From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #628 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Friday, 1 March 1996 Volume 05 : Number 628 In this issue: Re: YF-22 and YF-23 Weekday WINGS Re: YF-22 and YF-23 C17 reborn.. WARNING: Probably Off Charter (but maybe not) Re: YF-22/YF-23 decision Re: C17 reborn.. RE: C-17, the bus stops here ! Re: YF-22/YF-23 decision News News Re: YF-22/YF-23 decision RE: C-17, the bus stops here ! U2 Carrier Ops U-2 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: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Thu, 29 Feb 96 13:52:27  Subject: Re: YF-22 and YF-23 A follow-up to what I wrote yesterday, in light of Eric's valid arguments: I'm not trying to speculate here which aircraft (YF-22 or YF-23) was the "better" aircraft. The unique thing about this selection according to all reports was that the highly skilled personnel in the SPO were not to make a selection, or even a recommendation, to the selecting official which was the USAF Secretary. This decision was not made on the basis of the classic flyoff where two competitors were compared point to point and whichever plane scored higher or performed better or had greater growth capability (that's how the Phantom II beat the Crusader III) or cost less was awarded the contract. Unfortunately, most of that data still hasn't been disclosed, and may not be for some time to prevent second guessing. Of course, the very fact of not disclosing it can lead to second guessing as well. Preserving the design and construction base may very well have been the reason, and with two similar performing designs could be quite valid. It could also have been some reason that is still classified, or it could have been just what the announcement said, Lockheed/GD/Boeing's management plan was judged superior to Northrop/MDD's. In an environment where the dollars to do the program would have to be fought for daily, this could be a very telling factor (You Don't want to be embarrassed 5 years into a program). We're quite lucky that two such exceptional designs resulted, it's a pity we couldn't afford both. Regarding the JSF, that's going to be a very interesting selection. Some estimates of the market for this stealthy wonder are up to 3,000 aircraft worldwide If it actually gets built). It'll also be interesting because although smaller, much of the technology in it will be at least a decade newer than the F-22's. The "smart skin" technology that has been showing up in some journals may even get here in time to be incorporated on at least the non-export versions of it. Art Hanley In compliance with the Full Employment For Lawyers Act, I must state that the Above does not represent my employer's Views, only mine ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 14:47:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Weekday WINGS Friday's show, the first 'skunky' on in a while is on the evolution of spy aircraft from Hot air baloons to Jets. As usual 1800-1900 EST, the Discovery Channel. regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 03:14:28 PST Subject: Re: YF-22 and YF-23 We will not know for a long time, and all we can do here is speculate. I will offer up a few points that seem to have been missed. Performance is so good on all modern designs today it generally goes beyond what the pilots can endure, which is why many in my field are convinced the next leap in military aviation will be "smart" pilotless fighters- we call them HK`s for Hunter Killers. The F104 with new wings and engine can outlfly everthing in the sky, along with the Super Corsair, but they are not part of an integrated weapons system like the Mig29 or the F15. Dogfights are a desparation move of last resort in modern air combat. The days of "talley ho the bandits at 3 high" are long gone! (Remember, the Mig 29`s gun is "aimed" by the autopilot!) The Viper has a gun but its pretty useless. It was a holdover from the Vietnam era and the F4 experience. We had relied on missles but our "water seekers" were inneffective over the sea, so thats where the Migs would engage. That and all the bomb craters filled with water. Well, I`m getting off on a tangent herer but the point is that the performance needs to be sufficient, not better. And then the risk/benefit considerations. If a 2% gain in some performance parameter costs an additional 30% in complexity - and thus costs in reliability and $$$$, is it worh it? Can be a very tough descision. One very important parameter in aircraft selection is ease of maintainence. Another is - now get this- cost. Cost of aquisition, cost of maintainence, cost of crew training...... Another is TFSC and range. And in reality, if both designs are pretty good, chances are very good that both will be produced anyway. There`s a point in an aircraft design nowadays called "You Bet Your Company." The cost of designing a modern aircraft can be such that if no return on investment is generated, the company will never recoup. This is usually the moment when the planform is fixed. If the US Gov. really went head to head we would soon have a single, government controlled aircraft industry. Now thats a SCARY thought!!! Chuck ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 04:18:24 PST Subject: C17 reborn.. Apparently, MD has straightened out its problem child. The Defense Aquistion Board has given a green light to the C-17 program. The Air Force will be cleared to spend $18 BILLIION to triple its C-17 fleet. The money will expand the operational fleet from 40 to 120 AC. Boy, we sure need another big ugly with a 130,000 pound payload. Chuck ------------------------------ From: fmarkus@pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 10:30:00 -0500 Subject: WARNING: Probably Off Charter (but maybe not) http://www.mglobal.com/news.html ------------------------------ From: erebenti@MIT.EDU (Eric Rebentisch) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 96 10:51:18 EST Subject: Re: YF-22/YF-23 decision Thanks to Art "Blabberfinger" Hanley for his enlightening history on the ATF selection. Here are a few comments of my own: >One was that it was said the Lockheed team had to perform >a heroic effort to perform a major redesign to their submission, which >ended up in the excellent aircraft that eventually flew. It has >been noted that the early depictions of the Lockheed ATF looked >substantially different from the final form, while Northrop's design >essentially showed few changes from the early depictions to the >final one. We did go through a number of late configuration changes that delayed the program. The proposal aircraft configuration was different from the prototype in a number of ways. > Third, Northrop had made >as one of its goals that it would get into the air well ahead of its >competition, so that it could rack up more hours. Of course, flying >around for months while "the other guys" were still working on getting >in the air is not a minor advantage in perception during a competition. >When USAF "restructured" the program, putting in a six month delay for >"refinement", a number of eyebrows were raised. This delay corresponded >to the amount of time Lockheed was behind. Lockheed not only caught up, but exceeded Northrop's level of test effort, probably to its ultimate advantage. There's a lot to be said for having a good test plan and executing it. >The third thing that possibly unfairly put the F-22 selection "under a >cloud" was what little we know about the relative performance of the two >aircraft. USAF in the RFP repeatedly stressed speed (especially in >supercruise) and stealth. Most reports say that the YF-23 was clearly >superior in these areas. In fact, the YF-23's supercruise speed with the >GE engine (both aircraft showed better performance with the YF120) was >so high that it was classified. The supercruise numbers were supposed to be classified in general, but I suspect that the few basic performance numbers that we know were leaked to the press to build consensus that this system provided a real improvement over the existing systems and therefore its acquisition was justified. Knowing a little about the performance of the two engines, I doubt that the performance of YF-120-powered YF-23 was so high that it would be worthy of conspiracy theories. >Some reports indicated that the F-23 could carry two more >missiles internally than the F-22. Well now, getting them on a target in a combat situation is altogether another story. As you note later, a single point failure in the launch arm could jeopardize that ability. What about weapon bay compatibility with other types of munitions? Did the -23 design have any peculiarities that might have limited its flexibility? >Originally USAF set stringent airfield requirements for the ATF. In >order to meet the landing distance requirement (with the thrust the ATF >would have, meeting the takeoff requirement was easy) both competitors >planned the use of thrust reversers. Convincing itself once again that >airfields are invulnerable, USAF dropped the stringent landing distance >requirement. As a result, for cost reasons both competitors dropped >thrust reversers from their designs. I'm not too sure it was the conviction that airfields were invulnerable so much that they started getting data indicating just how much that capability would weigh and cost. Those kinds of trades are still going on these days, BTW. Having the user (ACC) actually have to pay for performance out of its own budget does wonders for enforcing fiscal realism in requirements generation. >With most aircraft, operating at high angle of attack results in the wings or >fuselage blocking airflow over the vertical stabilizers. Look at a >model of the YF-23. There is virtually no flight attitude where the rear >empennage will not be in clear air, especially when the flaperons were >drooped. The YF-22's vertical control surface may be masked at higher >angles, but it uses thrust vectoring to compensate. In theory, the -23's tails would be in clear air, but don't underestimate the downwash effect on airflow from a wing that's producing a lot of lift. That could really limit the effectiveness of the tails. Thrust vectoring on the -22 would be of limited benefit to compensate for masking of the verticals at high AOA since they are 2-D nozzles, too. Finally, and an important point, is that you can't really rely on thrust vectoring as a primary aerodynamic control, since engine failures are the most common failure mode for these aircraft. That's why the -22's empennage surfaces are so large even with T/V. That does raise some interesting questions about McD's JSF configuration as reported recently in AW&ST (note that they are funding a quick technology demonstration project with NASA on tailless aircraft). >In the ATF case, though, once it was established that the proposals met >the USAF's minimum requirements and would do what the bidders claimed, >relative performance and capability did not seem to be a major factor in >the selection.... The announced reason given for the >USAF Secretary's selection was a superior management plan and >greater confidence in the team. Macair (Northrop's partner) later >stated that they blamed themselves for not insisting on better >documentation of their plan from their team. This is really the point I made in my original posting. USAF was buying a weapon system, not an airplane. Most enthusiasts key on the characteristics of the airplane itself (based on limited information available) and assume that the selection was somehow wrong because the -23 seemed to be superior. Art makes a strong case that the -23 was a superior design, and given that the design was frozen much sooner than that of the - -22, it certainly should have been much more refined (as an airplane). In the end, though there are lots of issues to consider in a selection like this, and there were a lot of factors that fed into that decision that rarely get considered in the typical discussion. We don't have access to a fraction of the data that the decision-makers did when they made the selection. Thanks Art, though, for shedding more light on the topic. Eric Eric Rebentisch Lean Aircraft Initiative Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Ave., Room 33-407 Cambridge, MA 02139 (617) 258-7773 fax: (617) 258-7845 ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 14:00:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: C17 reborn.. On Fri, 1 Mar 1996 Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com wrote: > spend $18 BILLIION to triple its C-17 fleet. The money will expand the > operational fleet from 40 to 120 AC. > > Boy, we sure need another big ugly with a 130,000 pound payload. From a interview to the U.S. Air Force brigadier general Glosson from Aviation Week & Space Technology (January 29, 1996): "glosson: Fifty or 60 C-17s are critical and were needed because of the aging C-5 and C-141 fleets. But I do not support buying additional airplanes. In Desert Storm, we proved that the wide-body commercial airplanes could carry the bulk of the equipment that we needed to prosecute a war. When two of the manufactures of the wide-body planes offer an $80 million [per aircraft] solution [which was later increased to $120 million], why should taxpayers buy additional C-17s for $180 million a copy?" May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: JOHN SZALAY Date: Fri, 1 Mar 96 14:52:29 EST Subject: RE: C-17, the bus stops here ! Re: C17 reborn.. On Fri, 1 Mar 1996 Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com wrote: > spend $18 BILLIION to triple its C-17 fleet. The money will expand the > operational fleet from 40 to 120 AC. > > Boy, we sure need another big ugly with a 130,000 pound payload. > "glosson: Fifty or 60 C-17s are critical and were needed because > of the aging C-5 and C-141 fleets. But I do not support buying additional > airplanes. In Desert Storm, we proved that the wide-body commercial > airplanes could carry the bulk of the equipment that we needed to > prosecute a war. When two of the manufactures of the wide-body planes > offer an $80 million [per aircraft] solution [which was later increased > to $120 million], why should taxpayers buy additional C-17s for $180 > million a copy?" > Su Wei-Jen Yes the wide-bodys will do IF you have a proper airfield, The C-17 is supposed to be able to use less than "optimum" fields. As one who has, In a prior lifetime, landed in C-130's on dirt surrounded by tree-stumps & shell holes, I sort of like the idea of having the bus stop close by. :) John Szalay ( 101st Airborne DIV) (Pathfinders 65-68 ) jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 16:03:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: YF-22/YF-23 decision On Fri, 1 Mar 1996, Eric Rebentisch wrote: > >Originally USAF set stringent airfield requirements for the ATF. In > >order to meet the landing distance requirement (with the thrust the ATF > >would have, meeting the takeoff requirement was easy) both competitors > >planned the use of thrust reversers. Convincing itself once again that > >airfields are invulnerable, USAF dropped the stringent landing distance > >requirement. As a result, for cost reasons both competitors dropped > >thrust reversers from their designs. > > I'm not too sure it was the conviction that airfields were invulnerable so > much that they started getting data indicating just how much that > capability would weigh and cost. Those kinds of trades are still going on > these days, BTW. Having the user (ACC) actually have to pay for > performance out of its own budget does wonders for enforcing fiscal realism > in requirements generation. > I don't think that a airfield is unvulnerable either... but the question is... Do we need a airfield? A example was, when I was in Taiwan about 5 years ago, I note that in the highways they have a special system that can remove the center line separation between the two ways lines, that's allow the aircraft to land in middle of the highway in emergency case. This is because of the tension of war between Taiwan and Republic Popular of China and because Taiwan is such a small country that have only few airfields and tactically it is easy to destroy those airfield because of the small area of the country. Same thing happen to England... That's why they need the Harrier. The U.S. Marines need the Harrier (AV-8B) because they need it for their less expensive carrier without catapult. So, ask yourself, how many airports have United State... And how many highways in United State a aircraft can land???? I think United State is the country that has the most airport in the world and a net of hundreds of higways with very nice shape for aircraft landing. This will create a tactical nightmare for anyone that want to destroy the home of aircrafts in USA. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 13:21:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: News This appeared in the February 28-March 5 1996 issue of Flight International: 'BLACK' WING-DESIGN PROJECT REVEALED Northrop Grumman is working on a highly classified advanced wing design believed to be related to at least one US Department of Defense "black" aircraft project. The company is testing a pressurised-wing concept, using rapid prototyping methods at its B-2 division plant in Pico Rivera, California. The "distributed-exhaust" system, as the concept is also known, is believed to be tied to advanced design work on classified military programmes, including a low-observable special-forces transport. Northrop Grumman declines to comment, saying only that it is potentially aimed at "several commercial and military applications". The work was revealed when a design-equipment supplier inadvertently released information on its part in the programme. The US design uses pressurised air bled from the engine pumped through the upper surface of the wing. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: David Lednicer Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 13:21:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: News This appeared in the February 28-March 5 1996 issue of Flight International: 'BLACK' WING-DESIGN PROJECT REVEALED Northrop Grumman is working on a highly classified advanced wing design believed to be related to at least one US Department of Defense "black" aircraft project. The company is testing a pressurised-wing concept, using rapid prototyping methods at its B-2 division plant in Pico Rivera, California. The "distributed-exhaust" system, as the concept is also known, is believed to be tied to advanced design work on classified military programmes, including a low-observable special-forces transport. Northrop Grumman declines to comment, saying only that it is potentially aimed at "several commercial and military applications". The work was revealed when a design-equipment supplier inadvertently released information on its part in the programme. The US design uses pressurised air bled from the engine pumped through the upper surface of the wing. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 15:53:47 -0800 Subject: Re: YF-22/YF-23 decision Art writes: >>In fact, the YF-23's supercruise speed with the >>GE engine (both aircraft showed better performance with the YF120) was >>so high that it was classified. Eric replies: >... >I doubt that the performance of YF-120-powered YF-23 was so high that it >would be worthy of conspiracy theories. I agree, especially with IHPTET around the corner. I'm anxious to see the the neat engines they're going to be building with that technology, and of course Pratt & Whitney just happens to be developing F-119 parts in their IHPTET programs! I expect some F-22 to greatly benefit from IHPTET, as well as the newer programs where IHPTET will be a critical design factor from the start. Larry ------------------------------ From: JOHN SZALAY Date: Fri, 1 Mar 96 14:52:29 EST Subject: RE: C-17, the bus stops here ! Re: C17 reborn.. On Fri, 1 Mar 1996 Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com wrote: > spend $18 BILLIION to triple its C-17 fleet. The money will expand the > operational fleet from 40 to 120 AC. > > Boy, we sure need another big ugly with a 130,000 pound payload. > "glosson: Fifty or 60 C-17s are critical and were needed because > of the aging C-5 and C-141 fleets. But I do not support buying additional > airplanes. In Desert Storm, we proved that the wide-body commercial > airplanes could carry the bulk of the equipment that we needed to > prosecute a war. When two of the manufactures of the wide-body planes > offer an $80 million [per aircraft] solution [which was later increased > to $120 million], why should taxpayers buy additional C-17s for $180 > million a copy?" > Su Wei-Jen Yes the wide-bodys will do IF you have a proper airfield, The C-17 is supposed to be able to use less than "optimum" fields. As one who has, In a prior lifetime, landed in C-130's on dirt surrounded by tree-stumps & shell holes, I sort of like the idea of having the bus stop close by. :) John Szalay ( 101st Airborne DIV) (Pathfinders 65-68 ) jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com ------------------------------ From: "Mark E. Schmidt" Date: Sat, 2 Mar 96 03:00:23 UT Subject: U2 Carrier Ops On wings this evening I saw a U2 land and take off from an aircraft carrier. I am not aware of any U2 variant with folding wings, but cannot imagine leaving one uncovered on an open deck for long. U2 is way to wide to fit on any elevator of an aircraft carrier I've been on (the largest being CVA-63, the Kitty Hawk - *sh_ __y kitty*). Did U2's stay on board long enough to warrant removing wings to stow on hangar deck, or . .. . ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 19:16:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: U-2 Very Skunky... download from the pbs relative with the U-2 program that showed the last week... Enjoy May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu The American Experience photo of U-2 in flight SPY IN THE SKY U-2 -- Declassified Info _______________________________________________________________ By all accounts the U-2 was a strange looking plane. It was a jet but it had the body of a glider. First test flown in 1955, the U-2's unusual design allowed for an altitude capability of 70,000 feet. The spy plane was able to stay aloft in excess of nine hours. * PRESSURIZED SUIT The U-2 pilots were fitted with specially made pressurized suits so that the pilot's body fluids would not expand if he was exposed to the low air pressures of the upper atmosphere. The suit consisted of long tubes running from the shoulders to the wrist, and down the body and legs which, when inflated with oxygen, compressed the tubes to five pounds per square inch against the body. The earliest model, the MC-3, was made of a rubberized fabric and was very tight-fitting. The helmet was fastened into place with a hermetic seal which Gary Powers described as feeling like "a too-tight tie over a badly shrunk collar." Pilots remained in the tight suits for up to twelve hours and would lose an average of four pounds per flight through perspiration. Voiding during flight was a complicated matter. First, the pilot would activate the auto-pilot function and then struggle through three layers of clothing--thin cotton underwear (with the seams turned inside out for comfort during the long flights), the pressure suit and a jumpsuit. Disposal occurred through a funnel attached to a tube. Pilots nicknamed the mechanism the "relief tube." * PREFLIGHT Pilots prepared for U-2 flights by "prebreathing" 100 percent oxygen for two hours to remove nitrogen from their bloodstreams--the cause of what deep-sea divers call "the bends." * DESTRUCT UNIT Because the U-2s were gathering sensitive information which could be incriminating if discovered, the plane was equipped with a destruct unit. The unit was a two-and-one-half pound explosive charge made by Beckman and Whitley, Inc. which the pilot had to trigger. (Some thought was given to an autodestruct unit which would detonate in a crash landing, but many pilots feared it could explode in a rough landing). The pilot activated the device through a two-step procedure. First he would throw one switch, then commence the timing sequence by throwing a second. Once the second switch was thrown, there was approximately a 60 second delay before the unit would ignite. The pilot could stop the destruction by throwing back the second switch, although the timer would not be reset. In that case, if the pilot were to re-activate the destruct unit, he would only have the remaining seconds on the timer to get clear of the plane. The purpose of the destruction unit was to destroy the camera in the equipment bay. * EJECTION SEATS To conserve weight, the earliest U-2s did not have ejection seats, but were later upgraded to include them. The plane Powers flew was equipped with an ejector seat, but on his final flight Powers was not in a position to use the ejector without, he believed, severing his legs. He removed the canopy and climbed out, parachuting to the ground. * WEIGHT The first of the ultra-light planes weighed in empty at 12,000 pounds and at approximately 17,000 pounds on take-off including 995 gallons of fuel. The plane's wafer-thin skin--only .02 inches--was half-jokingly referred to as "Reynolds wrap" or "toilet paper" by its engineers and builders. * FUSELAGE The 40-foot fuselage--half the length of the plane's wings--contained seven camera windows, each six to eight inches in diameter, to accommodate the specially made Type B camera. * WINGS The wings were constructed with an unusual latticework of aluminum tubing replacing conventional wing rib stiffeners. The 80-foot wingspan had a high aspect ratio of 10.67 and very low wing loading (the total lift produced by a wing divided by the total wing area) which needed to be around or below thirty pounds per square foot. The wings' surface area was 600 square feet. * ENGINE The U-2 was powered by a single Pratt & Whitney J57 turbo jet engine. That engine was later upgraded to a more powerful Pratt & Whitney J75-P-13. It was the J75-P-13 which was in use in the plane piloted by Francis Gary Powers on his final U-2 flight. The engine weighed about 4,850 pounds. * TAKE-OFF The U-2 only needed 1000 feet for takeoff. By comparison, a fully loaded 747 airliner can take up to 7,500 feet. * AIR SPEED The U-2 had a cruising speed of approximately 460 mph and a top speed of 500 mph. * LANDING GEAR Rather than the usual tricycle arrangement--one wheel under the nose and one under either wing--the U-2 had a bicycle arrangement, with one wheel under the nose and one under the tail. A "pogo," or extension with a small wheel on the end, was set in a socket underneath each wing to support the long wings while the plane was on the ground. The pogos dropped off at takeoff. * FUEL The fuel was carried in four integral wing tanks which fed a fuselage sump tank. Internal fuel capacity was 1,345 gallons but another 200 gallons could be carried in two slipper tanks attached to either wing. For fuel, the plane used Shell Oil's specially refined kerosene. Because the plane was flying at very high altitudes, the U-2 needed fuel with a high boiling point --300 degrees F at sea level--about double that of normal jet fuels. * NAVIGATION Flying secretly, the pilots could not use radio fixes for navigation without being discovered. Pilots therefore had to learn to navigate on their own, without radio aids of any kind. For safety reasons when flying at maximum altitude, U-2 pilots had to fly with a wings-level, nose-up attitude. Because of this, they were unable to see the ground directly beneath the plane without the help of the "hole-in-the-floor"--a combined drift sight/sextant. This was essentially an upside down periscope, serving as a primary navigation aid and allowing the pilot to see if there were enemy fighters below. The U-2 was also equipped with a Lear A-10 autopilot. * RADAR AVOIDANCE The U-2s flew at 70,000 feet--a height believed to be beyond Soviet defense and hoped to be beyond its radar detection. At that height, the planes were further hidden because they left no vapor trail. Later, the U-2s were fitted with a piece of equipment in the planes' tail called "the granger." Should an aircraft lock onto the U-2 with its radar and launch a missile, the granger would alert the pilot to potential danger and send out a faulty signal to break the enemy's radar lock. Schematics schematic of U-2 Spy in the Sky Menu || The Real Story || Declassified Info U-2's Camera || Spy Quiz || The Spies || Credits and Accessibility _______________________________________________________________ [IMAGE] The American Experience / feedback / WGBH Educational Foundation ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #628 ********************************* 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).