From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #597 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 11 January 1996 Volume 05 : Number 597 In this issue: Air Power Journal Re: Jet Backpack Mail failure Mail failure Re: To hover or not to hover, that is the question 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: fmarkus@pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 20:35:48 -0500 Subject: Air Power Journal While browsing in Barnes and Noble, I chanced on a magazine that I had never seen before, "Air Power Journal." It is an extraordinarily beautiful publication -- and it costs it ($19/copy!!!) The current (Winter 1995) issue contains a long and richly illustrated article about the USAF Special Operations Command that is likely to be of interest to the readers of this mailing list. The text of the article is detailed. There are almost as many code names explicated as in a Paul McGinnis posting. There are photographs, detailed paintings and cutaway photographs of the various aircraft flown by this "black" command. Finally, there is a listing of the units that comprise this command together with illustrations of the aircraft that each flies and the unit insignia patches. This is a beautiful and fascinating article. ------------------------------ From: TrimtabNYC@aol.com Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 02:36:04 -0500 Subject: Re: Jet Backpack The "Bell jet pack" (best name I recall for this) was demonstrated at the 1964 World's Fair in NYC. It was also used as an "escape method" by James Bond in one of the early Sean Connery films (I think "You Only Live Twice"), and, finally, I saw a Michael Jackson use one (I'm sure it was a stunt double) to end a live concert that was broadcast a few years ago on either public television on MTV. Come to think of it, David Letterman rigged up a fake one for Sean Connery to use to enter the studio during an appearance on his show a year or two ago. I think I bought a back issue of Popular Mechanics from the 1960's that had a story on it. If I can find it, I'll post more factual info. It's something that has always fascinated me. - -Steve Brant ------------------------------ From: POSTMASTER@RPSPO2.AtlantaGA.ATTGIS.COM Date: Thu, 11 Jan 96 01:55:00 PST Subject: Mail failure [002] Mail was received that was addressed to unknown addresses. Mail item was not delivered to: ATTATLMFG/RPSPO2/cfoster - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Return-Path: <@attatl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM:skunk-works@mail.orst.edu> Received: from attatl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM by attatl.AtlantaGA.ATTGIS.COM id <30F4DFBC@attatl.AtlantaGA.ATTGIS.COM>; Thu, 11 Jan 96 02:00:28 PST From mail.orst.edu!skunk-works Thu Jan 11 01:40 EST 1996 remote from attatl Received: by attatl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM; 11 Jan 96 01:40:11 EST Received: from ncrgw1.UUCP (ncrgw1@localhost) by ncrhub5.attgis.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with UUCP id BAA15750 for rpspo2.atlantaga.attgis.com!cfoster; Thu, 11 Jan 1996 01:40:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by ncrgw1.ATTGIS.COM; 11 Jan 96 01:39:06 EST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mail.orst.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id TAA12391 for skunk-works-digest-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 19:45:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mail.orst.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id TAA12385 for skunk-works-digest-send@mail.orst.edu; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 19:45:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 19:45:24 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199601110345.TAA12385@mail.orst.edu> From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #596 Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: skunk-works@mail.orst.edu Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 10 January 1996 Volume 05 : Number 596 In this issue: Re: "Secret" Northrop facility (was: Tejon) C990 fires Gulf War on Frontline Re: C990 fires administrivia Re: C990 fires test - ignore Re: Tejon Ranch Experience Re: Tejon Ranch Experience Mail failure SR-71 in NASA Tech Briefs Re: RE Convair 990 Re: To hover or not to hover, that is the question Re: To hover or not to hover, that is the question Re: To hover or not to hover, that is the question -Reply Re: To hover or not to hover, that is the question -Reply Re[2]: To hover or not to hover, that is the question Re: To hover or not to hover, that is the question 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: Greg Fieser Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 09:36:27 -0600 Subject: Re: "Secret" Northrop facility (was: Tejon) > > That was the Pico Rivera facility, a former Ford plant. Kar Kraft ran a > skunk works out of there in the Ford days, so this is sort of on topic (right > concept, wrong industry). > > George > I remember seeing aerial views of this facility, and the landscaping (done prior to Northrop's occupancy, I think) featured several "W-shaped" areas that supposedly bore a striking resemblance to the B-2's platform. Coincidence? Probably. I thought it was quite a stretch when I saw it - kind of like the stars spelling SEX in "The Lion King"... (now we're *really* off-topic!) Greg Fieser "Since I'm self-employed, the above views do represent those of my employer" - ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 10:19:42 PST Subject: C990 fires Just another reason to go Boeing. The 990 must not be up to FAR 25 specs. Certification calls for a brake lock at V1. Of course, this means one or all of the mains will blow. And it doesn`t stop there. After the aircraft stops, it must sit un-attended for a specified time period (order of minutes.) I`m told that sitting on the runway with the undercarrige on fire while the safety trucks watch is among the most nerve-wracking experiences in all of testpiloting. I would think a fire due to tire damage would definitly warrant sever scrutiny. Chuck - ------------------------------ From: (Jay Waller) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 96 14:58:00 EST Subject: Gulf War on Frontline According to the television listings I have, tonight PBS will air the first part of a _Frontline_ special on the Gulf War. Check local listings for air time. The F-117 should be brought up (on topic flag here). I don't have any background on this, so I can't say what kind of spin they'll put on things. - ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 13:56:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: C990 fires I don't think that FAR 25 certification includes things like putting telescopes in aircraft. We use them in spite of the certification, not because of it. NASA isn't private but public, so the FAA doesn't cover us. I've watched Boeing aircraft blow tires and smear their gear down the runway, too. Edwards is the primary site for all the takeoff and landing certification tests, so a clever person can see a lot of fun things. My favorite is watching the oak skid under the tail burst into flames as the airplane drags down the runway with just it touching when they do the min-takeoff work. But you're right--watching the the brakes burst into flames as it sits on the runway with the firetrucks hovering around it is prettty interesting, too. Shall we talk about the Dash 80 that the FAA pilot broke the empennage off of, doing a too-steep, too-fast touch and go? We lost an F-14 ARI flight over that one, because they couldn't move either part off the main runway until the investigators got there. Since it's a 15000 ft runway, we could have just taken off just beyond the tail, except that the rest of the plane was down about even with the center taxiway and 5000-7000 ft wasn't enought for the Tomcat. 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 Tue, 9 Jan 1996 Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com wrote: > Just another reason to go Boeing. The 990 must not be up to FAR 25 > specs. Certification calls for a brake lock at V1. > Of course, this means one or all of the mains will blow. And it doesn`t stop > there. After the aircraft stops, it must sit un-attended for a specified > time period (order of minutes.) I`m told that sitting on the runway with > the undercarrige on fire while the safety trucks watch is among the most > nerve-wracking experiences in all of testpiloting. > I would think a fire due to tire damage would definitly warrant > sever scrutiny. > > Chuck - ------------------------------ From: Kean Stump Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1996 13:31:32 PST Subject: administrivia The digesting software isn't happy, so y'all can expect a couple of test messages from me as I test the final fix. ObTriangle: /\ / \ / \ /______\ kean Kean Stump Network Engineering kean@nws.orst.edu Oregon State University OSU doesn't pay me to have official opinions. (541)-737-4740 - ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 17:22:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: C990 fires Eeuu. I just read what I wrote and it sounds like I'm a vulture, waiting gleefully for horrid things to happen to aircraft. It's really not like that at all--the skid is supposed to burn, the firefighters put out the brake fires immediately, and so on. I greatly admire the professionalism of the pilots, the crews, the firefighters--to deliberately do something that's pretty much guaranteed to set your plane on fire (at the least) raises my estimation of the pilots. The speed and alacrity with which that fire is extinguished is really admirable. I hope you get the idea I'm trying to convey here. However, let me warn you--never volunteer for the 90-second evacuation trials. Orthopedic surgeons are good, but it takes a long time for an ankle or leg to recover from a fracture. I just remembered another interesting event--airliner tires have pop-off valves that blow when the pressure get too high as the tire heats up on a refused takeoff. I got to see one of the more recent 747 models do that test, and it was very interesting to watch the tires deflate, one after the oth, as the plane sat on the runway. All the tires went flat before the brakes started burning, an example of good design. Regards, Mary (Maybe that should have been "Bloody 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 Tue, 9 Jan 1996, Mary Shafer wrote: > I don't think that FAR 25 certification includes things like putting > telescopes in aircraft. We use them in spite of the certification, not > because of it. NASA isn't private but public, so the FAA doesn't cover > us. > > I've watched Boeing aircraft blow tires and smear their gear down the > runway, too. Edwards is the primary site for all the takeoff and landing > certification tests, so a clever person can see a lot of fun things. My > favorite is watching the oak skid under the tail burst into flames as > the airplane drags down the runway with just it touching when they do the > min-takeoff work. > > But you're right--watching the the brakes burst into flames as it sits on > the runway with the firetrucks hovering around it is prettty interesting, > too. > > Shall we talk about the Dash 80 that the FAA pilot broke the empennage off > of, doing a too-steep, too-fast touch and go? We lost an F-14 ARI flight > over that one, because they couldn't move either part off the main runway > until the investigators got there. Since it's a 15000 ft runway, we could > have just taken off just beyond the tail, except that the rest of the > plane was down about even with the center taxiway and 5000-7000 ft wasn't > enought for the Tomcat. > > 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.... - ------------------------------ From: Kean Stump Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1996 15:27:25 PST Subject: test - ignore Kean Stump Network Engineering kean@nws.orst.edu Oregon State University OSU doesn't pay me to have official opinions. (541)-737-4740 - ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 19:09:31 -0800 Subject: Re: Tejon Ranch Experience Paul McGinnis wrote: >> >>I think that there are some wild stories going around about the Tejon >>ranch Boy, aint that the truth! When I was down in the area in 1991, I heard the whole gamut of tales. I didn't believe one of them either. But, I did have an interesting time. Read on. Byron writes: >I concur with Paul's view, from what I saw on several trips to the >Northrop Tejon facility, that the runway there is not of practical >value for planes, however, I did see some evidence of concrete work >having been done Yes. Are you talking of the concrete powder that's everywhere? There is what looks like concrete powder all over the desert floor there! It was all over the place. I don't know why that stuff is there. I think I remember that an LA aquaduct runs through that area as well, underground. But the aquaduct and Tejon are the only two manmade features that use much concrete that were in the area that I saw. That powder isn't natural is it? > and I was buzzed by a military helicopter that came >up out of a canyon from behind the facility.(scared the hell out >of me) Yes, we had a bizarre time as well. We were on public land away from the Northrop facility. You could see the Northrop facility in the distance, but we were doing some innocent area photography. Suddenly this truck pulls up with this old angry rancher in it who proceeds to yell at us and blame dead head of cattle on us! He soon left threatening to go get his gun! Then, shorly after, these two young guys in civi garb drive up in a pickup, roll the window down and ask us what we're doing there. Evidently the old rancher called them! We were just shooting scenery. We eventually satisfied them and the incident was over. Then a little later we could see the angry rancher's truck driving back! Well, he just parked a short distance from us and watched us. It was real wierd! Then two mornings later, after an all nighter in the desert near there on public land, we were driving by Northrop's facility there at about 5AM, when this HUGE flash of light explodes just above our truck! No bang, just a huge flash, like a photo strobe! We got out of the truck and saw a small puff of smoke above the truck and a little off to the side, maybe 60 ft away in the air. There was no lightning ever, during the whole night either. The sky was severe clear. I don't believe the stories but this place etched itself in my mind! Larry - ------------------------------ From: sschaper@mo.net (Steve Schaper) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 00:43:13 -0600 Subject: Re: Tejon Ranch Experience At 7:09 PM 1/9/96, larry@ichips.intel.com wrote: >Yes. Are you talking of the concrete powder that's everywhere? > >There is what looks like concrete powder all over the desert floor >there! It was all over the place. I don't know why that stuff is >there. I think I remember that an LA aquaduct runs through that area >as well, underground. But the aquaduct and Tejon are the >only two manmade features that use much concrete that were in the >area that I saw. That powder isn't natural is it? Powder that reminds you of concrete, on the desert floor. Alkali, anyone? - ------------------------------ From: POSTMASTER@RPSPO2.AtlantaGA.ATTGIS.COM Date: Wed, 10 Jan 96 07:33:00 PST Subject: Mail failure [002] Mail was received that was addressed to unknown addresses. Mail item was not delivered to: ATTATLMFG/RPSPO2/cfoster - - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Return-Path: <@attatl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM:skunk-works@mail.orst.edu> Received: from attatl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM by attatl.AtlantaGA.ATTGIS.COM id <30F3BD24@attatl.AtlantaGA.ATTGIS.COM>; Wed, 10 Jan 96 05:20:36 PST From mail.orst.edu!skunk-works Wed Jan 10 05:00 EST 1996 remote from attatl Received: by attatl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM; 10 Jan 96 05:00:49 EST Received: from ncrgw1.UUCP (ncrgw1@localhost) by ncrhub5.attgis.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with UUCP id FAA25865 for rpspo2.atlantaga.attgis.com!cfoster; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 05:01:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by ncrgw1.ATTGIS.COM; 10 Jan 96 04:59:14 EST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mail.orst.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id AAA25410 for skunk-works-digest-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 00:07:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from gaia.ucs.orst.edu (majordom@gaia.UCS.ORST.EDU [128.193.4.2]) by mail.orst.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA25405 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 00:07:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id AAA14634 for skunk-works-digest-send@mail.orst.edu; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 00:06:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 00:06:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199601100806.AAA14634@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #596 Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: skunk-works@mail.orst.edu Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 10 January 1996 Volume 05 : Number 596 In this issue: Re: "Secret" Northrop facility (was: Tejon) 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: Greg Fieser Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 09:36:27 -0600 Subject: Re: "Secret" Northrop facility (was: Tejon) > > That was the Pico Rivera facility, a former Ford plant. Kar Kraft ran a > skunk works out of there in the Ford days, so this is sort of on topic (right > concept, wrong industry). > > George > I remember seeing aerial views of this facility, and the landscaping (done prior to Northrop's occupancy, I think) featured several "W-shaped" areas that supposedly bore a striking resemblance to the B-2's platform. Coincidence? Probably. I thought it was quite a stretch when I saw it - kind of like the stars spelling SEX in "The Lion King"... (now we're *really* off-topic!) Greg Fieser "Since I'm self-employed, the above views do represent those of my employer" - - ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #596 ********************************* 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). - ------------------------------ From: Paul Adams Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 07:51:58 -0600 Subject: SR-71 in NASA Tech Briefs In the latest issue of NASA Tech Briefs, on page 68, there is an article on the SR-71 called "SR-71 Experiment on Propagation of Sonic Booms". In Brief : + The study was conducted to develop the High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) for operational use in the next century. + Several shock waves propagate from a supersonic aircraft. By the time they reach the ground, they merge into the bow shock and tail shock. This study hopes to verify and enhance the computational programs that attempt to model this. + The SR-71 flew at mach 1.25 to 1.6 and from 31,000 to 48,000 feet. The F-16 XL probed the shock waves from near the shock wave to 8,000 ft below. Positioning is accurate to within 1 foot. + An array of sonic boom recorders on the ground under the flight track measured the sonic-boom signatures. Since the turbulent atmosphere near the ground distorts the signatures, a YO-3A flying at 10,000 ft recorded the sonic booms as well. A poor ASCII chart follows. The SR-71 was flying at Mach 1.25, 31,000ft. and the F-16XL was 540 ft. below it. The actual chart in the magazine has additional plots for 1,872 ft below and 7,980 ft. below, but this one is far more interesting in my opinion. Overpressure psf Inlet-Wing Shock 12 |\ | \ 10 | \ | \ 8 Canopy | \ |\ Shock | \ 6 | \ |\ | \ Tail | \ | \ | \ Shock 4 | \ | \ | \ |\ | \| \ | \ | \ 2 | \ | \ | \--------- | \ | \ Outward | 0-----| \ | \ Wing | Bow \ | \ Shock | - - -2 Shock \| \ |\ | \ | \ | - - -4 \| \ | \ | - - -6 \ | \ | - - -8 \ | \ | - - -10 \ | \ | - - -12 \ | \ | - - -14 \| | | | | | 0 20 40 90 125 Distance Behind Bow Shock, ft. Paul - - -- \ ___ / Paul Adams \ /___\ / paul@erc.msstate.edu ____________\___/__.__\___/____________ YF-22 \ \ / / \__/\___/\__/ - ------------------------------ From: "Steve Caldwell" Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 09:38:00 GMT+7 Subject: Re: RE Convair 990 [Jay said] I think that some parts of the military use time versus distance or speed versus distance instead of or as an additional parameter. My memory is vague, but a sample of the kind of thing used might be that someone in the cockpit starts a stopwatch at the beginning of the takeoff run and watches a precalculated mark on the runway. If the aircraft hasn't made it to the predetermined mark by a predetermined number of seconds, the acceleration is too slow and an abort is mandatory. If the aircraft reaches the mark at the right time, the word is "commit for takeoff", and an engine failure thereafter results in continuing the run. Of course, a failure before "commit for takeoff" results in an abort in any case. [end quote] Jay, The B-52 uses a time vs. speed comparison for takeoff data calculation. At 70 knots IAS, the navigator starts a stopwatch for S1 timing. At the expiration of S1 timing, the jet needs to be above a minimum S1 speed. If it isn't, you abort. If you try to abort after achieving S1 speed, you will probably go off the end of the runway. In other words you're committed to flying. Steve Caldwell @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Capt Steve Caldwell DSN: 781-5442 Comm: (318) 456-5442 Email: caldwels@det5wg57.barksdale.af.mil (Military) srcaldwe@iamerica.net (personal) scaldwell@bix.com (personal) - ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Wed, 10 Jan 96 16:47:35 MET Subject: Re: To hover or not to hover, that is the question Strangely, I received only private answers to my question: Which artificial objects can hover? One is very interesting and corresponds to my idea. I hope the author will allow me to repost it. I must also add 3 items to my list, which was: 1) kites (need wind - and string(s) ) 2) lighter than air (balloons, airships) 3) helicopters 4) VTOL planes, like the British Harrier (very noisy) 5) hang gliders: they can hover, depending on the wind (stalling speed around 15 knots); maybe also other gliders (sailplanes) though their stalling speed is generally around 35 knots 6) some ultra-light planes with engines (depending on the wind too?) (stalling speed generally around 20 knots) 7) crafts "flying" at ground level, like the "hovercrafts" (that's how they are called) which cross the Channel. The 3 new items are: 8) mixture plane-helicopter, like the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey (which in fact hovers in helicopter mode) 9) mixture helicopters-airship: Heli-Stat (1985-1986) (I found this one in Andreas' list of LTAVs) 10) parapentes and probably parachutes (some or all) (depending on the wind) J. Pharabod - ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 10:05:06 PST Subject: Re: To hover or not to hover, that is the question The Mig 29 can hover, also. This was demonstrated at the Paris airshow. I`m not sure how long it can sustain since control is aerodaynamic and Q would be zero! Chuck - ------------------------------ From: MICHAEL WEATHERSBY Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 15:56:48 -0500 Subject: Re: To hover or not to hover, that is the question -Reply In reply to this interesting topic of things that "hover". I believe that there are more things than just the listed ones that hover... A skydiver can "feel" like he/she is hovering although he is not but, they actually CAN hover if they are in a free fall "chamber" of sorts that has a column of air inside (provided by an airplane motor/prop). As for aircraft, do we know whether or not the Aroura (sp?) will be able to hover or not??? I don't really know any details about the program but I hope to learn... - ------------------------------ From: fmarkus@pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 19:26:47 -0500 Subject: Re: To hover or not to hover, that is the question -Reply I believe that the Brilliant Pebbles prototype was demonstrated hovering in a hangar. It was designed as a orbital anti-missile device but as not permitted in outer space because of the ABM treaty. - ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Wed, 10 Jan 96 16:45:09 EST Subject: Re[2]: To hover or not to hover, that is the question Forwarded message ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re[2]: To hover or not to hover, that is the question Author: Bill Riddle at FHU2 Date: 10/1/1996 1:04 PM I started to reply yesterday ... and then got tied up. I would add to the list the jet back packs (don't know their actual name) that the US Army developed. I hope someone on the list can add more. If you are not familiar with what I am talking about, they are a jet propulsion unit that a soldier could strap on just like a back pack. They were not, I believe, very practical. I think they never went beyond experimental stage. Never-the-less, they worked. I have seen films of a soldier taking off, hovering, flying around, and landing. Bill Riddle ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re: To hover or not to hover, that is the question Author: "J. Pharabod" at smtp-fhu Date: 10/1/1996 4:47 PM Strangely, I received only private answers to my question: Which artificial objects can hover? One is very interesting and corresponds to my idea. I hope the author will allow me to repost it. I must also add 3 items to my list, which was: 1) kites (need wind - and string(s) ) 2) lighter than air (balloons, airships) 3) helicopters 4) VTOL planes, like the British Harrier (very noisy) 5) hang gliders: they can hover, depending on the wind (stalling speed around 15 knots); maybe also other gliders (sailplanes) though their stalling speed is generally around 35 knots 6) some ultra-light planes with engines (depending on the wind too?) (stalling speed generally around 20 knots) 7) crafts "flying" at ground level, like the "hovercrafts" (that's how they are called) which cross the Channel. The 3 new items are: 8) mixture plane-helicopter, like the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey (which in fact hovers in helicopter mode) 9) mixture helicopters-airship: Heli-Stat (1985-1986) (I found this one in Andreas' list of LTAVs) 10) parapentes and probably parachutes (some or all) (depending on the wind) J. Pharabod - ------------------------------ From: orion@planet.net Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 20:14:34 -0500 Subject: Re: To hover or not to hover, that is the question How many of you have seen the decidedly non-skunky AN-2 "hover" over an airshow in a 20+ mph headwind? Not quite an ultra-light but the idea's the same. My concept of "hovering" refers to staying over a fixed plot of ground at a fixed height; how you do it is unimportant. Jim Bostick Orion@planet.net - ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #596 ********************************* 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). ------------------------------ From: POSTMASTER@RPSPO2.AtlantaGA.ATTGIS.COM Date: Thu, 11 Jan 96 05:15:00 PST Subject: Mail failure [002] Mail was received that was addressed to unknown addresses. Mail item was not delivered to: ATTATLMFG/RPSPO2/cfoster - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Return-Path: <@attatl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM:skunk-works@mail.orst.edu> Received: from attatl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM by attatl.AtlantaGA.ATTGIS.COM id <30F50E99@attatl.AtlantaGA.ATTGIS.COM>; Thu, 11 Jan 96 05:20:25 PST From mail.orst.edu!skunk-works Thu Jan 11 05:00 EST 1996 remote from attatl Received: by attatl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM; 11 Jan 96 05:00:05 EST Received: from ncrgw1.UUCP (ncrgw1@localhost) by ncrhub5.attgis.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with UUCP id FAA23494 for rpspo2.atlantaga.attgis.com!cfoster; Thu, 11 Jan 1996 05:00:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by ncrgw1.ATTGIS.COM; 11 Jan 96 04:58:51 EST Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mail.orst.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id AAA13650 for skunk-works-digest-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 1996 00:07:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from gaia.ucs.orst.edu (majordom@gaia.UCS.ORST.EDU [128.193.4.2]) by mail.orst.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA13645 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 1996 00:07:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id AAA24051 for skunk-works-digest-send@mail.orst.edu; Thu, 11 Jan 1996 00:06:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 00:06:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199601110806.AAA24051@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #597 Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: skunk-works@mail.orst.edu Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 11 January 1996 Volume 05 : Number 597 In this issue: Re: To hover or not to hover, that is the question Re: To hover or not to hover, that is the question -Reply 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: Greg Fieser Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 14:05:17 -0600 Subject: Re: To hover or not to hover, that is the question I'm not sure some of these qualify as 'hovering'. I assume hovering implies the ability to sustain altitude without relying on something like a wing to produce lift. Thus, ultra-lights, certain birds, and other "low stall speed" types would not qualify as hovering. In other words, without that 15 knot wind, the ultralight could not hover with "zero ground speed". Before anyone points it out, I realize helicopter rotors are, in effect, lift-producing wings, but they are still capable of pure 'hover'. Isn't there a more exact definition of the term 'hover' and what types of craft/creatures are capable of such? Greg Fieser - ------------------------------ From: fmarkus@pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 19:26:47 -0500 Subject: Re: To hover or not to hover, that is the question -Reply I believe that the Brilliant Pebbles prototype was demonstrated hovering in a hangar. It was designed as a orbital anti-missile device but as not permitted in outer space because of the ABM treaty. - ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #597 ********************************* 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). ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Thu, 11 Jan 96 11:53:57 MET Subject: Re: To hover or not to hover, that is the question Thanks to all for the answers, private or public. Now I think I can elaborate a more complete and more logical list (I did not add these objects which hover when they are placed over fans - I have seen on TV *men* hovering like that!): Can hover, but with the help of the wind (including ascending): 1.1) Kites (need string(s) too) 1.2) Parapentes and probably some or all other parachutes 1.3) Hang gliders and probably some other gliders (sailplanes) 1.4) Some ultra-lights with engines (to Jim Bostick: is the AN-2 the same as the Antonov An-2, NATO reporting name: Colt ?) Can hover, even without any wind: 2.1) LTAV = Lighter Than Air Vehicles (balloons, airships) 2.2) Helicopter mode: helicopters, some VTOL planes (V-22 Osprey) (is the disk-shaped Sikorsky Cypher (?) really an helicopter?) 2.3) Jet mode: some VTOL planes (Harrier), some other planes (Mig 29), jet back packs. 2.4) Mixture LTAV-helicopter: Heli-Stat 2.5) Now that's really interesting: crafts creating their own lift at speed 0, neither helicopters nor jets. Here is the posting I received: ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Date: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 18:31:18 -0800 From: [deleted] X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b3 (Win16; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: "J. Pharabod" Subject: Re: To hover or not to hover, that is the question References: <960109.152900.MET.PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [deleted] Discovery channel ran a special on inventors where one inventor had a quiet craft which hovered to 50 ft. It's my belief that if an inventor with relatively few resources can build a craft which hovers at this height, then the DOD must possess craft at least as capable as this. I recorded this program. Eight small 2-cycle engines were employed, which I found amazing that they could generate the lift and give a motionless hover. [end of posting] ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Has anybody else seen this special ? Maybe several "skunky" military crafts already work like that. Maybe the (sometimes thought to be mythical) TR-3 A "Black Manta" ? J. Pharabod P.S. To Frank Markus: >I believe that the Brilliant Pebbles prototype was demonstrated hovering in >a hangar. It was designed as a orbital anti-missile device but as not >permitted in outer space because of the ABM treaty. >Frank Markus (Wed, 10 Jan 1996 19:26:47 -0500) Could it be placed inside one of the items of the above list ? ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #597 ********************************* 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).