From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #436 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 26 September 1995 Volume 05 : Number 436 In this issue: Re: Lansen (not Lansen) Frozen Chickens Navalized F-117 status report Frozen Chickens (more on) Re: The proof is in the chicken Re: Frozen Chickens (more on) Re: Frozen Chickens (more on) F-117A at RAF Coltishall Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #431 Aurora & Blackbird Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #435 Re: Frozen Chickens (more on) Re: Frozen Chickens (more on) Re: Frozen Chickens (more on) 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: "Stefan 'Stetson' Skoglund" Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 09:25:22 +0100 Subject: Re: Lansen (not Lansen) Was I drunk or not then I wrote about a Lansen ?? It was a J-29 Flying Barrel (Flygande Tunnan). The name is due to the fact that the engine is rather fat. The compressor is a centrifugal dito. ------------------------------ From: George Allegrezza 25-Sep-1995 0816 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 08:23:15 EDT Subject: Frozen Chickens I originally heard the story from a relative who was pretty high up at GE, although not in the Aero Engines Business. Supposedly it happened in the 1960s during testing of the GE4, the huge afterburning turbojets that were intended for the Boeing 2707 SST. Said relative swore up and down it was true. Well, as my friend Owen O'Neil says, "It's a great story. And if it isn't true, it should be." George George Allegrezza | Digital Equipment Corporation | "Fiat lives in its own hermetic universe Mobile Systems Business | [which] is beyond our understanding." Littleton MA USA | allegrezza@ljsrv2.enet.dec.com | -- Leon Mandel ------------------------------ From: MiGEater1@aol.com Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 09:42:09 -0400 Subject: Navalized F-117 status report From INTERCEPTS NET NEWS; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CHARLESTON, S.C.--Sep. 9--Standing several feet from an artist's drawing of a Navy stealth fighter streaking past minarets and mosques, S.C. officials began their lobbying campaign Friday for the airplane. Should Congress provide funding for the Navy to get its first stealth aircraft, it will mean 250 new jobs at the Lockheed Martin plant here and at least 100 others elsewhere in South Carolina. Lockheed Martin, maker of the Air Force's F-117A stealth fighter, is lobbying Congress for money to convert the F-117 design into a plane that can fit the Navy's needs. "We've done a lot to make this a good aircraft for the Navy," said Paul Martin, vice president of F-117 programs for Lockheed Martin's plant in Palmdale, Calif. "This is very cost-effective," Martin said, describing how his company will reshape the batlike Stealth fighter into a warplane capable of landing on a pitching carrier deck. Buying modern military aircraft is one of the most difficult challenges for Congress and the Pentagon. There is little margin for error: New planes sometimes take more than a decade to produce and a single fighter can cost up to $70 million. The push for a Navy version of the popular F-117A is part of a larger debate over how the United States can best modernize its aging fleet of fighters. While the U.S. is still considered the world's leader in quality, such venerable warplanes as the F-14, F-15 and F-18 are based on 1970s designs. In the past, the Pentagon has seemed a bit like the sprawling bureaucracy of General Motors. Each of the services has its own aircraft, with different designs, parts and maintenance requirements. In order to cut costs and create efficiency, the Pentagon has embarked on a plan to create one effort to fulfill all of the services' needs for new planes. The JAST, or joint advanced strike technology, will try to produce new fighters for the Navy, Air Force and Marines. But it's unclear if JAST will satisfy all of them because their needs are radically different. The Air Force wants a replacement for its small, agile F-16; the Marines want a vertical-takeoff fighter; and the Navy wants a plane to replace its A-6 "Intruder." The Air Force stealth fighter was the star of Desert Storm. The radar- avoiding aircraft was given the most difficult bombing missions of the war. None was shot down. While the Senate has agreed to fund the Navy stealth plan next year, the House has provided no money. S.C. politicians, Lockheed Martin and the Navy will try to convince House members to provide funding to develop a demonstration Navy stealth plane in next year's budget. Should that happen, Charleston stands to gain. Michael Cosentino, manager of the Lockheed Martin plant in Charleston, said funding the A/F-117X would provide 250 "high-tech, high-paying" jobs at the plant, plus another 100 for local suppliers. Cosentino said the average wage of production workers at his plant is more than $18 an hour, compared with just over $10 an hour in South Carolina. The Charleston plant's employment has fallen considerably since the defense boom of the mid-1980s, when it had more than 650 workers. Today, the plant employs only 86. If the Navy stealth fighter is approved, the Lockheed Martin plant in Charleston will make most of the plane's nonmetallic parts, including all of its panels and doors. Sensing the House will provide money for the A/F-117X in deliberations later this month, former congressman Arthur Ravenel called Friday "a happy day." "I was here three years ago, and it looked pretty grim, it looked like the plant might close," Ravenel said. To convert the F-117 into a plane the Navy can use, Lockheed Martin would modify its wings to look more like the F-14, modify the cockpit and landing gear and add a tail hook. The company has proposed building 255 A/F-117Xs. Each plane would cost $70 million. Lockheed Martin officials say a Navy stealth fighter would give the Navy the capability of all-weather, long-range strikes. Lockheed Martin says if Congress approves funding, the Navy could have the first one in 2003. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hope y'all found this interesting John Clark ------------------------------ From: Tim Ottinger Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 9:22:06 CDT Subject: Frozen Chickens (more on) : :I originally heard the story from a relative who was pretty high up at GE, :although not in the Aero Engines Business. Supposedly it happened in the 1960s :during testing of the GE4, the huge afterburning turbojets that were intended :for the Boeing 2707 SST. Said relative swore up and down it was true. There's a big section on Beyond 2000 on this (firing chickens at helicopter windscreens), and I'd swear I'd seen something on another Discovery Channel show, so it _MUST_ be true. :) Generally I hear it about cockpit glass and skins, but I it "should" be true about engines, I guess. Of course, I haven't seen too many ways to protect against FOD like this (Fowl Obtrusive Damage?) - -- Tim - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | You must be open to ideas... even if they're not new. | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Tim Ottinger tottinge@csci.csc.com (217)351-8508x2420 | | CSC CIS Champaign, IL - The Silicon Prairie " -7420(fax) | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 07:42:19 EST Subject: Re: The proof is in the chicken Forwarded from TREPAN-D list: ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re: The proof is in the chicken Author: JerryAMC@AOL.COM at smtp-fhu Date: 23/9/1995 10:47 AM pjt1@SCIGEN.CO.UK (Piers Thompson) writes: >Amusing though this story is I'm willing to bet that it's just an Urban >Legend. >I first encountered it at university where our Fault Tolerance lecturer told >it in relation to Rolls-Royce aero-engine fan blade testing. Then, when I >worked for British Aerospace, the same story was circulating this time >applied to fighter windscreen testing. And now it has appeared on >Trepan, relating to a locomotive. There must be a grain of truth in it >and I would love to get some proof that a frozen chicken was ever >accidentally fired at_anything_, but I don't believe it as it stands. I enjoy debunking urban legends; however, this is not one. Bird strikes are a serious problem in the aerospace industry and bird testing has long been done. Below is an extract from an Air Force Times report in the 06-27-94 Issue. WASHINGTON - After a decade of work, Air Force engineers have developed a new way to make fighter plane canopies. The new canopy recently was tested to find out how resistant it is to high-speed bird strikes. It had to resist hitting a 4-pound bird at no less than 520 mph. The canopy was tested at the University of Dayton Research Institute. The school has a device that can hurtle an object with the same consistency as a bird at more than 650 mph. You may notice the bit about 'same consistency as a bird'. The animal rights looney-tunes made them stop using actual birds just a few years back even though they were using frozen chickens bought at the local grocers or base commissary. I do remember another article many years back in the Air Force Times about this testing project when they were using actual chickens. One mildly amusing fact was that the project leader was a Col. Sanders. A more famous Col. Sanders was the founder of Kentucky Fried Chicken! Jerry Whittle Belleville, Illinois, USA JerryAMC@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Eric Dittman Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 10:34:28 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Frozen Chickens (more on) >There's a big section on Beyond 2000 on this (firing chickens at helicopter >windscreens), and I'd swear I'd seen something on another Discovery Channel show, >so it _MUST_ be true. :) > >Generally I hear it about cockpit glass and skins, but I it "should" be true >about engines, I guess. Of course, I haven't seen too many ways to protect >against FOD like this (Fowl Obtrusive Damage?) I called GE about this one day. They do shoot dead birds into engines as part of the testing procedure. I've even got a letter from GE to prove it (the things I have to go through to prove something to my coworkers :-). - -- Eric Dittman Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility dittman@skitzo.dseg.ti.com (214) 462-4292 Disclaimer: Not even my opinions. I found them by the side of the road. ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 09:57:58 PDT Subject: Re: Frozen Chickens (more on) If you check the FAR`s you will see that air transport and part 135 aircraft do indeed have bird -strike criteria for certification. There is also a mil spec but it is seldom enforced. (The appropriate powers usually sign off on a spec. variance. ) The commercial transport regs, however, are strictly enforced. Bird cannons are a somewhat common apparatus, beleive it or not. I was once flying into Addison TX. and the aircraft landing ahead of me encountered a flock of geese. The cessna 421 landed successfully but was considered a total loss. By the way, the strikes (3) occurred in the clouds. How the geese knew which way was up is somewhat mystifying. One bird came through the windshield and traveled the entire lenght of the fuselage. Another went into the port prop and some or all of it was slung into the fuselage just behind the pilots head! The third hit the vertical fin at the base (just where it intersects with the dorsal) and nearly removed the fin. That was the scariest of all. PS- I landed without incident (well- no more than usual for me :)) and wasn`t aware of the problems with the 421 until I saw it on the ramp. It was a blood soaked mess. Really, really scary. Chuck ------------------------------ From: James Easton Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 18:51:59 +0100 Subject: F-117A at RAF Coltishall There is a current rumour that the F-117A is being seen flying from RAF Coltishall in Norfolk, England. If anyone can either confirm or debunk, it would be appreciated. James. ___________________________________________________________ Internet: TEXJE@BONALY.HW.AC.UK * CompuServe: 100626,2242 ------------------------------ From: WSEIBER@metgem.gcn.uoknor.edu Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 13:23:05 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #431 PLease re-route my subscription to "will@escape.com" thank you ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 11:38:04 EST Subject: Aurora & Blackbird Forwarded from SPACE TECH list: Date: 21 Sep 1995 05:16:12 GMT From: Wolverine Subject: Hello Aurora, Goodby Blackbird There is sufficient secondary evidence to indicate the existance of such a craft. Several years ago, there was a characteristic double sonic boom (indicative of Hypersonic speeds) which left a track northward across LA headed towards Vandenburg AFB at a time when no shuttle flights were taking place. Presumably said craft was forced off of a 'safe' track towards Edwards by a large storm in the Gulf of Mexico. This would indicate the kind of Polar orbital approach used by spy satellites. - -- _________________________________________________________________________ The Wolverine BASFA Ambassador to Albuquerque One of these days..zip, bang! To the Moon (and beyond)! -J. Gleason (sic) - ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 1995 08:04:00 GMT From: Paul Ready Subject: Hello Aurora, Goodby Blackbird Simon Rowland wrote: [I wrote:] >>Lockheed and at least code named Aurora) The Blackbird pushes >>material limits for temperature as it is, not only for what was >>available then, but what is available now. I think the nail in >About that materials thing: > With the concorde and all of the other supersonic planes I've seen (shuttle) the tiles or fuselage are a solid colour rather than = >shiny metal (although I've not seen them all). Assuming, since the Cold War's over and there's little risk of SAM's with radar shoot= >ing the plane down, why don't the hulls/fuselage/whatever have a shiny coating? It would repel some of the heat, and *any* is a bonu= >s of a good 100 m/sec, as I understand it... (ugh, >80 columns!!) On the Blackbird, the paint had to be black not only for "stealthy" reasons, but also because black is the most efficient color for radiating heat. The fuel itself was also used as a heat sink. The hot parts were pretty much done with titanium, and as I recall, the whole plane streched something like 1 foot over the flight due to thermal expansion. Made it impossible to come up with fuel tanks that didn't leak a bit on the ground. As far as the concorde goes, and the XB-70, and the shuttle, I haven't heard reasons for the white paint. At the concorde's speeds, ~Mach 2, it isn't a serious problem. The '70 came close in speed, but apparently this was not a problem either. I don't recall a discussion of heat. The shuttle uses ceramic heat tiles that need to be replaced, and its supersonic duration is relatively short. In addition the bottom of the orbitor is painted black instead of white. A re-entry vehicle has different thermal problems, a higher temperature but less duration. The blackbird had to fly supersonic for hours, I recall a mission profile that went from the US to the Middle East and back (several refuels, but pretty fast photos) from when Egypt and Isreal were at war. What would dropping the paint get you? It would save some weight, allowing higher/faster flight in terms of what the engine can do. It wouldn't radiate heat as well, though it might reflect some infrared and such, but if that were the case than white would be a good choice as well. There would be little difference as far as skin friction would go, no real change in the shockwave and the temperature increase in the surrounding air. Maybe I'm missing something here. > Also, are there any promising new metals in the labs nowadays? > And what about space alloys? New metals? Obviously we know the elements, so either you're talking about alloys or about better manufacturing processes. You really can't escape a metal's melting point, whether you have pig iron or high tech steel, it will melt at similar temperatures. It may hold up at higher temperatures before it yields thermally. I don't think much of anything can be done about the value of thermal deformations. Composites so far have proven to be lighter/stronger materials, but they just can't take very high temperatures in general. Then again I'm not a materials researcher, and if there are high temp composites, they may be classified. raist ------------------------------ From: Corey Lawson Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 11:57:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #435 Ooo...reminds me of the joke I heard about this... The US sells Britain a Chicken Gun so they can test their canopies. The Brits call back wondering what went wrong because the chicken went through the canopy and imbedded itself deeply in the fuselage. They call the US people. The US people suggest they thaw the chickens first... - -------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Corey Lawson + Daddy lets me drive slowly around the UW Bothell Computer Facilities + driveway on Tuesdays... but only on Tuesdays csl@u.washington.edu + -the Rainman 206.685.5209 + - -------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- > > From: James Anderson > Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 21:00:53 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: The chicken gun > > There's great slow motion video of turkey's being shot into the GE90 the > new PW engine as part of the testing of these engines show in the PBS > special on the 777. > > Jim > > _______________________________________________________________________ > James C. Anderson PHONE: (216) 775-6929 > Houck Computing Center FAX: (216) 775-8573 > Oberlin College INTERNET: anderson@ocaxp1.cc.oberlin.edu > Oberlin, OH 44074 Home Page: http://www.oberlin.edu/~anderson > _______________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ From: George Allegrezza 25-Sep-1995 1451 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 14:58:16 EDT Subject: Re: Frozen Chickens (more on) My comment on the urban legend-ness of the bird story was related to the use of *frozen* birds. Fresh (and I mean Purdue-fresh) birds are another matter. I've seen a number of film clips of bird strike/ingestion tests using the ever-popular bird cannon, on shows like Wings and Beyond 2000. George George Allegrezza | Digital Equipment Corporation | "What's dangerous? You could catch on Mobile Systems Business | fire doing a Pepsi commercial." Littleton MA USA | allegrezza@ljsrv2.enet.dec.com | -- Dale Earnhardt ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@arn.net (Rick Pavek) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 18:38:14 -0500 Subject: Re: Frozen Chickens (more on) +My comment on the urban legend-ness of the bird story was related to the +use of *frozen* birds. Fresh (and I mean Purdue-fresh) birds are another +matter. I've seen a number of film clips of bird strike/ingestion tests +using the ever-popular bird cannon, on shows like Wings and Beyond 2000. So was mine. The F-16 tests used frozen birds. Something about how thawed birds stick in the barrel. And at that speed... there isn't much difference impact-wise. Rick Rick Pavek | Get Windows '95!! It's kuryakin@arn.net | the last Microsoft game Graphics and HTML for hire | you'll _ever_ want to Play! http://northshore.shore.net/~wxcentrl/uncle/index.html ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 20:11:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Frozen Chickens (more on) Talking about Birds Gun test... I remember that a friend of mine that worked for the Italian engine industry, he said that they were testing the new engine for the Euro-Fighter 2000. They calculate the best angle and speed to shoot the bird inside of the engine inlet causing the worse damage. They were aware of fires, and when they shoot the bird, the engine blow up... the funny things is that they couldn't stop the fire and the whole building burn out!!!! I wonder why the Euro-Fighter 2000 cost that much money and delay... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #436 ********************************* 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).