flight') and probably not the pilot or crew. However, the AMC a/c (the old MAC) usually use the generic callsign REACH followed by the actual tail number of the aircraft for routine flights. There are a lot of variations on this theme however. Coincidently, as I am typing this I just heard the Brit up on UHF using SPEAR 24. I have logged him using many different SPEAR ##'s but the numbers are always digits in the 10's or 20's. The numbers always seem to be sequential during any given (training) mission. For example I might hear SPEAR 21, 22, 23, 24, 26 up at the same time with BURNER 12, 13, 14, etc. You get the picture. F-117 callsigns heard operating around Holloman the past year or so include: BANDIT, BRAHMA, BURNER, CHAPS, CHEETAH, CRISPY, FLEX, HAIL, ICE, JAVA, JEEP, RAIN, RAM, RIDER, SHADY, SNOW, SPEAR, SPOOKY, and VAPOR. (As I write this SPEAR, SPOOKY, JAVA and CHEETAH flights are up on UHF getting ready to areal refuel with UTAH 52, a KC-135 from the 151st ARG, Utah ANG. During the refuel SPOOKY 04 gives his tail number tothe boom operator as 810793) I'll let you know what I hear from some of the other guys on the military monitoring listserv. Dave ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 22:57:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: F-117/U-2/C-130s on carriers No, no JATO. The C-17 is too big (wing span) and too heavy to fit. It's just physics. 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 Wed, 20 Sep 1995, Clarence Dent wrote: > >I've got the video tape of the C-130 going onto and off of the carrier. > >It's my understanding that this was an experiment and the aircraft was as > >light as they could make it. > > > >The QSRA (Quiet Short-Haul Research Aircraft), a modified Bison, also > >landed and took off from a carrier. No wires, no catapult. They really > >meant that "S". The QSRA had USB (upper surface blown) flaps, which > >is how it worked. > > > >Regards, > >Mary > > > I'm curious Mary, did they use the JATO rocket packs on takeoff? I saw the > plane land, or maybe it was a still of it already on the carrier, but I had > no additional info than that. I've been on carriers, and they are really > wide, but not long. How much of the deck did the plane need to land? Do > you think we could get a C-17 on a carrier? > > Clarence@spooky.chinalake.navy.mil > > > "Jet Noise: The sound of a paycheck" > > > ------------------------------ From: ConsLaw@aol.com Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 00:52:52 -0400 Subject: Lessons from the cancelled A-12 Steve Schaper (Sschaper@pobox.com) commented: >Considering that they cancelled that A-12, we do need something. I agree. The Navy was really left without a backup. They had to quickly switch gears and claim that they could make due with a variant of the F-18, an alternative which they rejected when the A-12 was proposed. It's amazing that they (whoever "they" are) have been able to play down the abject failure of the A-12 project. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times I've seen it in the mainstream press - and I'm a media junkie. The most specific stories concerned allegations that workers were instructed to shift costs to and from the A-12 and other projects depending upon which projects were within their budgets. Of course, anyone who's had any training in cost accounting knows that when preliminary work benefits more than one account, there are a lot of judgment calls in the allocation of costs. The A-12 program is a lesson in the strengths and weaknesses of secrecy, but it's a lesson most of us haven't been allowed to learn. Even though the existence of the program was well-known, leaks of details were and are minor. All I've heard is that the program was overbudget, the performance wasn't there and some congressmen were p..sed off about it. One triangle shaped model was publicly released. It is a shame that we (those in the industry and those responsible for determining policy as well, including John Q. Public) haven't been able to at least learn some lessons from the money we spent. If anybody else has any details, please post them. I've also noticed a possible trend that "stealth" designs need a lot of fine tuning to reach the results predicted by the models. I've seen news stories criticizing the stealth performance of the B-1B, B-2, F-22, and the A-12. In every case, the response was "give us time," and in at least some of the cases, the critics died down. Perhaps the performance did improve. How do you know when to go on, and when to give up? ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #430 ********************************* 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).