From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #565 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 12 December 1995 Volume 05 : Number 565 In this issue: Re: Aurora sightings? Re: Beryllium and RAND Re: Advanced Propulsion methods Re: UAV FAQ from the WWW and PopSci (long) Re: Beryllium and RAND Re: Aurora sightings? Re: Mig-25 and Skunk Works Re: Beryllium and RAND 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: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 13:36:38 Subject: Re: Aurora sightings? >Just a little note asking if anyone has been in the Tonapah NV area >lately. The F-117 was tested and sighted in that area, why not the >Aurora there too? > >I would say check out Area 51, but that's harder than hitting an SR-71 >with a blowgun. > > > Robert Christiansen > Last weekend, December 2nd and 3rd, I was in both Tonapah and Area 51. I saw neither the F-117 or anything resembling descriptions of the Aurora. The only thing possibly unusual I can report is that about 6:00pm on Saterday, with a cloudless sky and no discerable wind, the air was so heavily charged with electricity an 8" blue spark flew from my hand to the door of my truck when I opened it. I couldnt get near anything metal without getting shocked. It lasted for about an hour. Then it stopped. Byron ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 18:34:00 Subject: Re: Beryllium and RAND >Byron Weber asked about the use of beryllium in >aerospace structures and why the RAND Corporation would do research >regarding the use of titanium as a structural element in aircraft as >early as in the late 1940s. > - --------------------snip-------------------------------------------- > >The RAND Corp. was conceived as a think-tank, and I am not a bit surprised, >that they thought about the use of new materials and new concepts in general. >I don't know, why they would need some 'secret' reason to do so. Apparently, >the technology to use beryllium and titanium was not there at the time, but >the material was investigated. > - --------------------snip-------------------------------------------- Good point. I will concede that there is probably nothing unusal about researching titanium and beryllium in the late 40's. But understanding RAND is a bit more involved than one might expect. In the late 40's RAND was in transition from a McDonnell Douglas engineering unit to it's present form, a think tank with it's principle client being the Air Force. If memory serves, RAND did not incorporate as a non-profit corp until 1952, although during the interim period they provided services for the Air Force. Douglas had been approached by the Air Force to provide a "special needs" unit to develope certain ideas and conduct research. This appears to have been in direct response to the possibility of global thermonuclear war (a phrase coined by RAND), how to prevent it and more importantly, how to survive it, with heavy emphasis on strategy. It was soon realized RAND's association with Douglas was a clear conflict of interest since Douglas, being a primary military contractor, might benefit unfairly from the research to be done by RAND. Several tenative solutions were tried and eventually they completely separated from Douglas and found it necessary to generate their own financing. (Douglas lost some very talented individuals in the process) Even with a firm contract from the Air Force they had difficulty raising the money to finance the group until an independently wealthy individual conditionally back their loan. The hard engineering side of RAND was split off and continues to serve as a non-profit, one client contractor, for the Air Force. Unlike RAND, if that company is dissolved for any reason they are mandated to pay any remaining assests over to the Feds. It would not surprise me to find that company doing research on new materials. Would they need some secret reason for researching new materials? No, but the fact is they kept it a secret, for quite a number of years. And, that does not seem to be in line with their research. Has anyone ever seen innovative aernautical designs come out of RAND? Not to my knowledge, although they have made design modifications. (the B-2 im particular) Byron ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 18:45:54 -0800 Subject: Re: Advanced Propulsion methods BROWN A writes: > A bit of a limited response to my last posting about advanced >propulsion systems, so I'm still looking for info. If anyone has any >thoughts about where aerospace propulsion will be in the near future >(i.e. the next 20 years or so) then I'd love to hear them. > Also, if anyone has any info on PDWEs, the "Linear Aerospike", >the "Air spike/MHD craft", or any other advanced engine technology, >let me know (please! I've only got until the second week in January >to get it all finished, and I'll be away from my machine from this >friday until Jan 8th, so don't hang around). Well, taking cues from stuff I've heard about (mind you I have no expertise on most of these, I've just run across them from time to time and they are very interesting (list also is not complete)): How fuel efficient can the commercial turbofan be made? Combustors for high speed (M2-3) commercial aircraft that greatly reduce pollutants. Variable Cycle Engines (VCE) for military and commercial aircraft. The benefits of the IHPTET program for military propulsion technology (mostly turbomachine based engines (I believe)). They're talking about stoich. combustion and high thrust levels in pretty compact and light engines through better materials. You will be able to build some pretty awesome stuff with this materials technology. I'm sure there's commercial benefits here too. Aerospikes (a nozzle technology) for rockets and combined cycles will progress (by definition it will progress next year when Mary et al. run the aerospike experiments on one of their SR's). Hopefully, my favorite, scramjet, will continue to progress. Contrary to popular belief, it is NOT dead (at least I hope not). I put scramjet in the non fringe area because we may see an actual weapon system with a scramjet in it (a missile), at least reading ISABE (International ociety of Airbreathing Engines) proceedings indicates to me that we MIGHT see one (not from the U.S. either!). A scramjet research lab in the U.S. had proposed one in fact for the U.S. Navy, but it wasn't funded. The proposal was based on the dual combustion scramjet invented at JHAPL, the home of TALOS and TYPHON (the successor of TALOS - production never funded). Ramjets, turboramjets, turborockets, ejector ramjets, ... , I hope we see something going Mach 5+ in the next 20 years! Propulsion CFD and measurement techniques. Always important! Fringe stuff: Supersonic fans (I've always liked this idea even though the losses due to the shocks mean the engine will never be as efficient as a subsonic fan - but, assuming the adiabatic efficiency is high enough - who cares - I wonder what one would sound like?). The benefit is the desired pressure ratio with fewer stages than a subsonic fan). Again, potentially with IHPTET, a very small and light engine with very high thrust. So buddy, you have a high enthalpy flow coming in your engine? You think you can drop some of it across a turbine? How about an Inverse Cycle Engine? (turn the engine around and put the turbine in front). Interesting idea! Liquid Air Cycle Engines (LACE). There's been a lot of work here in the past. In the 60's Marquardt shot a video showing one working in fact on their lot. LACE's have progressed farther than most people think. PDE's - you know about these already. Detonation ducts - relatively esoteric. Test engines have been made and successfully fired. Basically, standing detonation waves enhance pressure. They can be used in turbomachine cycles too. In fact, the test engine was one. Real Fringe Stuff: Antimatter drives - there have been many proposals for these for airbreathing as well as rockets (seriously). You don't need very much of it. There is a ton of these real fringe ideas. Just check out AIAA's annual propulsion conference proceedings. Check out ISABE proceedings too for practical and fringe stuff. Who knows what will get funded, but heck, aircraft companies didn't start by people who wanted to do the same old thing anyway. What would be better than cruising by the guys who said it was impossible! I think in these times of limited budgets, we need more garage tinkering! Yea, borrow the hot rod development model. OR! Perhaps the time between WWI and WWII when commercial companies funded projects to break speed records. Yea, back to the time of the Gee Bee when commercial racers could beat the hottest military aircraft! Let's see. Who do I see for that scramjet powered aircraft I want to build? Larry ------------------------------ From: fmarkus@pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 22:44:14 -0500 Subject: Re: UAV FAQ from the WWW and PopSci (long) On Dec 11, 1995 13:40:59, 'BaDge ' wrote (in very small part): >will propel DarkStar to a 130-knot cruise >speed (which is 300 knots true airspeed at 45,000 ft.) I am sure that I am missing something very obvious but why is this so? ------------------------------ From: "JOHN F. REGUS" Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:35:06 -0600 Subject: Re: Beryllium and RAND On 11 Dec 95 Byron Weber shaped the electrons to say: > The RAND Corp. was conceived as a think-tank a think tank with it's > principle client being the Air Force... a "special needs" unit to > develope certain ideas and conduct research. This appears to have > been in direct response to the possibility of global thermonuclear war > (a phrase coined by RAND), how to prevent it and more importantly, how > to survive it, with heavy emphasis on strategy. I think their is a need for some further clarification as to the extent of the Rand Corporation's involvement in engineering research and development. The Rand Corporation was responsible for the analysis of future trends, action and response scenarios, political gamesmanship and so on. The only influence the Rand Corporation on future engineering developments was to present case scenarios based upon current trends to give the war planners an idea as to the types of new weapon systems that would be needed in the future. They did not involve themselves with specific materials analysis. They have always been above that fray. What they would present is a goal oriented solution, e.g. to develop a long range strategic nuclear bomber capable of penetrating Soviet air defenses and surviving its mission. They did not delve into the engineer's forte of the nuts and bolts of how that bomber would be developed. Regards, JR ------------------------------ From: sschaper@mo.net (Steve Schaper) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 00:34:54 -0600 Subject: Re: Aurora sightings? At 1:36 PM 12/10/95, Byron Weber wrote: >Last weekend, December 2nd and 3rd, I was in both Tonapah and Area >51. I saw neither the F-117 or anything resembling descriptions >of the Aurora. The only thing possibly unusual I can report is >that about 6:00pm on Saterday, with a cloudless sky and no >discerable wind, the air was so heavily charged with electricity an >8" blue spark flew from my hand to the door of my truck when I >opened it. I couldnt get near anything metal without getting >shocked. It lasted for about an hour. Then it stopped. > >Byron Curious. Wonder if it is related to the ionosphere charging experiments the Air Force was doing in Alaska about the time that a friend's cosmic ray balloon experiment burst at 100angels. ------------------------------ From: "Art Hanley" Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:01:24 +0700 Subject: Re: Mig-25 and Skunk Works In defense of Soviet technology: While it's true that the aerodynamic shape of the Mig-25 owes a lot to the RA-5 Vigilante, I wouldn't think it's really fair to dismiss it out of hand as a copy of a US design. After all, although our technology was for the most part unquestionably more advanced then, did we ever succeed in building a Mach 3 interceptor or recon craft that could operated from semi-prepared fields, be assembled in a truck factory out of regular materials by people of limited skills, and carry a radar so powerful that it could burn through a lot of jamming? Their design philosophies were very different, with different goals, but just because they used our results for part of their work doesn't mean they copied from us all the time (Although they unquestionably did at times. For a real eye opener, look at the vectoring nozzle assembly of early models of the AA-11 missile, and then look at pictures of the same assembly at the tail end of the Navy's Agile missile that was killed in the early 1970s. In fact, I think they still have a couple of Agiles at one of China Lake's museums, if you can get in.). Not trying to be picky. Back during the Cold War we probably saw them as being taller than they really were, but they weren't as small as we sometimes think they were, now. Art ------------------------------ From: Michael Chui Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 02:09:29 -0500 Subject: Re: Beryllium and RAND chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) writes: >The hard engineering side of RAND was split off and continues >to serve as a non-profit, one client contractor, for the Air >Force. Unlike RAND, if that company is dissolved for any reason >they are mandated to pay any remaining assests over to the Feds. What is the name of this company? Michael Chui mchui@cs.indiana.edu ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #565 ********************************* 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).