From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #639 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 639 In this issue: The Lifting Body Programme Re: Tailless versus tailless Re: Accidental Sparrow launches Re: of bees and legends cancel skunk works digest Re[2]: Accidental Sparrow launches Re[2]: Accidental Sparrow launches Re: of bees and legends re: The Lifting Body Programme Re: The Lifting Body Programme Thanks for the Information on BVR Missile Kills Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #638 Re: Skyquakes U-2 Operations over Iraq RE: Tailless versus tailless Re: Skyquakes Re: plane shoots down itself Re: YF-22 and canards 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: David Windle Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 13:59:30 Subject: The Lifting Body Programme Reading through NASA Dryden Facts sheets 'The Lifting bodies' it indicates that Eggers had the idea that L/B shapes would be a more useful design than conical re-entry capsules, because they would be able 'to fly back from space rather than plunge to earth in a ballistic trajectory.' Does this mean that Plan A was to fly the astronauts back to a dry lake or something rather than have them splash down in the ocean.If so, what happened to Plan A...was it simply that the time frame made it impractical ? Best D ------------------------------ From: Date: Fri, 22 Mar 96 08:25:43 PST Subject: Re: Tailless versus tailless Comments by : Art Hanley@IM@SPK Date : Friday, March 22, 1996 8:26:27 Forwarded to : internet[skunk-works@mail.orst.edu] -------------------------- [Original Message] ------------------------- To : smtp@SPKSYS12@Servers[skunk-works@orst.edu] From : Art Hanley@IM@SPK Subject : Re: Tailless versus tailless Date : Friday, March 22, 1996 at 8:24:49 am PST - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Three notes to Brett's questions. The article about the UAV that changed color was one of the ones discussing "smart skin" that has popped up on this list before. The change on the F-22 was part of the extensive redesign that the Lockheed team went through prior to making their actual ATF submission. According to Lockheed, the reason that the canard was eliminated on JSF was that they couldn't get sufficient pitch/roll control during the carrier approach of the Navy version with those sized canards. If they made them larger, that would increase weight and probably affect cg on on all versions. Alternatively, they would have to have the Navy version be substantially different from the other two JSFs. A number of MDD's JSF designs used canards until relatively recently. EF2000 doesn't have to worry about carrier approaches, and I guess Rafale got it right. Interestingly enough, I have been told that Northrop's naval version of the F-23 would have been a canard equipped delta, and when a naval version of the SU-27 appeared it had small canards added for improved roll control during approach. Grippen is also a canard aircraft, as was the Viggen. From the world of abandoned projects the Lavi, and reportedly the Mikoyan I.42 and MiG-33 (of which there are some rumors that China bought the design for) were canards. Art Hanley "My employer has nothing to do with this" (keeps the lawyers happy) ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Fri, 22 Mar 96 8:07:23  Subject: Re: Accidental Sparrow launches In the '50s a Grumman F-11 Tiger shot itself down by firing its cannon while climbing, and then immediately breaking off and descending. The shells followed their ballistic arc and the Tiger and came down at the same time the Tiger was passing through the same airspace. Grumman's next fighter was the F-14. It was a much more advanced aircraft, aircraft, as you know, so it was able to shoot itself down with its own missile. Early in the Tomcat's career, one launched an AIM-7. Initial separation was bad and the missile reportedly came off with nose up pitch. When the engine ignited, the Sparrow impacted the underside of the aircraft. The warhead wasn't armed, but I believe it resulted in the loss of the aircraft. Just to show that the Navy was a true believer in joint operations, a F-14 inadvertently launched on a USAF RF-4 over the Mediterranean during exercises in the late 19070s-early 1980s. The crew got out, but the Phantom was lost. Science marches on! Should the Air Force succeed in fielding their airborne laser, I wonder if we'll ever read that one of the 747s had a failure in the aiming mechanism resulting in the pointing device being allowed to angle itself too far aft and the plane vaporizing part of its own outer wing? Murphy is immortal, after all. Art Hanley If you asked my employers whether they had anything to do with the above, if it represented their views or if they even knew about it, they'd say, "No", and they'd be telling the truth. ------------------------------ From: tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com (Tom Robison) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 11:30:22 +0500 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 Is that how a C-124 flies, then? Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com or tcrobi@fortwayne.infi.net ' (oo) - -------oOOO-()-OOOo-------- ------------------------------ From: "Lewis, Stephen B" Date: 22 Mar 1996 09:16:12 -0800 Subject: cancel skunk works digest cancel skunk works digest ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Fri, 22 Mar 96 10:52:21 EST Subject: Re[2]: Accidental Sparrow launches Forwarded private e-mail: ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re[2]: Accidental Sparrow launches Author: Bill Riddle at FHU2 Date: 22/03/1996 0922 I am aware of this event ... I believe it happened in New Mexico, when I was a kid living at Sandia Base. The aircraft had launched from the adjacent Kirtland AFB. As I recall he actually shot him self down. There was no question of enemy action ... ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Accidental Sparrow launches Author: Terry Colvin at FHU2 Date: 3/22/96 8:32 AM FYI, is this possible? ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re: Accidental Sparrow launches Author: Wei-Jen Su at smtp-fhu Date: 22/03/1996 0248 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 ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Fri, 22 Mar 96 10:53:07 EST Subject: Re[2]: Accidental Sparrow launches Forwarded private e-mail: ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re[2]: Accidental Sparrow launches Author: Bill Riddle at FHU2 Date: 22/03/1996 0927 Matching this up with my other reply ... One could deduce that flying in New Mexico is not a wise activity ... A good example of faulty deduction .... ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Accidental Sparrow launches Author: Terry Colvin at FHU2 Date: 3/22/96 8:29 AM FYI ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re: Accidental Sparrow launches Author: Xelex@aol.com at smtp-fhu Date: 21/03/1996 2352 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: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Fri, 22 Mar 96 8:57:37  Subject: Re: of bees and legends Kean, that's exactly what I was taught. What those analyses actually show is that bumblebees can't glide. Art "Stinger" Hanley I'm the only one responsible for the opinions above, not my employer. (I get beat up if I don't say that) ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Fri, 22 Mar 96 11:36:48  Subject: re: The Lifting Body Programme My guess would be that conical bodies were sufficiently accurate for what was needed, required much less development work, were Much cheaper and were more practical for the one-shot uses that the US did through Apollo. Trivia note: The original plan early on for the Gemini capsules was that they would descend using parawings and land on dry lake beds using skid landing gear. This plan was abandoned for a number of reasons before the first Gemini flew. The system was complex, and somebody finally asked themselves, "Why bother"? Art Hanley My employer has nothing to do with anything in this message [except to make me write this] ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 11:43:01 -0800 Subject: Re: The Lifting Body Programme >Reading through NASA Dryden Facts sheets 'The Lifting bodies' it indicates >that Eggers had the idea that L/B shapes would be a more useful design than >conical re-entry capsules, because they would be able 'to fly back from >space rather than plunge to earth in a ballistic trajectory.' The desire is one of cross range on reentry and a higher hypersonic L/D is an important factor. Any shape that can withstand reentry that has a 'high' hypersonic L/D is interesting. Mercury/Gemini/Apollo capsules are among the lowest hypersonic L/Ds, all are sub 1 L/Ds. >Does this mean that Plan A was to fly the astronauts back to a dry lake or >something rather than have them splash down in the ocean. Initially many companies wanted to use winged approaches. That all came later really with X-20 Dyna Soar, which of course made it fairly far in the R/D stage, and in other attempts which were eventually aborted for one reason or another. But as far as the very early approaches are concerned, I like John Becker's paper on this where he discusses the proposals known as the MISS (Man In Space Soonest) studies. This paper is part of Hallion's Hypersonic Revolution Vol I. Basically, there was a meeting where the leading aerospace companies were asked to work up initial proposals for vehicles to put man into space in the shortest period of time possible. Becker reviews all this in Hypersonic Revolution with a nice table. The table has a line drawing of each of the proposals along with design characteristics. Most companies, according to Becker, showed that they did not understand the heating problems involved, especially those proposals with wings. Back at that time (late 50's) it was still very much an issue as to how to build a winged orbiter and get it to survive reentry. In fact today's space shuttle configuration has inherited much of the work that John Becker and others did on winged reentry. Another interesting paper is by Max Faget, who really is credited with being the father of the capsule approach and therefore the father of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. I have a book at home with a paper by him in it that talks about all this. There is a famous story that I like about a meeting that was held where they were trying to hash out just how they could build a winged orbiter, and they were having lots of problems. Nerves were on edge, and the time was getting late. Max Faget got up and basically said, screw all this winged stuff, lets do what we know about (from the nuclear weapons reentry vehicle research). Let's build a capsule and use the blunt reentry vehicle technology we know about. The rest is history. Of course today, Max Hunter calls this the ammunition mentality, which is a pretty funny but accurate name for it. But back then that's all we knew how to do. >what happened to Plan A ... was it simply that the time frame made it >impractical? Yes. Of course, eventually Plan A became Shuttle. And we're attempting to refine it even further now with X-33 and other approaches. Larry ------------------------------ From: mcnuttrt@MIT.EDU (Ross T. McNutt) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 96 15:51:59 Subject: Thanks for the Information on BVR Missile Kills I wanted to thank everyone for the helpful information on BVR missile kills. I have looked up many of the references and it seems their is a paucity of actual use of the BVR capability or results at least prior to the Gulf war. Advances in IFF and surviellance systems should make future long range engagements easier but with our current production and fielding cycle those systems should be on board aircraft by the mid 2030's. Basic GPS capability is not even scheduled to be included on all AF planes until after 2002. I also had a follow up question as to which countries have the off bore sight AA-11 missiles and the helmet sights. I am not sure if the Russians are exporting these with their MIG 29's or not and I have not been able to locate any information. This goes directly to the threat to US systems. The East Germans obviously had them but what about Libya, Syria, and Cuba. Did the Iraqis have any of these systems prior to the gulf war? Could they have had them? Since I got so much information last time I thought I would ask again. Thanks again in advance. Ross McNutt mcnuttrt@mit.edu ------------------------------ From: erebenti@MIT.EDU (Eric Rebentisch) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 96 15:24:34 EST Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #638 >From: Brett Davidson > 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? Lockheed's YF-22 proposal (and the eventual prototype) never had canards. Lockheed commissioned a Hollywood graphic artist - the same guy who did the "Star Wars" and other sci fi movie development sketches - to create a series of futuristic pictures representing an ATF engaged in epic struggles. He, of course, was not given access to the classified design drawings. His version of the Lockheed ATF had canards, and was splashed all over the pages of industry magazines. As far as why the real plane didn't have canards, well, let's just say there were reasons not to go that route and leave it at that. Where does that leave Eurofighter and Sukhoi (I assume you are talking about the Su-27 mods)? Neither plane is particularly stealthy-looking, so it really depends on your concept of battle in the future. People finally seem to get the idea that missiles take high g's better than pilots, and sensors and electronics are really maturing to the point of making missiles (and UACVs) quite capable. The bottom line, given world-wide expenditures on defense, is that you will probably begin to see a stratification in military capabilities, where the U.S. will eventually field next-generation (F-22/JSF/UACV) aircraft, the other major powers will field Eurofighter/Sukhoi/Rafale-generation weapon systems, and the less developed world will probably continue to upgrade previous generation systems. Technology insertion (upgrading the same airframe with advanced electronics, etc.) will probably provide the highest bang for the buck for most countries. As far as how the disparity in the various generations of technology affect to outcome of engagements, the U.S. is obviously spending a lot on the assumption that there is a payoff in high tech. Current air-to-air missiles (and SAMs) are too good to risk playing games with who gets off the first shot. That tends to put emphasis on reducing detectability, or increasing the likelihood of detection, depending on which end of the missile you are on. That would imply that stealth and sensors (and missiles with longer legs and a reliable IFF system) are where you want to put your money. We obviously won't know if that is the right response until after we have bought a lot of costly equipment, though. Eric ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 18:39:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Skyquakes This is from the DRUDGE REPORT FINAL 3/22/96, a gossip-from-Hollywood kinda newsletter, and accordingly is not too technically accurate (the writer emphatically insists, for example, that the US Weather Service is covering up a big climatic/weather catastrophy, which is looming over us...). >The pair of horrifying sonic booms that hit the Cannon Beach, Oregon region >have ignited cries that the U.S. Government is inflicting terrorism on its >own people. >The booms hit the area of northwest Oregon just before 9 a.m. on Thursday -- >they were immediately mistaken for massive earthquakes by unknowing >residents. In fact, local officials, also frightened by the sheer magnitude >of the booms/quakes, instantly issued a tsunami warning for the entire >Oregon coast in anticipation of a wave which would be generated by such an >obviously violent magnitude event. >Slight problem. It wasn't a quake. >Just as residents were rushing to higher ground -- evacuating the coastline, >running for their lives -- it was learned that the quake was not in fact a >quake, but a sonic boom, a boom caused by the U.S. military staging a mock >battle off the coast. The sonics caused by three F-15 fighter jets and two >B-1 bombers scared a DRUDGE REPORT reader, 'I was in such a terrified state >all day after the morning booms,' wrote Marsha from the region. 'I thought >the world was exploding.' >The Navy is claiming it was simply a routine exercise and they have since >apologized for scaring the residents. The jets were 105 miles offshore -- >usually out of earshot of mainland residents. Apparently fog amplified the >sound and cause the highly unusual atmospheric disturbance. [...] >The DRUDGE REPORT is filed when circumstances warrant. >http://www.lainet.com/~drudge Free trial request to: drudge@lainet.com >(c) DRUDGE REPORT 1996 not for reproduction or broadcast without permission >of the author - -- 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: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 19:02:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: U-2 Operations over Iraq After 40 years in service, the U-2 is still worth some diplomatic protests, as evidenced by this news report. - -- Andreas UNITED NATIONS (Reuter) - Iraq's foreign minister, in a letter circulated Thursday, said a U.S. U-2 spy plane collecting information for U.N. weapons inspectors was serving U.S. interests. Mohammed al-Sahaf reiterated previous demands for it to be replaced by Iraqi aircraft. He told the president of the Security Council that the U-2, "which always takes off from Saudi Arabian territory, has continued its violations and breaches of Iraqi airspace, infringing thereby our country's sovereignty and security." By the end of February it had made 287 overflights since such operations began in August 1991, he said. Although this was "on the pretext of conducting an aerial survey for the (U.N.) special commission" responsible for scrapping Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, he again charged the flights were "designed only to serve the policy of the state to which the aircraft belongs." Sahaf said Defense Secretary William Perry stated in a speech last month that the United States "was indeed involved in operations designed to expose my country to dangers and plots with a view to changing its political regime. "Consequently, it is incumbent upon the United Nations to re-examine the issue of continued forcible use of this aircraft by the United States of America to violate Iraq's airspace in a manner totally incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations," Sahaf said. Iraq reserved the right to demand redress for the "material and psychological damage caused by the violations of its airspace by this aircraft." He repeated Iraq's request to the U.N. secretary-general that "Iraqi aircraft should be used instead of foreign aircraft in the work of the special commission in order to exclude any possibility of such foreign aircraft being used for purposes prejudicial to Iraq's sovereignty and security." - --- --- 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: "Mark E. Schmidt" Date: Thu, 21 Mar 96 05:09:40 UT Subject: RE: Tailless versus tailless - ---------- From: owner-skunk-works@mail.orst.edu on behalf of Mary Shafer Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 1996 3:42 PM To: skunk-works Subject: Tailless versus tailless It has suddenly become obviously to me that we're arguing at cross purposes. When I say "tailless" I mean without a vertical tail or rudder. Ahah, I thought this would evolve to the rudder issue . .. . (see my previous post re: tailfeathers in nature) When Charles Smith says "tailless", he means at least without a horizontal stabilizer or elevator or elevon. I'm not sure whether the verticals are included. 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, Mary, we're one the same page here, horizontal control surfaces. Any time you read my postings talking about tailless aircraft, birds, fish, etc, remember that I mean no vertical fin or control surfaces. Every time you read Charles' postings, remember that he means no horizontal fins or control surfaces. To me, porpoises and whales are tailless and tuna aren't, to Charles these are exactly reversed. Yeah, let's talk about the proverbial 3-axis control thingy . .. . As you can guess, we're talking at cross purposes and each thing that we've said needs to be viewed in light of the differing uses of the term. I'm right, so far as I know, about taking off the vertical and I assume he's right about taking off the horizontal. Although the F-16XL had no horizontal tail but did have a vertical one, it had a lot less drag and better performance. However, to make this more complicated, it also had a different wing. I'm sorry about the confusion. Soooo, let's talk about this *no need for the rudder* thingy One of us should have asked the other, I guess. We should have realized that we both couldn't be so wrong. 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: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 17:36:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Skyquakes Actually, Cannon Beach (my memory again!) was the only town that did the tsunami warning thing. 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: Wei-Jen Su Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 23:14:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: plane shoots down itself On Fri, 22 Mar 1996 ConsLaw@aol.com wrote: > Su Wei-Jen > > > > I read the pretty much the same story in a Reader's Digest about 1970, except > in that story it was an F8U Crusader that shot itself down. The story > included a chilling (literally) account of the cold and wind when your > windshield goes out at 50,000 ft at + Mach 1. > > >ehhh... How about the story of the airplane that shoot >himself... There was > one time a F-86 was doing some normal >routine I am sure about the incident and that the airplane landed safety without having the pilot to eject... But I am not 100% of what type of aircraft it was. Maybe it was the F8U. Sorry if I cause any incovenient... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: Michael Chui Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 23:15:33 -0500 Subject: Re: YF-22 and canards erebenti@MIT.EDU (Eric Rebentisch) writes: >Lockheed's YF-22 proposal (and the eventual prototype) never had canards. [snip] >As far as why the real plane >didn't have canards, well, let's just say there were reasons not to go that >route and leave it at that. Would anyone (who's allowed to) like to speculate what those reasons were? Michael Chui mchui@cs.indiana.edu ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #639 ********************************* 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).