From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #474 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Monday, 23 October 1995 Volume 05 : Number 474 In this issue: SR-71 again (They're getting shorter, Honest!) Black aircraft at the Edwards AFB Open House ASPJ Re: SR-71 again (They're getting shorter, Honest!) Re: AFM, No. 91, October 1995 Israeli Air Tactics Re: Israeli Air Tactics [[was Son of SR-71]] SR-71 Quick Launch preliminary-FY 1996 "black" programs Re: CFIT crash slang (was Re: Israeli Air Tactics [[was Son of SR-71]]) Russian M-55? Re: CFIT stealth helo's Final Wishes Return of the Son of ASPJ RE: preliminary-FY 1996 "black" programs Myasishchev M-17/M-55 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: "Art Hanley" Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 00:13:53 +0700 Subject: SR-71 again (They're getting shorter, Honest!) Andreas (GREAT post on 959 by the way), It seems we may not be so far apart as it first appeared; I too would like to see 25 SR-71s, but we probably didn't have that many operational simultaneously at the program's peak and even if it were possible to bring back any that may have been stored in climate controlled museums, that would only get a few more. No question, we are talking about a genuine Silver Bullet here. But, it's one that's paid for, and the money to run it isn't coming out of other programs. Besides, for those times when you're having to take on werewolves, all the lead bullets in the world won't help you. I would agree that in most tactical cases, you're going to have to forward deploy the SR, but that's OK. We aren't launching strike missions over Bosnia from CONUS either. We could base them as close as we would other very valuable aircraft, and with the Quick Launch procedure could get them out faster than normal if we had to. True, we only have two right now, with the possibility of two more (I wouldn't want to take Mary's back unless there was a BIG emergency), but how many U-2s do we ever deploy? Do we have Any E-8s available now? How many will we have during the five years the SR are presently planned to remain in service? We covered all of Europe with two SRs stationed in England, and only occasionally did we supplement them out of Beale on special occasions. Your questions on availability are valid, that's one of the things that has to be explored. One thing we'll have to assume is that when the need is determined to be great enough, both SRs will be sent to the area. Also, control will have to be released to the tactical commanders. We have ample experience with what happens when you try to have tactical control from Washington. As to how much it takes to support the SR, remember that the England Det was operated with 35 people, including aircrews. Your arguments regarding the SR needing a lot of luck would apply even more to satellites. Regardless of how far to the side a orbiter can look, the other guys know when they're coming. Satellites do a lot, but not everything. If they or E-3s or U-2s could supply the total solution in this situation, why is NATO sending over all those tactical planes to image Bosnia? Bosnia, by the way, was probably Not the main reason the SR was brought back. It was probably a much wider deficiency that needed to be addressed for the years to come. Another SR mission might be to check on the positions of ships of interest or to look into sub pens from an angle before they close the doors. You can't get an SR in the air as fast as you can a F-16, but you can't scramble an E-8 or U-2 either. All these assets bring different capabilities to the mix, and the more options you have, the better you can pick the one that best meets the need. If you need to loiter waiting for something to happen, and you can remain over friendly territory, the SR is certainly not not your first choice. On the other hand (Forgive me, it's late at night and I've got to do this)... [SCENE: Imperial HQ in Eastern Ramalamadingdong] SCENARIO ONE "Excellency, the Sacred Border was crossed five minutes ago by an aircraft of the imperialistic dogs. The cowardly intruder is no doubt trying to determine whether we spoke true when we assured them we would only be exercising the Royal Marching Band today." "Don't they trust us? The Swine! When will it be in position to locate our heavy armor column for their barbaric attack aircraft, and what kind of plane is it"? "In about 18 minutes. It appears to be another aircraft with excellent loiter characteristics, Fearless One". "Bring forth the Glorious SA-6s of the Revolution, my faithful lackey". "Your command has been obeyed, oh Hero of a Thousand Battles". "Let the Flames of Power be ignited that my Mighty Arm of Vengeance be lofted like a Sword of the Skies". "Huh"? "FIRE, IDIOT"! "Oh." A Few Moments Later "It is done, Magnificent Leader". "Excellent. Now, go collect the pilot and put him with the others". SCENARIO TWO "Excellency, the Sacred Border was crossed five minutes ago by an aircraft of the imperialistic dogs. The cowardly intruder is no doubt trying to determine whether we spoke true when we assured them we would only be exercising the Royal Marching Band today." "Don't they trust us? The Swine! When will it be in position to locate our heavy armor column for their barbaric attack aircraft, and what kind of plane is it"? "In about 43 seconds. It appears to be THE FASTEST AIRPLANE IN THE WORLD, Fearless One". "Bring forth the Glorious Elevator of the Revolution that I may retire to my underground bunker to plan more victories". Art "Budding Thespian" Hanley (Well, you've got to admit the last part was different than my other posts, at least) ------------------------------ From: oski@physics.ucla.edu (L. Ravi Narasimhan) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 01:52:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Black aircraft at the Edwards AFB Open House Greetings folks, Some fluff for your Monday morning: Fans of black aircraft had a rare treat on Saturday 21 October, 1995 at the Edwards AFB Open House. There was a beautiful U2/TR-1 on static display complete with a beard of antennae underneath one of the wingpods, a B-2 right next to it, and an assortment of experimental birds; F/A-18 HARV, F-16XL, ASTI F-16, and X-31 all within the same hangar. Instead of the Thunderbirds, we had a beautiful F-117 threeship demo, several F-16/F-15 flybys thanks to the Test Pilot squadron, and a few passes by the B-2. Whoever thought up this show did a marvelous job. The Northrop N9M flying wing from the Planes of Fame in Chino strutted its stuff to an appreciative crowd and then its successor came swooping in in dramatic fashion. Watching the F-117 do hesitation rolls was, in and of itself, worth the drive. I'm still not a fan of either the B-1 or B-2 programs, but, the demonstrations were interesting nonetheless. Amazing base, Edwards. 75 miles from my apartment to the main gate. And another 25 to the flightline. Sprawling simply doesn't do justice to the expanse. - -- Ravi Narasimhan | Department of Physics, UCLA | An observer who crosses the Cauchy horizon Los Angeles, CA 90024 | emancipates himself from his past oski@physics.ucla.edu | --- S. Chandrasekhar ------------------------------ From: seb@tadpole.co.uk (Steven Barber) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 09:20:37 GMT Subject: ASPJ Er, Art, I think I'd like to quibble with your figures. Shouldn't a 30% increase in survivabilty mean a 30% reduction in the number of aircraft shot down or damaged? So if 77% were expected to survive and 23% get killed (which is a pretty horrid ratio if you're a pilot - the chance of surviving five of these missions is pretty slim! The RAF were concerned in WWII about the loss rate reaching 13%), you want to save 30% of 23% ie to reduce the loss rate to roughly 16%. That way, the figures do have meaning. As for perfecting the design, remember "there comes a point in every project when it's time to shoot the designers and go into production". Or, another saying, "Perfect is the enemy of good enough". 8-) Steve ------------------------------ From: jstone@iglou.com (John Stone) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 07:34:35 -0500 Subject: Re: SR-71 again (They're getting shorter, Honest!) Art Hanlet wrote (or was it acted!) > [SCENE: Imperial HQ in Eastern Ramalamadingdong] > > > SCENARIO ONE > >"Excellency, the Sacred Border was crossed five minutes ago by an >aircraft of the imperialistic dogs. The cowardly intruder is no >doubt trying to determine whether we spoke true when we assured them >we would only be exercising the Royal Marching Band today." ......Several scenes deleted....... Bravo, Bravo, encore........ Keep up the good work, John | / ^ \ ___|___ -(.)==<.>==(.)- --------o---((.))---o-------- SR-71 Blackbird U-2 Dragon Lady John Stone jstone@iglou.com john.stone@shivasys.com U-2 and SR-71 Web Page http://wl.iglou.com/blackbird/ ------------------------------ From: Greg Fieser Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 10:00:38 -0500 Subject: Re: AFM, No. 91, October 1995 Re: >"The Merge", pages 16-21, which is a report on the first mock dogfights >between USAF F-16Cs from the 510th FS based at Aviano AB, Italy, and >German Luftwaffe MiG-29 from JG73. The flights took place at the ACMI >(Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation) range at Decimomannu, Sardinia. >The article includes 10 photos of MiG-29s, F-16Cs, F-4Fs and F-104S', but >no MiG-23s, though. The Germans deployed 9 MiG-29s, 1 MiG-29UB, and 15 >F-4Fs, all from JG73, based at Laage. I believe this is a reprint from the Lockheed/Martin (nee GD) publication entitled "Code One". The article appeared in the July 1995 issue, under the title "Schlemming With The Fulcrum" ("schlemm" translates into "Grand Slam" in German, I believe). It was written/co-photographed by Eric Hehs, the editor of "Code One" and a friend of mine. I haven't seem the AFM issue, but the original article has a lot of great color photography, both aerial and static, of both aircraft. "Code One" is available by subscription, and always has LOTS of color photography of aviation subjects. I'v been a subscriber for more years than I care to remember... Greg Fieser (does not work for any subsidiary of Lockheed Martin...) ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 08:10:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Israeli Air Tactics From my extensive research into the IDF/AF operations, I believe the F-4E/Mi-8 story is true - it is from Cheetah Cohen's book, which is pretty trustworthy. However, William Stevenson's book, "Zanek", in my opinion, is total fiction. Much of what he wrote in that book has not been substantiated. The Magister/MiG-21 story, in particular, has never been reported anywhere else - and no Israeli I have met has ever heard about it. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 08:36:53 EST Subject: Re: Israeli Air Tactics [[was Son of SR-71]] Civilian pilots refer to this as CFIT [controlled flight into terrain]. The Operations Research magazine, published by ORSA, article on the early days of ground-avoidance systems cites an "amusing" story. Often these systems alerted air crews with false alarms. A pilot coming in to Madrid for landing was heard to say "Shut up, gringo" and shortly afterwards a cessation of recording due to CFIT. ****************************Forwarded Message*************************** I've heard USAF fighter pilots call that a "ground mort" and USN fighter pilots call it a "Fox Four". (Is the Fox code a thread here, or was I reading it somewhere else?) Ground mort seems more widespread than Fox Four, though. 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 Sat, 21 Oct 1995, Stefan 'Stetson' Skoglund wrote: > > >>>>> "Rick" == Rick Pavek writes: > > Rick> I'll go you one better. > > Rick> In the book Zanek (about the Israeli Air Force) there's an > Rick> account of an Israeli Fouga Magister bringing down a Mig-21. > > Rick> He flew around in the canyons and goaded the Mig until the Mig > Rick> went in after him... and couldn't make the grade. Literally. > > Yes, the ground have an awful high kill ratio. > > An unhappy Mig-23 pilot experienced the same thing some year ago. > He tried to follow an low-flying Viggen over the baltic and > hit the sea. ------------------------------ From: ahanley@banyan.usace.mil Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 10:54:09 ÿÿÿ Subject: SR-71 Quick Launch One thing I sould have made clearer in my post last night was that the Quick Launch procedure would be used to get a SR-71 airborne faster than usual in order to fly it to safety in case its operating base was threatened. It is Not a way to "scramble" a SR-71 for operational missions. I hope I didn't cause any confusion. Art Hanley If you asked my employers whether they had anything to do with the above, if it represented their views or if they even knew about it, they'd say, "No", and they'd be telling the truth. ------------------------------ From: TRADER@cup.portal.com Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 11:24:35 PDT Subject: preliminary-FY 1996 "black" programs Although the President and the Congress are still fighting over the Fiscal Year 1996 budget, I've been doing some research on Fiscal Year 1996 classified U.S. military programs, also known as "black" or Special Access Required programs. Here's some preliminary info that I've found: * The "TR-3A" tactical reconnaissance aircraft that Aviation Week has mentioned may have been cut from the budget. (There have been arguments for and against the existence of such a classified aircraft.) More specifically, Title II, Section 213 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (as mentioned in House of Representatives report 104-131) "prohibits the obligation of funds by the Secretary of the Air Force for research, development, test, or evaluation for a replacement aircraft, pod, or sensor payload" for the tactical manned reconnaissance mission. * The purpose of a classified Army program code-named TRACTOR HIKE (Program Element 0603009A) was accidentally revealed to be a joint Army-ARPA program for a intel. balloon (an aerostat) to be used as a surveillance platform. Similar balloons carrying radars are already used against drug traffickers. This balloon could carry other types of intelligence sensors, such as optical or SIGINT equipment. I had seen a mention of ARPA's role in a balloon project before, but had no details. * The Senate version of this report mentioned an incident I had not heard of before. They discussed funding anti-terrorist activities to prevent a repeat of incidents such as the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings, -and- the 1981 release of Uranium-235 in the New York water supply. I have never heard of the release of radioactive material before, but it does explain certain New York phenomena such as Howard Stern and Donald Trump... Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com / PaulMcG@aol.com http://www.portal.com/~trader/secrecy.html ------------------------------ From: Greg Fieser Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 13:45:42 -0500 Subject: Re: CFIT Re:CFIT When I was working on the F-15E sims back in the mid '80, the pilots there were mostly F-111 guys, and they called the acronym for Terrain Following Radar (TFR) as Terrain FURROWING Radar...(no offense intended, Martin Marietta...) Greg Fieser ------------------------------ From: neil@bedford.progress.COM (Neil Galarneau) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 15:18:05 EDT Subject: crash slang (was Re: Israeli Air Tactics [[was Son of SR-71]]) > I've heard USAF fighter pilots call that a "ground mort" and USN fighter > pilots call it a "Fox Four". (Is the Fox code a thread here, or was I > reading it somewhere else?) Ground mort seems more widespread than Fox > Four, though. The term "cumulo-granite" is used in similar circumstances. Neil neil@progress.com P.S. Isn't Fox-Two what they called in Vietnam to indicate a Sidewinder launch? ------------------------------ From: tullman.robert@ehccgate.sandoz.com Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 16:24:01 -0400 Subject: Russian M-55? Skunkers, Forgive my ignorance.. I came across this in the Oct. 7, 1995 Issue of New Scientist (a science magazine from the UK) p.10; excerpt follows: **************************************** Ozone Spy The world's highest flying spy plane, the Russian M-55 is about to give European scientists their first close-up view of the the thin, stratospheric clouds that destroy ozone........ The M-55 has a greater range and can carry more instruments than the American plane....... ***************************************** I never heard of this beast! New Scientist has a new Web site (http://www.newscientist.com/) where perhaps this article can be found in its entirety.. Bob ______________________________________________________________ |tullman@sandoz.com | Robert H. Tullman, PhD |bobtull@planet.net | http://www.planet.net/bobtull NOTE THAT THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE MINE AND DO NOT REFLECT SANDOZ COMPANY POLICY ------------------------------ From: Dave Cox Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 16:15:02 +7 Subject: Re: CFIT >Re:CFIT > >When I was working on the F-15E sims back in the mid '80, the pilots there were >mostly F-111 guys, and they called the acronym for Terrain Following Radar (TFR) >as Terrain FURROWING Radar...(no offense intended, Martin Marietta...) Ahhh... CFIT, one of my all time favorite euphonyms. I've also heard sat folks speak of achieving an ocean-synchronous orbit. ------------------------------ From: Thomas Porter Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 21:54:02 -0400 Subject: stealth helo's To All Greetings: This may be a bit lame for this group, but I am trying to find concrete info about possible stealth helo's utilizing counter-rotating rotors for stability and possible noise cancellation effects, low ratation speeds, etc. Probably no tail rotor, maybe a ducted fan? Anyone heard of such a thing? Please email if possible. Tom Porter tom.porter@interramp.com ------------------------------ From: "JOHN F. REGUS" Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 23:08:26 -0600 Subject: Final Wishes Who can I contact at NASA, ESA, CIS, the Japanese, et al. to have my body sent into deep space (like the Voyager spacecraft) when I die. I am willing to spend up to $1 million (U.S.) . I am not kidding. ------------------------------ From: "Art Hanley" Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 22:13:22 +0700 Subject: Return of the Son of ASPJ Steven Barber wrote: >Shouldn't a 30% increase in survivability mean a 30% reduction in >the number of aircraft shot down or damaged? So if 77% were >expected to survive and 23% get killed (which is a pretty horrid >ratio if you're a pilot - the chance of surviving five of these >missions is pretty slim! The RAF were concerned in WWII about the >loss rate reaching 13%), you want to save 30% of 23% ie to reduce >the loss rate to roughly 16%. Steve, your figures are absolutely correct, but you are unfortunately succumbing to clear thinking and logical conclusions. When you start talking legislation, semantics becomes very important. If you wish to give them the benefit of the doubt, it might be argued that what you said may be what the framers Wanted to say, but as related to me and in publications of the time, that's not what they Did say. The calculations you put forth show a 30% decrease in planes that are lost, but what was reportedly required was a 30% increase in planes that survived. This sounds like the same thing but isn't. The difference between 75 and 100 is 25 no matter which way you go, but it's a 33% increase from 75 to 100, yet only a 25% decrease from 100 to 75. Same thing here, it's how the criteria are set up. 77% is the point where a 30% increase in the survivability rate becomes mathematically impossible. When you're talking legislation or Congressional direction, how it's worded is critical. This may sound dubious, but except for the fact that it was way off the subject of the list (doesn't even involve aerospace), I could cite a recent example where the very framers of passed legislation publicly stated that the wording used produced a result that was absolutely not their intention. Despite this, they never got around to changing the legislation, and even though everyone freely admitted that no one wanted to actually apply the legislation as written, they had to follow it, even to the point of the Government defending against court challenges of legislation the authors admitted they didn't want! This stuff actually happens, and it has a bearing on our development and use of advanced technologies. Going against a well run, modern integrated defense system can make for some horrendous loss rates. Another thread on the list is talking about Israeli tactics in the Yom Kippur War. If you go back and look at the opening phase of that conflict, you'll see that the Egyptian "missile wall" (especially the SA-6) stopped the Israeli Air Force cold. The IAF was essentially impotent in those areas protected by the "wall" until ground forces overran the launchers. You could also see how nervous striking crews might have gotten attacking Soviet warships by plotting the published ranges of the Soviets' naval SAMs against the published range of our standoff weapons of the late '80s. This kind of thing is what makes true stealth so vitally important and why it's being incorporated into as many designs as possible. . I don't think we can fault the designers on this one. If what ASPJ's defenders say is correct, and there is evidence to support at least a part of what they say, it wouldn't matter how perfect they could have gotten the system, it probably wasn't going to go into production. Just my opinion from limited knowledge. Art ------------------------------ From: "Art Hanley" Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 22:17:20 +0700 Subject: RE: preliminary-FY 1996 "black" programs Here's some more thoughts on the forthcoming "black" budget that Paul talked about in his informative post. "TR-3A" has been used for a few years to refer to a rumored Northrop stealth aircraft developed as a companion to the F-117. Artists' concepts on both sides of the Atlantic have been fairly similar and show a Manta-Ray shaped aircraft. Supposedly (if it even exists) it is even more stealthy than the F-117. It is said to be unarmed and is used for covert reconnaissance and to designate targets for F-117s. Some sources say it was operational in Desert Storm. Of course, this can all be just people's imaginations running away with them, too. The Title II Section 213 wording sounds similar to stuff that has been in previous bills. This actually may tie in with the return of the SR-71. Speculation is that one of the reasons Congress didn't fight harder to save the SR-71 before is a rumor that it was at least implied that there was "something else" ready for service that was superior. Around 1992-93 in closed door hearings the Air Force asked for money to develop a new system. Members of Congress are said to have gotten angry to discover that the new system didn't in fact already exist and took the retirement of the SR-71 as a tactic to help justify the new system. Wording forbidding development of such a system has shown up in the past couple of defense bills. I have no idea at all if any of the last paragraph is realy true, I'm just passing on what has appeared in (I think) Aviation Week or Defense News (I can't remember). Maybe someone else can shed more light. Art ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 02:28:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Myasishchev M-17/M-55 Robert H. Tullman asked about the M-55: The twin-engine Myasishchev (now Molniya ?) M-55 (or Mya-55) 'Geofisika' was developed from the single-engine Myasishchev M-17 (or Mya-17) 'Stratosphere'. The M-17 was developed as a high-altitude (reconnaissance-) balloon interceptor, in response to US programs such as 'Moby Dick', 'Genetrix' and others. The aircraft was originally assigned the preliminary US-Intelligence code 'RAM-M', when it was first observed at Ramenskoye, near Moscow, and later received the NATO reporting name 'Mystic', and later 'Mystic A'. Four aircraft were built, of which the first prototype crashed, another, registered 'CCCP-17103', is on display at the museum at Monino, while a third, registered 'CCCP-17401', was used as high-altitude ozone research aircraft, bearing the titles 'Global Ozone Reserve' (in English) on its side. The twin-engine M-55 (NATO reporting name 'Mystic B') was developed for the same purpose as the U-2R/TR-1 -- high-altitude reconnaissance -- but is used for exactly the same purposes, the ER-2 is used by NASA -- high-altitude research flights. While the M-17 had a Koljesow RD-36-51W turbojet, the M-55 uses two Aviadwigatel (Solowjew) RD-30-10W turbofans. Four aircraft were built, of which one was registered 'RF-01552' (RF for Russian Federation, written in Cyrillic, looking somehow like 'p qp'), and with the text 'Geofisika' (also in Cyrillic) on its side, while another, registered 'RF-55204', with 'Geofisika' and the Farnborough'94 airshow number '228' on its nose, was displayed on the ground and in the air at this British airshow last year. Both aircraft resemble a short-nosed Lockheed U-2, with the main difference being the high wing and twin boom layout for the two rudders with a high- placed stabilizer/elevator, similar to an OV-10 Bronco. Also, the following was posted on Mon, 1 Aug 94 19:36:14 MET DST by Urban Fredriksson on this list: >Subject: Balloons and Mystics >Contrary to what I used to think, the Myasishchev M-17/55 weren't originally >designed as high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. They were actually >conceived as anti-balloon fighters. >During 1956-1977 a total of 4112 balloons were observed over the Warsaw >Pact, some of which of course were civilan weather balloons. But many were >military, as shown by that 3000 were launched during Jan and Feb 1956 and >several hundreds in Dec 1980 and Jan 1981. >793 were shot down by fighters, using an average of 1.4 missiles, 26 rockets >and 112 cannon rounds. Among the fighters were MiG-19, MiG-21, Tu-128, >Su-15TM and Yak-28P. Older SAMs were adapted for anti-balloon work in the >1970's and all new radars were required to be able to detect them. >In 1971 a competion was put forth for a night capable very high altitude >fighter with a movable gun turret. One candidate was the Yak-25PA >(perekhvatchik aerostatov = balloon interceptor), but the winner was the >M-17. They did research the U-2 wing design, but as the requirements were >different it wasn't copied for this application. The first prototype flew >in 1978. >The weapon system, including optronic direction finders capable of finding >a 30 m (many were 100 m in diameter) balloon at 30-40 km distance was tested >aboard a Tu-16. Armament was a two barrel GSh-23 with 500 rounds with extra >sensitive fuses, capable of reaching balloons 4000 m above the aircraft. >Data for M-17: >Span: 40.32 m >Max take off weight: 18400 kg >Practical ceiling: 21500 m >Max speed at 20000 m: 401 kts; 5000 m: 179 kts >Landing speed: 102 kts >Range: 1315 km, endurance 2 h 14 min >During development in the later 1980's the need disappeared. But there were >other uses for high-altitude aircraft and the prime one was real time >tactical reconnaissance to aid in the attack of small targets behind the >front line. >This required an aircraft capable of carrying a larger (1500 kg) load and >having a longer endurance. Myasishchev designed the derivative M-55, but the >air force M-17RM (razvedchik moifitsirovanny = modified reconnaissance), >which first flew in 1988. >Data for M-55: >Span: 37.46 m >Max take off weight: 23800 kg >Ceiling: 20000 m >Cruise speed at 20000 m: 378-405 kts >Range: 4965 km >Endurance at 20000 m: 4 h 12 min; at 17000: 5 h. >[Air International Aug 1994] - -- 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/ - --- --- ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #474 ********************************* 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).