From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #575 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 19 December 1995 Volume 05 : Number 575 In this issue: Re: Help with Family Tree Take me off.. Re: VISTA UAV presentation Re: VISTA history/sociology Re: Another triangle Re: CREDIBLE SPORT C-130 Re-engined U-2's Re: Take me off.. Re: Take me off.. Re: Grounding of SR-71s Former FocusUFO subscriber 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: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 04:05:54 PST Subject: Re: Help with Family Tree Yep, and it gets sillier as time goes on. Example: The VISTA program is supported by MD, not GD! The use of the Viper for this research role, when it is obviously the non-optimum choice stems from USAF intervention. The original ask for the program was the F18. Besides the blatently obvious advantages for a RSS platform, it is a more modern design and a little more representative of modern fighter aircraft. ( Yes, the 18 was designed "in parallel" with the F16, but it was sent back to design after GD won the contract. Given the political climate of the day, GD was a shoe anyway. But- the Hornet was so impressive it was given a new life. Not bad for the A/C that "lost" the competition!) Well, the Hornet would have made a wonderful choice, no doubt, but enter the USAF. Slightly embarassed already about Viper vs. Hornet issues, they said "WE are the sponsoring agency, YOU WILL USE a USAF aircraft.) Great! Give us an F15. Nope, too expensive. The long and short of all this is you get MD supporting a GD research plane! Now, the taxpayers have mucho dinero into a inflight simulator that- to date- won`t simulate an F16!!! If you really need an answer, the NT33 still works better. The lastest I`ve seen with the VISTA is a SIMULINK application that is being designed to help set the gains on the MIMO system. Until they get such a system in place, its still trial and error to get the flying qualities you want. Pretty expensive with an F16. It costs about $33K an hour to operate the VISTA, and the pilots get $2K an hour. Chuck BTW...........Buffalo Bills, AFC East Champions! ------------------------------ From: NaRaY Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 09:34:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Take me off.. What was the process again to get off this list? ------------------------------ From: Greg Fieser Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 09:34:39 -0600 Subject: Re: VISTA Charles_E._Smith writes: > > The VISTA program is supported by MD, not GD! > > The long and short of all this is you get MD supporting a GD research > plane! > Having spent some time on/around this airplane, I have to say that *no one* has ever mentioned any involvement by MDD on the VISTA program. The VISTA airframe is pretty much a standard Peace Marble III/IV (Israeli) F-16D airframe, utilizing the dorsal spine for additional avionics/flight computers. The major difference is in the front cockpit, where the F-16 side stick controller can be replaced with a center stick. Close observation reveals four AOA cones at 90 deg spacing around the nose, vs. the traditional one on each side. Tons of wiring/avionic differences too, but these are the visible changes... Additionally, the aircraft was only flown as VISTA a couple of times, when it was initially accepted by USAF and then promptly put in storage due to lack of funding for a flight test program. GD and GE teamed with a proposal for MATV (Multi-Axis Thrust Vectoring) on the idle VISTA airframe, and USAF said OK. This is the configuration that made AvWeek's cover with the 90 deg AOA photos, etc. After MATV, the GE vectored nozzle engine was replaced with a "standard" F110, and delivered to the AF at the GD (by now Lockheed) plant in Ft. Worth, and flown to WPAFB for delivery to Calspan. Note that the VISTA aircraft was never planned to include thrust vectoring - the MATV program was "after the fact". Al of the participants names are (were) prominently displayed on the dorsal spine, and MDD's logo wasn't one of them. An ironic twist to the MATV/GE part is that, after a successful flight test program, USAF decided to add thrust vectoring capability to the VISTA program, but with a P&W engine!! I'm sure GE is just *thrilled* about that! > > Now, the taxpayers have mucho dinero into a inflight simulator that- > to date- won`t simulate an F16!!! > Sorry, but all the pilot (front or back seat) has to do is flip a switch, and the FCS reverts to the standard F-16 DFLCS - this is the primary recovery mode when things get "less than optimal" with the "flight program of the day". Can't tell it from the real thing... > > If you really need an answer, the NT33 still works better. > If so, why would they need a MDD F-18? or a MDD F-15? Besides, I'd LOVE to see the NT33 at 90 deg AOA, or at Mach 1+, or carrying asymmetric stores, or.... Greg Fieser (since I'm self-employed, the above views DO reflect those of my employer) ------------------------------ From: Gerald.Welch@Corp.Sun.COM (Gerald Welch) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 07:46:40 -0800 Subject: UAV presentation Overheads presented by an AF Col. at a meeting regarding UAVs - ------------------------------------------------------------- - --They don't need crew rest. - --They don't hog all the seats at the O' Club during happy hour. - --You don't have to call them by some dumb nickname. - --It doesn't bother them that they don't know their parents. - --They don't have egos greater than all outdoors. - --They don't embarrass you at social functions by molesting the opposite sex and playing aircraft carrier on a beer soaked table. - --They don't throw up on your wife's new dress. - --They don't need $100 sunglasses to hide their bloodshot eyes. - --They don't need no stinkin' leather jacket. ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 08:01:46 PST Subject: Re: VISTA Greg, Yep, I`ve been around the VISTA just a little too!. A few remarks. It will not simulate itself. Thats a major setback. The P&W engine is installed in F16`s in active service, sans the nozzle. The P&W engine is a 2-D system, whereas the GE was ptch only. The weirdo stuff like cobras and such, are not really what the Calspan aircraft is intended for. The Vista never did any of those manuvers at high Q. The low speed (M<.65) regime is its intended envelope. Chuck ------------------------------ From: "I am the NRA." Date: Mon, 18 Dec 95 08:10:34 PST Subject: history/sociology >Overheads presented by an AF Col. at a meeting regarding UAVs >--They don't need crew rest. >--They don't hog all the seats at the O' Club during happy hour. etc... The historically inclined may be amused to know that some of these date to the original arrival of "guided missles", ca 1955. grins dwp ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Mon, 18 Dec 95 17:45:50 MET Subject: Re: Another triangle On Sun, 17 Dec 1995 01:15:34 -1200 Kerry Ferrand reposted to skunk-works the following drawing of a craft seen over the road Oxford-Reading (England): > [FRONT] > __ > / \ > / \ > / \ > / ____ \ > / | | \ > |#__|__|__#| #=dark patches > ^^ > engine "pod" I have myself inquired about the triangular Belgian "UFO" and discussed with the people who studied the (probably true) photo of this object at the Royal Military School, Brussels. It looks like the above drawing. This photo is approximately like below (difficult to draw the correct angles with the editor): C------B |O . | . O = light | . | O OA [front] | . | . (the points should be replaced |O . by straight lines AB and AE) D------E If you draw a solid line ABCDEA, and correct the (slight) dissymetry coming from perspective, you have on the photo (with arbitrary units) AB=EA=62, BC=DE=26, CD=91. The object was not in a plane perpendicular to the line eye-object, and the distance between A and the side CD should in fact be aproximately = CD (from most other observations). The lights are bigger than on my drawing, and somehow mask the corners, which many observers say to be rounded. IMHO the probability it is not fake is between 90% and 99%, because: 1) The photo was made by a young worker. He was with his girl friend, and their testimonies don't disagree. All what he said has been checked and found true. He did not get money and does not want to be known. Though all the media (and everybody) were speaking of "triangles" when the photograph was made (beginning of April 1990), it's not exactly a triangle, but something which fits the more precise observations made on 29 November 1989, when it was not yet complete night. 2) There is an interesting feature. This photo has been studied in "false colors" blue, green and red (I don't know exactly what it means) at the Royal Military School. Skeptics have tried to make fake photos which look like the original one. Only one of these fake photos managed to reproduce the "filaments" of the lights. This fake photo has also been studied in false colors at the Royal Military School. It appears that on the original, the lights are bigger in "false color" red (and smaller in "false color" blue), while on the fake they have the same size in every false color. J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Mon, 18 Dec 95 12:48:49 ÿÿÿ Subject: Re: CREDIBLE SPORT C-130 Operations like this are why we need the V-22 so bad. Art Hanley Despite what you might want to Believe, none of any of the above Even remotely has anything to do With my employer. ------------------------------ From: celestine@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Stockton) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 95 21:58 GMT Subject: Re-engined U-2's On 17-12-95 Andreas<> said What were the performance improvements here. Speed or just altitude or endurance as well. ie. as in more economic engines. Grahame ~~~more-heart-less-head~~~ ------------------------------ From: Kean Stump Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 14:07:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Take me off.. Approved: open Send a message to majordomo@mail.orst.edu (not gaia.ucs.orst.edu) and say unsubscribe skunk-works-digest to leave the digest, or unsubscribe skunk-works to leave the list. Kean Kean Stump Information Services kean@ucs.orst.edu Oregon State University OSU doesn't pay me to have official opinions. (503)-737-4740 ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 18:27:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Take me off.. "You can check in, but you can never leave" hehe!!! Like Hotel California... I think the automatic sign off is broken, so let me figure out how you can leave. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu On Mon, 18 Dec 1995, NaRaY wrote: > > What was the process again to get off this list? > > ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 16:10:11 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re: Grounding of SR-71s If my memory serves me correctly, the SR-71s were forced on a reluctant USAF by Congress. One needn't assume deeper motives on Congress' part- they might have been honestly concerned by the apparent lack of capability. If "Aurora" or equivalent exists, it would only be revealed to the heads of committtees and not other members of those committees who would have to assume that there is no such capability. The reactivation of the SR-71s need only be taken as evidence of a belief on the part of Congress that it fills a gap. I don't think that it can be taken as evidence for or against the operation of "Aurora". - --Brett ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Mon, 18 Dec 95 15:39:12 EST Subject: Former FocusUFO subscriber Internet broadcast - do not service the originator. ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Former FocusUFO subscriber Author: pcrlt@interport.net at smtp-fhu Date: 17/12/1995 11:04 PM Former FocusUFO subscriber: Hope you're well and having a pleasant holiday season. I'm told that many people from my FocusUFO list are now subscribed to Mr. Bob Garth's UFO-L. You might want to consider subscribing to UFO-L. To subscribe send: subscribe UFO-L in the body of a message to: Listserv@mb.protree.com UFO-L is Mr. Bob Garth's mailing list. I have no association with that list beyond being a subscriber. See you at UFO-L Paul Carleton ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #575 ********************************* 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).