From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #495 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Friday, 3 November 1995 Volume 05 : Number 495 In this issue: Re: SR-71 before Mach 1 Re: SR-71 before Mach 1 Details.... Re: SR-71 before Mach 1 SR-71A photo in today's NYTimes SR-71A in the street Re: Details.... Re: Skunk Works History "Black Projects" featured in this month's W I R E D. Re: "Sound Barrier" Re: The OXCART Story Re: "Sound Barrier" Re: SR-71 before Mach 1 AW&ST, October 30, 1995 Re: Oxcart Story 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: Mary Shafer Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 15:29:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SR-71 before Mach 1 You can call it whatever you want, but there's no barrier there and calling it the sound barrier makes you sound like a real hick, someone who's watched too many bad movies from the late '40s. The reason that I make this point is because of the misinformation that was generated in the '40s and still hangs on. Engineers and scientists never thought that we couldn't go over Mach 1 (after all, Ernst Mach took a schlieren photo of a supersonic bullet in the 1800s) but somehow the press got this idea that there was a sound barrier that we couldn't get through (unfortunately they probably got this idea when some engineer flashed some charts showing the transonic drag rise or something). The press wandered around predicting gloom, doom, and death awaiting the puny mortals who attempted to break through this barrier and lo, incredibly bad movies were produced (watch Rocket Ship X-15 some time--and it was from the late '50s or early '60s). I think that some of those folks were disappointed when Chuck Yeager didn't die. I've gone supersonic three time and at no time did I ever feel a damned thing. No buffet, no nearly unbearable shaking, no nothing. Watching those movies would convince most people that it's agonizing to go supersonic. There's no barrier there. None. And to say there is is intellectually dishonest, no matter how fond you are of some phrase. By all means, cling to the pseudo-romantic term "sound barrier" if you wish, but don't be surprised if you get written off as someone who has watched too many old movies and read too many sensationalist old books. Your choice. Regards, Mary PS. If you look at the fuselage of the X-1, you will notice that it is exactly the shape of a rifle bullet, only larger. 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: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Thu, 2 Nov 95 14:28:01 ÿÿÿ Subject: Re: SR-71 before Mach 1 ..Besides, "Breaking the Sound Barrier" sounds so much more heroic [Visions of John Wayne and Katherine Hepburn looking nobly to the right and skyward], than "Dipsydoodling past the Transonic Regime" [Visions of Homer and Bart Simpson sneaking past an unusual club in a strange part of Springfield]. Art "Duckman" Hanley Despite what you might want to Believe, none of any of the above Even remotely has anything to do With my employer. ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 14:31:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Details.... The engines of the Have Blue prototypes were GE J-85s diverted from the Navy supply for their T-2 Buckeyes. If you aren't familar with the T-2, this is a Navy advanced trainer, produced by North American Columbus. BTW - NA Columbus, back in their heyday, had a Skunk Works too. I've known several people who worked in it. As to the assertion that the NACA 64 series of airfoils were supercritical airfoils designed by Dick Whitcomb, try again. The 64 series was designed by Eastman Jacobs and others, before WW2. In Whitcomb's NASA report on the design of the first supercritical airfoils (which were 2-element airfoils!), he shows that they are a considerable improvement on the 64 series at transonic speeds. Of course, the label "supercritical" is a misnomer, as the 64 series does have supercritical flow on them at transonic speeds. A better title for Whitcomb's airfoils would be "weak shock", "aft shock" or "low transonic drag" airfoils. Of course, this doesn't have the same ring. Since this time, there have also been developed "shockless" transonic airfoils, which are also a misnomer, as the shockless condition is a very specific design point. Slightly slower or faster, or at a slightly higher or lower lift, these have shocks like regular airfoils (this is the Morawetz theorem). - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wei-Jen Su Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 18:59:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SR-71 before Mach 1 On Thu, 2 Nov 1995, Mary Shafer wrote: > I've gone supersonic three time and at no time did I ever feel a damned > thing. No buffet, no nearly unbearable shaking, no nothing. Watching > those movies would convince most people that it's agonizing to go > supersonic. There's no barrier there. None. And to say there is is > intellectually dishonest, no matter how fond you are of some phrase. I know there is not sound barrier.... it is just a "say" Todays aircrafts you don't feel anything when you pass Mach 1 because the sonic boom is behind you therefore you are flying faster than the sonic boom, plus todays aircrafts we solve the problem of stability and control... When Chuck Yeager was trying to "go over Mach 1" (happy???), he felt that the X-1 doesn't have control of the stabilizer (because the air is not flowing throw the stabilizer at that speed). Later, they fix the problem, but the X-1 still shake a lot when he is trying to go beyong Mach 1 because of others aerodynamics problems. After he reached the Mach 1, the fly was smooth and stable... again, he didn't felt the sonic boom... only the people on the ground felt it. When he tried to slow down... the aircraft start shaking again just when he flow at speed slower than Mach 1... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: czbb062 Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 18:35:43 -0600 (CST) Subject: SR-71A photo in today's NYTimes There is an interesting photo in this morning's NYTimes of a Blackbird being transported through Hutchinson, Kansas on its way to being put on display at the Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center. The photo shows it and its tow truck with the top of a/c's twin tails and part of the starboard engine housing removed. Michael Eisenstadt (czbb062@access.texas.gov) ------------------------------ From: czbb062 Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 18:54:33 -0600 (CST) Subject: SR-71A in the street I forgot to mention that the wings too were removed from the Blackbird for its trip to the Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center in Hutchinson, Kansas. Michael Eisenstadt (czbb062@access.texas.gov) ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 19:54:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Details.... On Thu, 2 Nov 1995, David Lednicer wrote: > The engines of the Have Blue prototypes were GE J-85s diverted > from the Navy supply for their T-2 Buckeyes. If you aren't familar with > the T-2, this is a Navy advanced trainer, produced by North American > Columbus. BTW - NA Columbus, back in their heyday, had a Skunk Works > too. I've known several people who worked in it. Kool. Hadn't heard about NAC. When was their heyday and what did they submit/produce besides the T-2B. The only other factoid about the HB's engines I've got on file is their thrust, at 2,950 lbs. The HB 1002 ('78 - '82) was the item used for the low level tests, painted grey, the HB 1001 ('77 - '78) used the camo paint job. It had a non-stealthy nose boom an unsteerable nose wheel, but did have the anti-spin para. Both had the inturned tail, but by 1979, just before Senior Trend production could begin, the wooden mock-up sported the outturned, or fluke, tail. regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: mangan@Kodak.COM (Paul Mangan) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 95 17:04:02 EST Subject: Re: Skunk Works History I had asked the question about Jay's book and specifically the logo. There appears to be 2 F117's in the logo on each side. One appears smaller than the other which implies that it might be HAVE BLUE. My question was why wasn't there a smaller SR-71 a la A-12 or is it a case of there being another F117 look-a-like out there that we don't know about. Some of the answers I received indicated that the A-12 and the SR-71 were the same size therefore not neccessary to put in the logo. My only problem is that I recall hearing/seeing somewhere that there was a size difference. Perhaps the difference wasn't significant enough to put in the logo.......but then again I don't see any other significant prototypes in the logo either. Soooooooooooo, is there another F117 silhouette aircraft out there and if so is it Aurora.....after all the F117 was a secret for a long time. Who's to say that there isn't another aircraft of the same vintage still flying secretly....perhaps for the CIA like the A-12 did. Now I have a new question....Why was the logo left out of the new book? Paul mangan@kodak.com Greg Fieser says: > > Someone recently posted a question about the logo on Jay's "Skunk Works History" > book. Jay told me that the logo was designed by Lockheed to commemorate the > 50th anniversary of the Skunk Works. Jay also mentioned that the book has been > revised and updated, and the new release does not feature the aforementioned > logo. > > Greg Fieser > ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 20:44:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: "Black Projects" featured in this month's W I R E D. Way cool article (several pages) in the current WIRED magazine about our own Paul McGinnis (trader@cup.portal.com), talking the talk. For Paul's home page and 'secrecy' section, browse this: http://www.portal.com./~trader/home.html regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 16:05:20 -0800 Subject: Re: "Sound Barrier" >You can call it whatever you want, but there's no barrier there ... > >The reason that I make this point is because of the misinformation that >was generated in the '40s and still hangs on. ... > but somehow the >press got this idea that there was a sound barrier that we couldn't get >through ... > The >press wandered around predicting gloom, doom, and death awaiting the puny >mortals who attempted to break through this barrier and lo, incredibly bad >movies were produced (watch Rocket Ship X-15 some time--and it was from >the late '50s or early '60s). I think that some of those folks were >disappointed when Chuck Yeager didn't die. Yes, everyone who is knowledgeable about this remembers bullets as examples of supersonic objects, but they are relatively small. If you really want to dash their image of the infamous press created 'sound barrier' remind them that the V-2 achieved Mach 5 in its flights in the 1940's! "Rocket Ship X-15"? Was there really a B-movie with that name? I gotta find it! Larry ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 11:00:12 -0800 Subject: Re: The OXCART Story Paul Suhler writes: >I've read a copy of "The Oxcart Story," which has circulated online. >Does anyone know when it was written and where it comes from? The >only information in it is the name of the purported author, Thomas P. >McIninch. Air Force magazine also published the story in the past year. They credited it to a Winter 1970-71 issue of "Studies in Intelligence", a classified internal publication of the Central Intelligence Agency. It mentioned that the 'document' was recently declassified. >In it, the author claims that on the first A-12 mission over North >Vietnam, the aircraft was never detected by radar. Crickmore claims >that it was, which caused consternation in Langley and Burbank, after >all the effort at reducing RCS. Is Crickmore's information later and >more accurate? Good question. Without Crickmore in front of me, it certainly is hard to tell. The level of information in "The OXCART Story" seems fairly convincing too! Maybe some of our Roadrunner members on this list can help clarify if they know for sure. Here are the sections you're talking about from "The OXCART Story". I'm impressed with the detail provided that indicates that ECM receiver(s?) (probably?) was the basis of the conclusion that the A-12 wasn't seen by radar. From "The OXCART Story", logical page 19 (it is unknown how many pages were in the original document as "The OXCART Story" spans physical pages numbered 25 to 49). UNCLASSIFIED The following (S), (C), and (U) marks indicate Secret, Confidential, and Unclassified security ratings that are for historical interest only. This page and the document it comes from, entitled THE OXCART STORY (DON: SC-86-010115), has been UNCLASSIFIED according to Senior Crown Security Class Guide dated 11/01/89, approved and dated 25 Feb. 91. (S) THE OXCART STORY Thomas P. McIninch ... (S) The first BLACK SHIELD mission followed one flight line over North Vietnam and one over the Demilitarized Zone. It lasted three hours and 39 minutes, and the cruise legs were flown at Mach 3.1 and 80,000 feet. Results were satisfactory. Seventy of the 190 known SAM sites in North Vietnam were photographed, as were nine other priority targets. There were no radar signals detected, indicating that the first mission had gone completely unnoticed by both Chinese and North Vietnamese. (S) Fifteen BLACK SHIELD missions were alerted during the period from 31 May to 15 August 1967. Seven of the fifteen were flown and of these four detected radar tracking signals, but no hostile action was taken against any of them. By mid-July they had determined with a high degree of confidence that there were no surface-to-surface missiles in North Vietnam. ... (S) During the flight of 30 October 1967, pilot Dennis Sullivan detected radar tracking on his first pass over North Vietnam. Two sites prepared to launch missiles but neither did. During the second pass at least six missiles were fired at the OXCART, each confirmed by missile vapor trails on mission photog- raphy. Sullivan saw these vapor trails and witnessed three missile detonations. Post-flight inspection of the aircraft revealed that a piece of metal had penetrated the lower right wing fillet area and lodged against the support structure of the wing tank. The fragment was not a warhead pellet but may have been a part of the debris from one of the missile detonations observed by the pilot. > The no detection story is repeated in Pace's "The >Lockheed Skunk Works." That's because Pace largely reproduced "The OXCART Story". Larry ------------------------------ From: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 00:10:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: "Sound Barrier" Once upon a time larry@ichips.intel.com shaped the electrons to say... >"Rocket Ship X-15"? Was there really a B-movie with that name? >I gotta find it! Yes, and Mystery Science Theatre 3000 gave it proper treatment. Not as good as "Rocket Attack USA" though... Gads were there scores of bad B-movies in the early cold war that had technically impossible rockets and unhappy endings... - -MZ - -- megazone@world.std.com 510-527-0944 MegaZone's Waste Of Time Moderator: anime fanfic archive, ftp.std.com /archives/anime-fan-works; rec.arts.anime.stories - Maintainer: Ani Difranco Mailing List - Mail to majordomo@world.std.com with 'subscribe ani-difranco' in the body. ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 13:50:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SR-71 before Mach 1 On Thu, 2 Nov 1995, Mary Shafer wrote: > The maneuver is called the dipsydoodle. Climb up subsonic, dive through > the transonic, and pull up supersonic. > > We don't call it the sound barrier, we call it the transonic regime. The > sound barrier terminology dates from the '40s and is not used amongst > those of us working the the field. Only the uninformed use the older term. Er... what do you call us, who call it the "transonic region"? ;-) regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 00:23:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: AW&ST, October 30, 1995 NEWS BREAKS, page 21: ===================== "The Pathfinder solar-powered drone was severely damaged on Oct. 21 when wind blew through a hangar at Edwards AFB, Calif., and twisted the ultra-light craft (AW&ST Sept. 25, p. 112). Pathfinder officials believe the drone could be rebuilt in time for next summer's flying season." "A NASA SR-71 made a precautionary landing at Nellis AFB, Nev., on Oct. 25 when the test crew was unable to transfer fuel trapped in an aft tank. About 7,500 lb. of fuel was considered possibly unusable, which made a safe return to Palmdale, Calif., questionable. The crew elected to recover at Nellis, the first time a NASA/Dryden aircraft has had to "land out" in many years, according to SR-71 program officials." Here is a question for Mary: why did the crew use the call sign 'NASA 832', while it was not '64-17971' (or NASA 832), but '64-17967' the reactivated USAF bird. Was there a special reason? WASHINGTON OUTLOOK, page 23: ============================ "BUMPY TAKEOFF: The X-33 is headed into turbulence. The still-young industry/ NASA project is being buffeted by conflicting demands that it be a classic X-plane program that tests risky new single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) technology, or that it be tied directly to development of a commercial reusable launch vehicle. The House space and aeronautics subcommittee plans a hearing on the X-33 effort this week. To make matters worse, the panel's chairman, F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R.-Wis.), is irritated with McDonnell Douglas for what he sees as the company's lobbying for more money than NASA wants for X-33. Meanwhile, Boeing is still pushing its two-stage-to-orbit scheme, making for a curious relationship with its partner, McDonnell Douglas -- the champion of a vertical landing SSTO [launch vehicle]." "FOCUSING LIKE A LASER BEAM: Air Force Secretary Sheila Widnall is pushing hard for the Airborne Laser (ABL) over kinetic-kill vehicles for missile defense. She says adaptive optics and aircraft stability are the key to making ABL work, but even having to spend [some money ?] to push those technologies still makes the oxygen iodine laser the better bet. She said. 'We would like to have had this in the Gulf.'" AUTOMATED TOOL SPEEDS F-22 SOFTWARE WORK. pages 58-60: ====================================================== A software management tool, called PCMS (Process Configuration Management Software), developed by SQL Software Inc., Vienna, VA, helps to document, streamline and de-conflict the efforts of more than 40 different software supplier, working on the F-22 software. The main goal is accountability, and documentation of changes online. The interactive, easy-to-learn program could also be used for hardware development. Three other articles, dealing with different air/missile defense systems, and ways to increase their detection and identification capability regarding UAVs, cruise missiles, and stealthy aircraft, by placing AEW radars in aerostats or unmanned helicopters: MEADS MOVES AHEAD, BUT FUNDING SHAKY, pages 24-25: ================================================== U.S. PREPARES THAAD FOR HIT-TO-KILL TEST, pages 25-26: ====================================================== HELOS, AEROSTATS TO PUSH MEADS RANGE, page 54: ============================================== - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: "Art Hanley" Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 09:32:25 +0700 Subject: Re: Oxcart Story I haven't seen the one on-line (where did you find it, Paul?), so I don't know if the one I'm talking about is the same one. This one was declassified in 1991 and came from Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company. It says that no signals of any type were detected, which may mean that the North Vietnamese weren't looking. if the radars, not looking up where you are, it won't see you. Crickmore's says that it was first detected coming in over Haiphong and missiles were fired over Hanoi. Assuming that there weren't in fact two missions flown that day (in other words, they launched the backup anyway), it's an interesting contradiction. I'd be inclined to believe Crickmore since his data may be newer and also because Ben Rich had said that the A-12 became much more visible in a turn. Hope this is of some help. Art ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #495 ********************************* 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).