From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #610 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 30 January 1996 Volume 05 : Number 610 In this issue: Re: Pictures of Aurora Re: Pictures of Aurora Tonapah base(?) Re: SR-71 fuel question Re: Seeking pictures of re-activated SR-71s Re: ... B-2 trivia Re: Defense Industry Mergers Re: Tonapah base(?) Re: Tonapah base(?) Re: Tonapah base(?) Flying Wing Control Surfaces Re: Tonapah base(?) Alta Vista Re: Triangular UFOs [[was Re: KH-11 resolution]] RE: U2 on CBS Re: Loral Press Release (fwd) FWD>"In a hurry are we, sir (fwd) Another "Skunkworks" [none] [none] Re: Tonapah base(?) 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: BaDge Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 21:57:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Pictures of Aurora Cool Man, thanks Art. ;-D [If you say it's faster with a T-1, that's OK by me. I'm no expert! Although I've got both 14.4 and a T-1, I've never compared 'em.] That sounds like a great find, BTW! Oh, yeah, not much on tomorrow's (Tuesday) WINGS (1956 speed record), but PBS is replaying story of the B-29 Bomber they tried to dig up at the North Pole, film at 2000, EST. regards, ________ BaDge http://galen.med.virginia.edu/~baj7d http://galen.med.virginia.edu/~baj7d/BaDgeHLP.html ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 22:09:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Pictures of Aurora I just sneaked a peek at Art's .gif, and I noticed a slight wide-sawtooth shaped aft on this baby, just like one would expect. Recall the early B-2 pics left this off, and of course the B-2's angling is a lot more noticable. It looks like the angling is also up-and-down angled as well as indent-angling. This pic is pretty well done, and hard to tell as an image versus a dithered photo. Really intriguing. regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: Robert Christiansen Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 20:51:44 -0700 (MST) Subject: Tonapah base(?) I hate to prove some so intellegent wrong, but there is no base at Tonapah NV. Being near the NV test site and in open desert area makes it a prime target for test plane flyovers. Other than that there is no military significance in the area. Tonapah had nothing with the F-117 other than a fun place to watch for possible fly-bys. Robert Christiansen ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 01:41:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SR-71 fuel question TEA is just like TEB, except it's got aluminum (I think) rather than boron. As least that's the quickie explanation they gave me at the PSR (Project Safety Review) a couple of months ago. I don't do chemistry, so I can't tell you any more than this, although I do know enough to know that both of them are light-weight, fairly reactive metals (not the TEA/TEB, which is a liquid, but the aluminum and the boron). We're using TEA/TEB in the Aerospike and the Lockheed folks talk like the SRs use either, too. 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 Sun, 28 Jan 1996, ALBERT DOBYNS wrote: > CC: shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com > > MS> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 15:52:43 -0500 (EST) > > From: Mary Shafer > > Subject: Re: SR-71 fuel question > > To: ALBERT DOBYNS > > Cc: SKUNK-WORKS@MAIL.ORST.EDU > > MS> Blackbirds only burn JP-7 (and TEA/TEB, of course). > > I know what 2 out of 3 of them are, but I don't know what TEA is. > Could this be something similar to TEB? > > MS> I've never even heard it suggested that we use JP-8. JP-7 reminds me of > > 3-in-1 oil, but JP-8 is just kerosine, essentially. > > Actually I can't remember why I thought there was a connection > between JP-8 being a possible substitue for JP-7. I think I read > various posts of the different jet fuels being used and made a > connection that doesn't exist. > > There seemed to be so many variation of jet fuel that it reminded > me of those old Sunoco gas stations where you could select the > octane rating you wanted (or could afford). I think there were > around 6 choices. It's been so long since I've seen one that I > doubt if any still exist. Anyway thanks for clearing up my error. > > MS> Regards, > > Mary > > Regards to you also, > Al > > ps: did I tell you another Blackbird nut sent me a part that is > used on my favorite plane? It's an odd shaped thing that is part > of the "turkey-feathers" used to vary the exhaust nozzle area. I > think it's made of titanium alloy, and it looks somewhat like > stainless steel but it's very light weight. It doesn't look like > it has been used so I assume it's a reject. It's still nice to have! > --- > ~ SLMR 2.1a ~ "If You Can't Fly It, What Good Is It?" ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 01:32:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Seeking pictures of re-activated SR-71s Since they're counting the SR-71B as one of the reactivated aircraft, you can check URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov for photos. In addition, one of the reactivated As was here at Dryden for a while and it too may be pictured (although I suspect the USAF has repainted the tail). 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 Fri, 26 Jan 1996, Jeff H Clark wrote: > > Can anyone tell me where I can find a few pictures of the reactivated > USAF SR-71s? Computer files would be fine, but I'd also like to know any > print references. I have been kind of watching Aviation Week, but I > haven't seen any pictures yet. I would have figured they'd be all over > the place. > > Thanks, > > Jeff Clark jclark@freenet.scri.fsu.edu > ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 01:37:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: ... B-2 trivia The person I asked was, at the time, pretty high up in the echelons of the program (he's a Northrop VP now). When I get back to work (the dreaded sinus infection has struck again), I'll call over and ask my pilot buddy to find out what the term is now, as I asked about 3 years ago. 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, 27 Jan 1996, Dick Smith wrote: > Mary Shafer wrote: > > > > I believe the control surfaces on the B-2 are (or were) called > > "ruddevators" (although "reddevatervons" would be more accurate). > > However, they may have come out with something more euphonious by now. > > I remember hearing them called "elevrons", but that was just in passing. > I was once involved in, among other things, developing hydraulic test > equipment for the aircraft at the factory, which doesn't bring you that > close to people who actually fly the thing, and would therefore call > stuff by its right (that is, operational) name. > > You are, Mary, certainly more likely to run into those. Unless we have > someone on the list at Whiteman? > > Best, > -- > Dick Smith dick@smith.chi.il.us > Web page at: "http://www.rice.iit.edu/~rgrhs393/" > DUFF: Yes, Danny Heap for DUFF! ------------------------------ From: dick@smith.chi.il.us (Dick Smith) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 1:03:42 CST Subject: Re: Defense Industry Mergers Greg Fieser wrote: > Remember when Lockheed and Martin Marietta merged last year? And they called > the resulting company 'LockMart' (your one-stop defense contractor)? I jus... Thanks for this years' update. In mentioning last year, you forgot to mention the "Black Light specials", which are particularly relevant to this group. I used to work for a company which should now be called Norman Grumthrop. Then it could merge with Rockwell.... Best, - -- Dick Smith dick@smith.chi.il.us Web page at: "http://www.rice.iit.edu/~rgrhs393/" ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 23:36:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Tonapah base(?) > I hate to prove some so intellegent wrong, but there is no base at > Tonapah NV. Being near the NV test site and in open desert area makes it > a prime target for test plane flyovers. Other than that there is no > military significance in the area. Tonapah had nothing with the F-117 > other than a fun place to watch for possible fly-bys. > > Robert Christiansen Uh... you're kidding, right? As we all know Tonopah served as the base for the F-117A for about a decade, from the early 80s until the move to Holoman. ------------------------------ From: "Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM" Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 07:06 PST Subject: Re: Tonapah base(?) At 08:51 PM 1/29/96 -0700, you wrote: >I hate to prove some so intellegent wrong, but there is no base at >Tonapah NV. Being near the NV test site and in open desert area makes it >a prime target for test plane flyovers. Other than that there is no >military significance in the area. Tonapah had nothing with the F-117 >other than a fun place to watch for possible fly-bys. > > Robert Christiansen Well, then, let me quote my original message and discuss this a bit. > I'm wondering what's at Tonopah now. I think it's unlikely that a base like Tonapah would >be built up as much as it was and then be shut down when the 117's moved out. Anybody got any >ideas on what's there now? Just as there's no base at Clovis, NM, there's no base at Tonopah. (The base we usually say is at Clovis is Cannon AFB, and it's actually located 6 miles west of Clovis.) So, let me rephrase the question: does anybody have any idea what is now located at the base where the F-117-type aircraft flew for most of the 1980's? Maybe that's a bit better. --You mean you've jumped...ROUNDS??!! (Overheard at the Clovis, NM DZ) (Of course, silly! Hasn't everyone?) Member Bonus Days Club since 1980 NeedhamE@3lefties.com ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 06:58:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Tonapah base(?) > So, let me rephrase the question: does anybody have any idea what > is now located at the base where the F-117-type aircraft flew for most of > the 1980's? Which of course was Tonopah. :-) (BTW, good question) ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 06:12:35 PST Subject: Flying Wing Control Surfaces Well, Thought I`d sit back on this one, but what the hey. Your entering my "domain". The outboard control surfaces on Northrop type control systems for spanloaders are "rudders". They are, in official aerodynamic nomenclature "split airbrakes", but as used on the N1M-N9M, XB, YB, and B2 they are always referred to as rudders. Just tradition I guess. The elevons control pitch and roll. The rudders on a Northrop system are dual purpose, however. They are also used as the primary pitch trim for speed control. Here that the true genious of Northrop comes through. In the Northrop system the pitching moment of the wing is not due to an airfoil with a positive pitching - moment which requires a reflexed airfoil (ala Horten) with its attendendant loss in efficiency. The Northrop designs used SYMMETRICAL airfoils. What Northrop did, was to take an aircraft that was inherently unstable (statically) and use the control surfaces to change the longitudinal stability. Granted, it was simple, but it showed remamkable foresight. As we all know, a flying wing is a pretty inefficient aircraft. It will suffer from reduced range and speed than a conventional aircraft. There is twist however, that can change that. If you could use a more conventional airfoil (say a 2412 just for fun) you would overcome the problems inherent in a flying wing. So, it MAY be possible to build an RSS flying wing that would for its design point....be more efficient than a conventional aircraft! This of course, is the technology behind the Tier stuff, and the core of some HALE planform concepts. The XB-35 was one of the first aircraft that was designed in the early days of feedback autopilots. Could it have been that Northrop foresaw RSS? Considering the most recent work by Ashkenas et. al it would seem highly likely. Chuck ------------------------------ From: rakoczyj@agcs.com Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 08:17:17 -0700 Subject: Re: Tonapah base(?) On Jan 29, 9:37pm, Robert Christiansen wrote: > Subject: Tonapah base(?) > I hate to prove some so intellegent wrong, but there is no base at > Tonapah NV. Being near the NV test site and in open desert area makes I addition to other replies, I have a good friend who flew a lot of cargo in and out of Tonapah 20-30 years ago. Those radiation badges where checked ALL the time. He NEVER left home without it. - -- Jerzy (Jurek) Rakoczynski Voice: 602 581 4867 Fax: 602 582 7697 AG Communication Systems Internet: rakoczyj@agcs.com POB 52179 Internet: jurek.rakoczynski@gte.sprint.com Phoenix AZ 85072-2179 GTEMail: j.rakoczynski ------------------------------ From: George Allegrezza 30-Jan-1996 1034 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 10:41:24 EST Subject: Alta Vista You should have seen it when it was internal use only. Talk about smokin'. From our perspective its slowed down a lot, now that we're getting 2.5 million hits/day. It's still pretty slick, though. If anyone cares I can check out which box it is. (I think its a Turbolaser, but don't quote me.) George George Allegrezza | Digital Equipment Corporation | "Those pigs may be hogs, but they're Connectivity SW Business | kosher, capisce?" Littleton MA USA | allegrezza@ljsrv2.enet.dec.com | -- Robert Goulet ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 07:54:26 EST Subject: Re: Triangular UFOs [[was Re: KH-11 resolution]] Forwarded forward [8>)]... ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re: Triangular UFOs [[was Re: KH-11 resolution]] Author: UFO-L at smtp-fhu Date: 30/01/1996 0334 >This discussion about the KH-11 reminds me of a question asked by >a Belgian physicist I happen to know, Leon Brenig. There have been >a lot of reports of big, quasi-triangular objects slowly flying >or hovering over Belgium, southern England and North-East of the >USA (I don't mean that all these reports are correct, maybe 90% >are confusions with ordinary planes, but there is a substantial >number of well documented and still unexplained sightings). Brenig >asks: since there are spy satellites photographying all what >happens on this planet, have the sequences corresponding (time >and location) with these sightings been analysed ? If yes, what >are the results ? If no, could it be that: >1) No photographs have been made, because time and location never >corresponded: Not even *once*? >1.1) insufficient covering of the planet, i.e. not enough satellites >to see everything everywhere, There are some satellites on geostationary orbits, some of 'em for meteorological investigations, some for communications and some for military reasons. Some of these satellites operate in groups of three or four units (3 is the minimum) to cover all 360 degrees of earth's circumpherence. Some anomalies could've been detected, I guess. >1.2) these satellites fly only over potential enemies (ex-USSR, >China, some Middle-East countries, ...), not over densely >populated Western areas. See my point above. >2) These sophisticated KH-11 and the like satellites are blinded >by human lights (buildings, cars, street lights etc...). Most >of these sightings occurred indeed during night. If this is the case, >it would be impossible to spy on densely populated areas during night. Why? For some satellites, daylight or nighttime doesn't matter all that much. Visible spectrum isn't the only part of it that matters and BTW, some satellites cover many portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Infra-red or ultra-violet should help. Or even further in the spectrum (both sides). >3) The governments/military/intelligence are definitely not >interested in that, for whatever reason (probably because they >know perfectly well what it is...). Oooops... Or maybe *too* interested in others not being interested? Er... I think I'm babbling... :-) >J. Pharabod Leo K. - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To leave this list send your request to: LISTSERV@MB.PROTREE.COM with the first line of your message as: unsubscribe UFO-L If you need help, send private email to: bgarth@protree.com - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: TIMOTHY_MCINTOSH@HP-SanJose-om1.om.hp.com Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 08:59:11 -0800 Subject: RE: U2 on CBS Item Subject: cc:Mail Text Thats funny. I've only seen the ER-1s that NASA has at Moffett. The only time I'd seen a U2 was at the last open house a few years back. And that was a single seat that made 2 fly-bys. Timothy McIntosh ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 13:51:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Loral Press Release (fwd) On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, BaDge wrote: > The more technologically advanced a platform is beyond the rest of the > world, the more danger of exposure if the platform falls into > non-friendly, or even reasonably friendly hands. In the first case, > planes can crash in enemy territory, and the second, temptation to sell > in abeyance of secrecy agreements may become too great. Just wonder if those "secret" or high tech airplane does not have a self-destruction device??? At least in sensitive top secret components... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 13:49:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: FWD>"In a hurry are we, sir (fwd) No very skunky but still deal with radar... - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >From the net, somewhere in England: Two members of the Lothian and Borders traffic police were out on the Berweckshire moors with a radar gun recently, happily engaged in apprehending speeding motorists, when their equipment suddenly locked-up completely with an unexpected reading of well over 300 mph. The mystery was explained seconds later as a low flying Harrier hurtled over their heads. The boys in blue, upset at the damage to their radar gun, put in a complaint to the Royal Air force, but were somewhat chastened when the RAF pointed out that the damage might well have been more severe. The Harrier's target-seeker had locked on to the 'enemy' radar and triggered an automatic retaliatory air-to-surface missile attack. Luckily the Harrier was operating unarmed. - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 12:43:43 EST Subject: Another "Skunkworks" January-February 1996 issue of "Army Research, Development, and Acquisition, page 18, article Skunkworks by Sanda Trousdale Martel: "... Elder and his staff of 30 engineers, engineering technicians, model makers, sheet metal mechanics and welders comprise the operation that some refer to as '"Skunkworks."' History "The term Skunkworks is used to describe a low profile, in-house development scheme to bypass traditional constraints and red tape. However, the Skunkworks name belongs to Lockheed Martin, which holds a service mark from the U.S. Patent Office because the name became so closely identified with the company after an elite group of engineers developed America's first production jet fighter behind tightly closed doors in 1943. "The name caught on with the Redstone Arsenal group during the '60s because the staff had a penchant for producing hardware solutions outside the mainstream, in a timely manner and at reduced cost to the government. " Customers include: (1) Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS), (2) Patriot, (3) Javelin, (4) TOW, (5) Avenger Project Offices, (6) and the Targets Management Office." I'm wondering how many "Skunkworks" either exist or have existed? Terry Terry W. Colvin JITC [BDM ESC] Fort Huachuca, Arizona DSN 879-4239 ------------------------------ From: "hsapiens@clark.net" Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 17:00:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [none] set skunk-works daily hsapiens@clark.net ------------------------------ From: "hsapiens@clark.net" Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 17:02:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [none] Please disregard my newbie-style posting a moment ago. It has been a long day... - -- | $ | |---. ,---. ,---. ,---. . ,---. ,---. ,---. | "Most people would sooner die | | `---. ,---| | | | |---' | | `---. | than think; in fact, they do." ` ' `---' `---^ |---' ` `---' ` ' `---' | -- Bertrand Russell | hsapiens@clark.net | ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 17:59:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Tonapah base(?) Er, there is no such place as "Tonapah"--I've just looked through three good atlases, including the National Geographic's latest, and there is no place, lake, mountain, etc with that name. Tonopah (note spelling) is a small town in Nevada. It's not now, nor was it ever, owned by the Department of Defense. Nor was it a base. Calling Tonopah a base is a little like calling Merced a SAC base with B-52s, when you mean Castle AFB. Tonopah is more like Mountain Home or Los Angeles. There is a facility near the town that has the same name, but context will let you know when someone has dropped the AFB or AFS from the military facility. The Tonopah Test Range, marked as private on my 94 sectional, is about 25 mi from the town, although it's much further by road. The Test Range is in R-4809, which is a piddly little restricted area, about 15 nm by 20 nm. How about if we add TTR, meaning the Tonopah Test Range, to our vocabularies and keep Tonopah (spelled correctly) to refer to the town? I think that we refer to both the town and the Test Range often enough and ambiguously enough that we need to make the distinction clearer. 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.... ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #610 ********************************* 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).