From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #638 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Friday, 22 March 1996 Volume 05 : Number 638 In this issue: Re: Skyquakes Re: Tailless Tall Tales Project Nautilus revisited Re: Aurora by any other name would smell as sweet... Re: Biological Analogies of bees and legends Re: Aurora by any other name would smell as sweet... Re: of bees and legends RE: Tailless Tall Tales Re: Accidental Sparrow launches Tailless versus tailless Re: Tailless versus tailless Re: Tailless versus tailless Re: Accidental Sparrow launches 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: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 03:31:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Skyquakes J. Pharabod reposted the following from Bill Loughman: >Can't speak to the specific question. But, sometime in September(?) >of 1995 I posted to this list a query regarding one Roy(?) Carpenter, >an elderly man I met while vacationing (look it up). He claimed to >have been an SR-71 pilot, and was _very_ talkative. >At several points in our conversations, he suggested to me that - if >I thought the 'Blackbird' was nifty - there was something even better. >He called it the "Aurora", and wouldn't talk about it. >That post to this (Skeptic) list was reposted to the "skunk-works" >list (not by me), and I got a number of unbidden responses. This >Roy/Ray Carpenter was real. _Apparently_ I was talking to the >genuine article. I doubt that this Roy/Ray Carpenter is/was real, and would like to know from others here, if they agree or disagree. The only source I can provide for my disbelieve is Paul F. Crickmore's book _Lockheed SR-71 -- The Secret Missions Exposed_, which contains a list of all A-12/M-21/YF-12/SR-71 pilots, RSOs, and even "passengers". It lists only one crew member with the name Carpenter, and this is "Al 'Buz' Carpenter", a pilot which was checked out in 1976. Anyone with better facts? - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 03:09:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Tailless Tall Tales As far as I am concerned (and I am neither an aerodynamicist nor an aerospace engineer, not even a pilot), the X-36 will evaluate Tailless design features rather than Flying Wing features. A pure Flying Wing is Tailless, but not all Tailless designs are Flying Wings (without a fuselage). The X-4, Mirage III, F-102, F-106, Vulcan and many other aircraft, especially those with Delta-wings, have no Horizontal stabilizers (with or without elevators), but most have Vertical stabilizers (usually with rudder). Some have a combined horizontal and vertical control in form of a V-tail (Bonanza, Magister or YF-23), while others have moved the horizontal parts in front of the wing (canards). Engine nacelles or fins (sometimes at the end of the wings) for are sometimes used for vertical stabilization, while other designs use only wing dihedral for this purpose. So I believe the discussion should focus on whether the removal of horizontal and especially vertical stabilizers and/or elevators/rudders and their replacement with thrust-vectoring or other concepts, would increase or decrease variables such as overall drag, fuel consumption, aircraft systems complexity, etc. For example, what happens if you loose your engine, and with it all your flight controls? Apparently, this is what the X-36 is supposed to do -- answering those questions. - - Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 03:25:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Project Nautilus revisited Here is a Press Release from TRW (Thompson Ramo Wooldridge, Inc.) regarding the project Nautilus laser success in February. - -- Andreas TRW credits laser maturity, tracking advances, disciplined testing for Nautilus success. REDONDO BEACH, Calif., March 13, 1996. Last month's first-ever laser shoot- down of a short-range rocket by the 9-month-old Nautilus program capitalized on nearly two decades of laser technology development at TRW. The Nautilus program, a joint effort of the U.S. Army and the Israel Ministry of Defense (IMOD), conducted the laser test on Feb. 9 at the Army's High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF) at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., using the TRW-built Mid Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL). The Nautilus team, which included the U.S. Army Space & Strategic Defense Command, IMOD, several Israeli aerospace companies and TRW Space & Electronics Group (Nautilus prime contractor), attributed the historic success to a well-understood laser, improvements in laser target tracking techniques and a well-defined test plan. This demonstration of laser capabilities sets the stage for the development of laser-based air defense systems that can keep pace with -- and defeat -- new and rapidly changing tactical threats. TRW officials believe that a demonstration air defense system could be in the field in less than two years, followed quickly by an operational system. "The result was exactly as we had predicted," said Josef Shwartz, TRW's Nautilus program manager and chief architect of the Nautilus test plan. "The U.S. government has been testing and investing in a greater understanding of the MIRACL laser since 1980. This test was the big payoff for that investment. "We now have the potential to deal with cheap, short-range rockets and other airborne threats favored by terrorist groups around the world." According to Shwartz, several factors contributed to the successful Nautilus test: * Since 1983, TRW and the Department of Defense have conducted extensive laser tests at HELSTF to develop a clear understanding of how high-power lasers can be used against airborne targets. The test program pitted the megawatt-class, deuterium fluoride (DF) MIRACL laser against a variety of airborne targets, including unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and flying drones simulating cruise missiles. * TRW recently defined an improved method for using the Army's Sea Lite Beam Director, the optical tracking and laser beam pointing system integrated with MIRACL at HELSTF. When implemented by the Army's HELSTF support team, the new software algorithm allowed the beam director to track the small target accurately and hold the laser beam on it long enough to destroy it. * The Nautilus team developed a detailed, systematic test plan which rigorously defined the requirements to engage this type of threat. The plan included detailed characterization of the threat, demonstrations of the laser and its ability to destroy static targets at various power levels, and tests of new pointing and tracking procedures. "The maturity of the MIRACL technology coupled with our disciplined approach allowed us to predict accurately what it would take to defeat the live in-bound rocket," said Shwartz. "By scaling down and repackaging MIRACL technology for the battlefield, we can offer U.S. troops on peacekeeping missions the flexibility to deal decisively with new short-range threats." According to Alvin Schnurr, TRW's manager of Army tactical high-energy laser systems and one of the originators of the Nautilus program, laser-based air defenses offer a complementary capability to current intermediate and long-range missile-based systems. "Lasers are effective against a variety of `late detection' threats such as short-range rockets, cruise missiles or attack helicopters, which can be difficult to hit with conventional missile-based air defense systems," he explained. "Their `speed of light' characteristic gives you a very high probability of destroying your target, at a very low cost per shot." In addition to its advances in laser tracking, TRW has demonstrated breakthroughs in two areas that will allow high-power DF lasers to be packaged in smaller, cheaper, and more mobile configurations. "Our newest laser devices generate a lot of power with very little fuel," explained Schnurr. "This high efficiency means we need less hardware in the laser, which leads to smaller, lighter and less expensive packaging." TRW has also developed uncooled mirrors and optics, he added, which help shrink system size and weight even further. "With new optical materials and high reflectivity coatings that reduce heat build-up, we've eliminated the bulky and expensive water cooling system needed for previous laser optics." TRW Space & Electronics Group (S&EG), with headquarters in Redondo Beach, has been engaged in the research and development of lasers since 1961. Today, the group designs and develops a variety of lasers, including high-energy chemical lasers, iodine lasers and diode-pumped solid state lasers. S&EG is an operating unit of Cleveland-based TRW Inc., which provides advanced technology products and services for the automotive and space and defense markets. TRW Inc.'s 1995 worldwide sales were $10.2 billion. - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: David Windle Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 09:45:36 Subject: Re: Aurora by any other name would smell as sweet... Adrian wrote : >Just had a interesting message from a guy in London, who refers to Aurora >as "The Silent Vulcan" - has anyone heard of this before? - I never have. This is a large and you guessed it...silent.. triangular a/c that has been seen since the mid to late 80s..so called because of a passing similarity to a Vulcan Bomber. Quite different I suspect to the alleged hypersonic skyquakin' spy whassname.... It was thought to be the Silent Vulcan that had the near miss with the Manchester 737 and maybe the Belgium incident that Jean-Pierre has researched.... D ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 96 6:24:55 EST Subject: Re: Biological Analogies > Whether or not the flying wind is efficient is another issue. If > planes flapped their wings, well, then one might consider > biological analogies. Or, if birds had props or wing buried > Williams Internat'l turbofan engines, maybe. Not a bad idea > though, come to think of it. Now, that would be stealthy. > > Isn't it also true that, using aerodynamic principals, a bee shouldn't be able to fly...yet it does? I guess it's time to realize that God can do things that man cannot. - -- A hundred years from now, it will not matter what kind of house I live in, how much is in my bank account, or what kind of car I drive, but the world may be a different place because I was important in the life of a child. Douglas J. Tiffany dougt@u011.oh.vp.com Varco-Pruden Buildings Van Wert, Ohio ------------------------------ From: Dave Pierson: I am the NRA Date: Thu, 21 Mar 96 08:00:20 EST Subject: of bees and legends >Isn't it also true Not particularly true, as i understand it. >that, using aerodynamic principals, a bee shouldn't be able to fly... The version i am aware of: sometime back (middle 50s?) someone applied the THEN AVAILABLE approximations to bumblebee flight. They demonstrated that the approximations did not work. (IE: The approsimations showed a non flying bumble bee.) Those doing the exercise clearly understood That they were working with approximations. The limited ability of the time. Science is not some 'monolith' it grows and expands, constantly, in what it understands. I believe the currently available set of knowledge do yield a 'flying bumble bee. I guess its time for these olde techno legendes to die. or be understood. regards dwp ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Thu, 21 Mar 96 14:38:48 MET Subject: Re: Aurora by any other name would smell as sweet... >This is a large and you guessed it...silent.. triangular a/c that has >been seen since the mid to late 80s..so called because of a passing >similarity to a Vulcan Bomber. Quite different I suspect to the alleged >hypersonic skyquakin' spy whassname.... >It was thought to be the Silent Vulcan that had the near miss with the >Manchester 737 and maybe the Belgium incident that Jean-Pierre has >researched.... >David Windle (Thu, 21 Mar 1996 09:45:36) Here is something I got several weeks ago. It seems that the British journalists are still sure that the Belgian F-16 intercepted that beast, though the Belgian military are no longer sure. J. Pharabod From: Daily Mail newspaper. Date: Saturday, February 3rd, 1996. FINDINGS OF THE JOINT AIR MISS WORKING GROUP (BRITISH AIRWAYS) A UFO? Actually, it was just our alien friends in the North. By Michael Harvey It flashed past silently in seconds. Illuminated by white lights like a Christmas tree, it came shudderingly close as the British Airways Boeing 737 approached Manchester Airport. The Boeing's bewildered pilots knew they had seen something. They weren't sure what. Yesterday, officials were also scratching their heads after a year-long investigation failed to come up with a convincing explanation. But there were knowing nods at the British UFO Research Association. Members are sure the mysterious craft was the Silent Vulcan - a triangular shaped craft that has been reported cruising northern skies for 20 years. Captain Roger Wills and First Officer Mark Stuart were almost ready to land British Airways flight 5061 from Milan when the craft hurtled towards them on January 6th last year. They radioed traffic controllers at Manchester and filed a formal air miss report after landing. Yesterday the findings by the Joint Air Miss Working Group said: "To speculate about extra-terrestrial activity is not within the group's remit," it said. But morale at the British UFO Research Association rocketed. Members believe the report practically confirms what they have known all along - there is definitely something "out there". "The report is remarkably open-minded," said director of investigations, Phillip Mantell. It is a milestone in official recognition of the phenomenon of UFOs." "We have always contended that there is something out there which is beyond accepted science and now this is being reflected in the corridors of officialdom." Mr Mantell said the Silent Vulcan - named because it is shaped like the old British Vulcan Bomber - has been seen all along the 'Pennine Corridor', from the Midlands up through Derbyshire and into Yorkshire. There was a surge of sightings in the 1970s and then again in the late 1980s. One came from a Sheffield Police Officer. The Silent Vulcan widened its horizons in 1989 and 1990, with a spate of reports in Belgium. The airforce there even scrambled two F-16 fighters, which tracked the object by radar. They failed to find any UFO but their readings showed it accelerated and lost altitude at speeds that would have turned any human pilot into pulp. "This latest report is the first officially recognised sighting of the Silent Vulcan along the Pennines," Mr Mantell said. "British Airways are to be complimented for treating this incident seriously." It seems that not all at the airline appreciate the gravity of the situation. Captain Wills of Normanton, West Yorkshire and First Officer Stuart, from Congleton, Cheshire, are said to have been constantly ribbed by colleagues. "I think they're both fed up with hearing about it, although they're glad the CAA took them seriously," one said. "Both are level-headed guys but they have had their legs pulled unmercifully over this business." ------------------------------ From: Kean Stump Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 12:58:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: of bees and legends At the risk of demonstrating my ignorance, the original bumblebee can't fly analysis used a fixed-wing (ie no back-and-forth movement) model. Bumblebee wings describe a (curse my feeble memory) oval path during the stroke. There. I'm all set for my dose of humility for the month. 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: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 16:25:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: Tailless Tall Tales Sorry--I was racing around on Monday doing a bunch of Aerospike/LASRE stuff and getting ready for my flight in VISTA (Charles, it looks prettier from the inside than it does from the outside, but I'm still jealous that you made it to the roll-out and I didn't) and I wanted to get an answer back fairly quickly because I knew that I would be much to distracted on Tuesday. Unfortunately, what I though was being concise looks more like being abrupt. 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 Thu, 21 Mar 1996, Mark E. Schmidt wrote: > WOW, put the gloves on first, eh? > > Seriously, Mary, thanks for the guts, considering your position, to mention > the politics surrounding the flying wing projects in their earlier days. > > As to the references to nature, all the birds I've seen have a tail as regards > the pitch axis, but I've never seen a bird w/ a rudder, hmmmmmm . .. . > > Given the roll axis modulation I've seen these wild critters exhibit on their > tail feathers, who needs a rudder? - nature's ruddervator, i.e. V-Tailed > doctor-killer (Bonanza). > > ---------- > From: owner-skunk-works@mail.orst.edu on behalf of Mary Shafer > Sent: Monday, March 18, 1996 7:35 PM > To: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com > Cc: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com; skunk-works@mail.orst.edu > Subject: Re: Tailless Tall Tales > > Want to tell all this to the folks proposing the tailless X-31? Or > explain to rays and skates that they can't swim? They're pelagic fish, > not bottom dwellers. > > Irv Ashkenas doesn't work for Northrop, he works for STI (only part time > now, he's pretty much retired). If he did work for Northrop, it was more > than 30 years ago, because he was a founder of STI. > > Anything that came out of Cornell Aero Labs is sufficiently out of date > that I wouldn't put a lot of stock in it. Considering the techniques used > for generating math models back then, it's highly likely that their > original model was so bad that no conclusions are meaningful. One bad > assumption and the results are useless. What has Calspan had to say in > the last few years? > > Also remember that there was a real conspiracy by the Air Force in the > 1950s to prove that flying wings were terrible, following their inability > to bully Jack Northrop into teaming with a Texas company that was in the > district of a Congressman from Texas on the Armed Forces Subcommittee. > > 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 Mon, 18 Mar 1996 Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com wrote: > > > Mary, > > I`m VERY surprised at your reply!!!!!!!! > > > > Per the work of Ashkenas et. al. of Northrop, and the > > work by Cornell Aero labs (now Calspan) a pure flying > > wing is the ABSOLUTE WORST possible planform > > for a turbojet or turbofan aircraft- period. > > > > Visit my home page for some history here > > http://www.vivanet.com/"csmith9/index.html > > > > I have been for the past 10 months spending some > > spare time trying to get a tailless sailplane design that > > will give "adequate (say 30 to 1) performance > > with great difficulty. > > > > .It all comes down to the volume you need to enclose. > > A fuselage works better. No surprise, really, since > > Mother Nature figured it out millions of years ago. > > How many flying wing birds are there? > > Notice that a tuna or shark has small wings and a big > > fuse. > > The "flying wing" fishes live on the bottom. > > > > Now, as some of you are aware, I do beleive that > > with a closed-loop RSS system with symetrical > > sections a large, lightly loaded, a spanloader of > > moderate sweep would become practical, but only > > if the bypass ratio on the engines exceeds 75%. > > Not exactly a stealthy planform! Would be a good > > high endurance design,-maybe- if the Mach number > > never gets over 0.3. > > > > Remember that without a vertical fin the yaw > > stability requires a fairly good 1/4C sweep. > > > > Stability and control for tailless aircraft is well understood, > > and actually quite a bit simpler than for a conventional > > aircraft. All you need for pitch is positive static margin > > and a POSITIVE moment coefficient. > > And therein lies the problem. To get the proper > > moment you give up section efficiency - > > but you already knew that. > > > > No need to wory about downwash effects > > from the wing! > > > > > > In closing, the B2 is a useless dinosaur that has the > > range of a C150. It was a known failed concept > > when it was started. Several prominent people > > have been quite opposed to the program as > > based on poor mathmatics from the very beginning. > > It suffers the very same problems that killed off > > its forefathers, the, YB49, and the YRB 49. > > > > General Hap Arnold knew the problems with spanloaders, > > and all of his successors have. > > Remember also that the day after the YB49 set a speed record > > from Ca. to DC, the Boeing company utterly destroyed the > > record with a conventional planformed aircraft. > > > > Still, my picture of the "YB" over the Capitol made the > > whole exercise worthwhile! > > I love spanloaders, but I am realistic. > > Chuck > > > > > > ------------------------------ From: Xelex@aol.com Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:44:47 -0500 Subject: Re: Accidental Sparrow launches Having noticed a few postings about accidental Sparrow missile launches, I thought I should mention the most famous (or infamous) incident of this type. On 7 April 1961, two New Mexico Air National Guard F-100s participated in a training exercise with a B-52B. The F-100s flew simulated attack runs the bomber to practice gun and missile attack startegies. No actual ordnance was discharged for the exercise. On the sixth pass (a simulated cannon firing) by 1Lt. James W. Van Scyoc, a Sidewinder missile launched accidentally. Van Scyoc made a frantic radio call to the B-52, "Look out! One of my missiles has fired!" It was too late. The missile struck the B-52 a killing blow. Only the aircraft commander, electronic warfare instructor, and gunner survived. Five other crewmembers were killed when the aircraft impacted northeast of Grants, New Mexico. The cause was traced to an electrical fault, and Van Scyoc was exonerated. Peter W. Merlin Aerospace Archeology Field Research Team THE X-HUNTERS ------------------------------ From: ConsLaw@aol.com Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 23:10:03 -0500 Subject: Tailless versus tailless Mary Shafer wrote among other things: >I've never seen any bird that wasn't tailless, based on my >definition, for example They just don't have big sticky-uppy >vertical surfaces. These don't fit the other definition, of >course, because they have rolling tails, horizontal control >surfaces. Of course birds can warp their wings in various ways to achieve various effects on flight. They can also use their muscles to shift their weight distribution. - To get back on a skunky tack: The Smithsonian commissioned a robotic pterodactyl which was flown by radio control. I've seen in Popular Science and on the Discovery Channel that fish shapes, especially that of the tuna, are being considered for future submarines. I'm sure we have a lot of lessons to learn in active flight control from the birds, bees and other animals. I wouldn't be surprised if mother nature was the model for some black world aircraft out there, especially a UAV. ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 18:10:09 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: Tailless versus tailless On Thu, 21 Mar 1996 ConsLaw@aol.com wrote: > distribution. - To get back on a skunky tack: The Smithsonian commissioned > a robotic pterodactyl which was flown by radio control. I've seen in Popular Paul MacReady (sp?), who was responsible for the first human-powered aircraft to cross the English channel built a subscale Quetzalcoatlus northropi (sp?!) that flew very well in its test flights and crashed on its first and last public flight. I don't think that there was a follow up... Dates anyone? > Science and on the Discovery Channel that fish shapes, especially that of the > tuna, are being considered for future submarines. I'm sure we have a lot of > lessons to learn in active flight control from the birds, bees and other > animals. I wouldn't be surprised if mother nature was the model for some > black world aircraft out there, especially a UAV. Torsional warping and flexing, rather than hinged materials have been mooted. "Microactuators" akin to feathers also- some details in a Scientific American special edition on 21st Century technology last year... I'm afraid that I don't have it in my office and I can't remember the date. MIT artificial intelligence and robotics research is partly aimed at emulating insectile reflexes and NASA is to test a (subscale, subsonic) model of a hypersonic aircraft that uses "neural net" controls - one for Mary Shafer I think. Finally, a recent issue of AvLeak (date?!) mentioned a UAV that changes colour, emulating the octopus (recognize mollusc rights now!). Also, for fiction and essays, try Stanislaw Lem's "The Invincible" which features a cybernetic swarm, which seems very prophetic now (he wrote it in...1960?) and "The Upside Down Evolution" in the anthology "One Human Minute." Speaking as a quasi-professional (I teach design and architecture), I notice that the relationship between design and nature is one of taking cues from specific features or parts of natural entities and applying them to some larger design. The transference of general priciples usually operates at a more schematic than detailed level. Nature (I'm using this as a euphemism to avoid the evolution versus creation debate) is bound by the genetic/metabolic/structural/whatever "raw materials" of living things: birds' wings are modified forelimbs; insect wings, while original equipment, are derived from the matter of their chitinous exoskeletons; there are arthropods that curl up and roll along a la Escher, but no animal has been able to grow wheels and no animal has a carbonfibre skeleton... and so on. Nature has to worry about growing the things as whole entities while we can simply (merely!) assemble them as we please. End of Rant One other question that interests me is the canards versus tailplanes debate: I notice that Lockheed started with canards on the ATF(YF-22) proposal, and then switched to tailplanes and the same has now happened with the JSF. Why, and where does this leave Eurofighter and Sukhoi? --Brett ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 03:28:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Tailless versus tailless On Fri, 22 Mar 1996, Brett Davidson wrote: > On Thu, 21 Mar 1996 ConsLaw@aol.com wrote: > > > distribution. - To get back on a skunky tack: The Smithsonian commissioned > > a robotic pterodactyl which was flown by radio control. I've seen in Popular > > Paul MacReady (sp?), who was responsible for the first human-powered > aircraft to cross the English channel built a subscale Quetzalcoatlus > northropi (sp?!) that flew very well in its test flights and crashed on > its first and last public flight. I don't think that there was a follow up... > Dates anyone? It was the first and it crashed but it wasn't the last. After they fix the problem from the first crashed because of yaw problems (they fix it using the nose of the Quetzalcoatlus as a "vertical tail") the subscale model flow I think at least more than once... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 03:55:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Accidental Sparrow launches ehhh... How about the story of the airplane that shoot himself... There was one time a F-86 was doing some normal routine exercicies in USA. When suddenly the pilot shoot the cannons of the airplane horizontally to empty space for exercices reason then suddenly he dive and accelerate for some times and recover in normal fly. Then he was hit by bullets coming from nowhere... He start searching for enemy airplane without luck. After he got back to the base, the analysis from the holes of the airplanes and the ballistic, found that he was hit by his own bullets... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #638 ********************************* 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).