From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #640 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Monday, 25 March 1996 Volume 05 : Number 640 In this issue: re: The Lifting Body Programme Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #638 Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #638 Re: Thanks for the Information on BVR Missile Kills UAV article Re: Tailless versus tailless Re: Accidental Sparrow launches Re: plane shoots down itself Re: YF-22 and canards (fwd) Sonic Booms in Oregon (fwd) CIA reportedly can't stop Libyan chemical weapons plant A-12 Canards (verbose) More on canards. [none] [none] [none] [none] re: A-12 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: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 22:11:56 -0600 Subject: re: The Lifting Body Programme >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"? > I remember having a (1/48th?) scale model of the Gemini capsule that included these features (skids). Revell or Monogram, can't remember... Showing my age, Greg Fieser ------------------------------ From: fmarkus@pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 08:11:17 -0500 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #638 On Mar 22, 1996 15:24:34, 'erebenti@MIT.EDU (Eric Rebentisch)' wrote: >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. I assume that canards would be nasty things from a stealth point of view. Assuming that they had a proper "magic" shape, they still are completely unmasked by fixed parts of the wings or fuselage. Moreover, in order to work, canards must move and by moving they must alter the alignments (with other surfaces on the aircraft) that are a key part of the stealth "magic." ------------------------------ From: fmarkus@pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 08:15:14 -0500 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #638 On Mar 22, 1996 15:24:34, 'erebenti@MIT.EDU (Eric Rebentisch)' wrote: >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. I assume that canards would be nasty things from a stealth point of view. Assuming that they had a proper "magic" shape, they still are completely unmasked by fixed parts of the wings or fuselage. Moreover, in order to work, canards must move and by moving they must alter the alignments (with other surfaces on the aircraft) that are a key part of the stealth "magic." ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 09:05:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Thanks for the Information on BVR Missile Kills On Fri, 22 Mar 1996, Ross T. McNutt wrote: > 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. I think most of the countries that has Mig 29 is equip with the AA-11 off-bore sight target (helmet sight)... But I am not sure. I am sure that Iraq has the AA-11 with off-bore sight target before the Gulf War. In fact, the USAF suspect that two of the USA aircraft shoot down during Desert Storm was caused by AA-11... Scary!!!! USA must do something about it and fast... Or we will be a piece of cake for any nation that has AA-11 with off-bore sight in the short range fight!!! May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: "Joe Pialet" Date: Sat, 23 Mar 96 13:44:46 +0000 Subject: UAV article For members of the group interested in UAV, there is an article on the Tier 2 Plus Global Hawk and the Tier 3 Minus DarkStar in the March 1996 issue of Mechanical Engineering. naturally the article concentrates on the materials, equipment and capabilities of the hardware. ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 02:07:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Tailless versus tailless I've got a video of a presentation by Henry Jex, who designed and built the control system for the Quetzlcoatalus northropii that you refer to here. Notice the name, however badly spelled; the paleontologist who discovered the fossilized skeleton of this flying dinosaur named it after Jack Northrop and his flying wings because it reminded him of the flying wings. I'll dig out the video and see if it's still watchable. It includes the feature story from one of the networks, as well as Henry's account of the design, flight testing, and triumphant flights over Death Valley. 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 ConsLaw@aol.com wrote: > 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: Mary Shafer Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 02:23:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Accidental Sparrow launches I'm not sure if Murphy is immortal, but he is still alive. Remember, he formulated his saying while working about 6 miles from Dryden, on the rocket sled track. 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, 22 Mar 1996 ahanley@usace.mil wrote: > 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: Mary Shafer Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 02:29:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: plane shoots down itself Getting hit with your own bullets is as common as dirt. I remember the first time the F-15 did it, over off Point Mugu (thereby ruining the New Mexico jinx). I think I remember the second, and I'll bet it's still happening but no one really cares, unless the plane is lost. Usually, the relative velocities between the plane and the bullets is sufficiently small that there isn't much damage to the aircraft, mostly to the skin. By the way, after the first time, they changed the flight cards so that the pilot didn't speed up and descend to get to the next test point, thereby overrunning the bullets. Bad idea. 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, 22 Mar 1996, Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > > 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: Mary Shafer Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 02:36:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: YF-22 and canards RCS, probably. 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, 22 Mar 1996, Michael Chui wrote: > 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 ------------------------------ From: Dave.Tilbury@UK.Sun.COM (David Tilbury - Sun UK) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 10:58:06 GMT Subject: (fwd) Sonic Booms in Oregon **** 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. **** ------------------------------ From: Dave.Tilbury@UK.Sun.COM (David Tilbury - Sun UK) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 13:47:15 GMT Subject: (fwd) CIA reportedly can't stop Libyan chemical weapons plant NEW YORK, March 24 (Reuters) -- Libya is building a facility described as the "world's largest underground chemical weapons plant" and the CIA is helpless to stop it, a report in Time magazine said on Sunday. The plant is being built in the side of a mountain near the town of Tarhunan and only a direct hit on top of the mountain by a nuclear weapon could destroy the plant, Time said, quoting Central Intelligence Agency sources. The report added that therefore the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies have adopted a policy of disrupting construction of the plant and slowing down its completion. It said that in 1993 German Chancellor Helmut Kohl ordered German supplies banned from construction of the plant and other European sources also dried up, the CIA told Time. Reuters contributed to this report. ------------------------------ From: John Burtenshaw Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 13:46:38 -0100 Subject: A-12 Hi Folks Anyone got any info on the Lockheed A-12, I seem to remember reading that it was a single-seat SR-71. Can anyone confirm/deny this. Thanks John =========================================================================== John Burtenshaw The Computer Centre, Bournemouth University - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Postal Address: Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, POOLE, Dorset, BH12 5BB U.K. Internet: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk Phone: 01202 595089 Fax: 01202 513293 AX.25: g1hok@gb7bnm.#45.gbr.eu. AMPRnet: g1hok.ampr.org. (44.131.17.82) =========================================================================== ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 05:48:22 PST Subject: Canards (verbose) Bert Rutan will puke, but... The canard is not exactly a good choice for a planform, except around a very specific (and seldom used) design point. The old myth of "its safer because the canard stalls first" is the last of aviation`s true urban myths. A conventional tail is designed with a lower aspect ratio than the wing, so it creates a greater downwash and thus stalls AFTER the wing. The idea here is no deep stalls and pitch control throughout the stall, a desireable handling quality. A canard will have a higher aspect ratio than the wing. The idea here is it will stall first, and the wing doesn`t. This can lead to problems if the wings get really bugged up, however. The short chord of the canard isn`t as affected as the wing (canards will have big root chords -I`ll explain why in a moment), so you can get the wing to stall in turbulence or in un-coordinated slow turns, at about the same time as the canard. Mary can tell you what happens when you stall a tip while uncoordinated. All I`ll say is its great fun. (Especially inverted!) Ever wonder why canards often have kinked leading edges on the wings? Here`s where canard drawbacks start to pop up. On a canard the wing is rearward of the CG. FAR`s dictate that you can`t carry fuel in the fuselage. As a designer you realise the best place for fuel, then, is in the wing. But.... with the wing tanks now behind the CG, as you burn off fuel at 6#/gallon, you start to get nose-heavy. This means the canard must generate more lift, and hence more drag. Also, you have a higher stalling speed for the canard. Not to mention, the trim on the airplane is constantly changing, making it hard to fly straight and level. You end up with what engineers call a "divergent system". The more it goes along, the worse it gets. The solution is to use leading edge strakes. They move the fuel tanks forward. These increase the wetted area of the aircraft and create more drag. Where all this leads is that the canard becomes a laibility rather than a cure-all. Another problem is that since the wing is aft of the CG, the increase in pitching moment due to the use of high-lift devices causes the need for a bigger canard. The Beech Starship had such a problem with the flaps they had to design a motorized canard setup to move the lift center of the canard forward when the flaps are deployed. The change in sweep is not to reduce drag, (it icreases it!) but to create an acceptable static margin with the flaps out. Now, back to stalls. OK, canardactics say, the canard is safer because the wing will never stall. Yes In theory, with clean surfaces, proficient pilots, and NO GUST LOADS--- yep, I`ll agree. Unfortunately for the canard, airplanes fly in a bubbling, seething atmosphere filled with bugs, dust, plastic bags, wake turbulence, birds, skydivers, me.......... The hardest thing to teach new pilots is that a stall can occur ANY AIRSPEED AND ANY ATTITUDE! The slow deceleration stalls that are used for primary pilot training are nice, but not the killers people think. I never once, infact, heard "Well he was just flying along and it slowed down and stalled at 5000 feet, then crashed." What usually happens is that someone gets too slow on approach. The nice thing here, is that a conventional airplane will shake and bang and warn the pilot. (Of course, I`m excluding super performance or research birds, typically they have pilots who know better than to fly low and slow.) A canard, with its high aspect ratio, can stall without much warning, like a skinny winged sailplane will. And when it does, you get an unexpected nose drop. Pilots caught by surprise pull back, and deepen the canard stall. And guess what, The canard aircraft won`t react any differently than a correctly designed conventional airplane. With the controls fixed, the nose will drop, airspeed will build up, the stalled surface will fly again, and the process will repeat over and over. (OK in fairness, the canard will have smaller changes in airspeed and a better overall L/D while the stall occurs.) You remeber your nickel gliders doing that, don`t you? They were not canards. The canard`s wing is no less likely to stall in a gust, either. Now, lets say you`re an excellent pilot, and flew a great 1.3 Vso approach, and touched down lighter than an angel`s kiss. The wing stalls first, and you`re planted. Lower the nose (or stick the tail) and you should have a nice, unevenful rollout. Except for canards. Touch down, still flying , gust, hop, settle it back down .. hold it off, hold it off, shit!!!! The nose falls and you bounce the nose wheel. On the "return stroke" you get enough angle of attack to get the lift coefficient too high... up you go, but the canard is mushy.... All you can say is: "Sorry folks, but I`m practicing for US Air. Next time I`ll try to lose your luggage." Since I know better than to refer to nature, I`ll point out that the Wright Brothers used a canard, and a few copy-cat contemporaries did also. After that, that canard disappeared. Considering the great period of aero-research during the late 20`s an through the 30`s, ever wonder why canards where so conspiciously absent? We see them in modern design, but in a different roll. They are for advanced flight controls like on the new Sukhoi,, and they are augmentations rather than primary controls. Chuck ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 07:29:24 PST Subject: More on canards. I see I got off-course, I will add some comments. About the canard stall.... My first insights came when I gave a young pilot an answer to an age-old flying question. What happens in a stall? I answered, "the wing looses its lift, and the nose drops.." The two things DO happen, but the first doesn`t cause the second to occur! I thought, why does the nose fall? The CP is BEHIND the CG, so if the lift drops the moments should sum to make the nose pitch up! Then I remembered the cl and moment vs. alpha plots for airfoils. The MOMENT changes dramatically when the stall occurs. The lift doesn`t change all that dramatially either. The curves for finite sections tend to round-off at the top. L/D sucks though! So- the change in lift and the short static margin creates less moment increase than the section moment (they are opposed on a "regular-non RSS" aircraft.) and the sum is still nose-down. A canard has a greater static margin, and if the distance from Cp to the CG is large enough, the nose will RISE on the stall. This will also increase the angle of attack of the canard, stalling it further. The above are some factors leading up to a "deep stall." If you`re turning on to final with a thunderstorm at your back and all of a sudden the wind changes 180 degrees and from 20 mph head to 20 mph tail, you can get the wing AND the canard stalled TOGETHER, and some airplanes have behaved pretty weird when this happened. Since all-flying canards are considered taboo, the additional pitchup from the stalled wing can increase the canard angle until the canard flap won`t unstall it. From this point on the pilot is a spectator. (Unless he has engines above the vertical CG and thrust available.) In fairness to BR, I`ve flown both a Var and a Long EZ, and they ARE very easy to fly, with no bad habits, other than being louder than a rock concert inside. Keep your David Clarks` handy. But these are such low-performance designs that the drawbacks of canards are outweighed by the novelty. Finally. The best thing a designer can do for safety is to give the pilot(s) good visibility. Canards have problems here! Chuck ------------------------------ From: Brian Garber Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 08:13:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [none] cnacel skunk-works-digest bgarber@nexus.chapman.edu ------------------------------ From: Brian Garber Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 08:14:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [none] cancel skunk-works bgarber@nexus.chapman.edu ------------------------------ From: Brian Garber Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 08:10:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [none] cancel skunk-works ------------------------------ From: Brian Garber Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 08:09:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [none] Cancel skunk-works-digest ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Mon, 25 Mar 96 8:39:38  Subject: re: A-12 To John Burtenshaw: Here's a bibliography about a year old. It's incomplete, but all of these have A-12 info. I can't take credit for it, I stole it from elsewhere. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ LOCKHEED SR-71 The Secret Missions Exposed Paul F. Crickmore Osprey Aerospace - 1993 (222 pgs-hdbd, ISBN 1-85532-313-3) Comments: Excellent data, history and b&w pictures (some color). Amazing accounts of the A-12 flights and pictures (not too many of these previously released). Rare b&w pictures of the D-21 mounted on M-12 on ground and in the air! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SR-71 Inside Lockheed's BLACKBIRD Michael O'Leary, Eric Schulzinger Motorbooks International Publishers and Wholesalers - 1991 (128 pgs- sftbd, ISBN 0-87938-541-3) Comments: Excellent all color pictures - Famous 11 plane group portrait, pictures from last record breaking flight, and NASA planes and simulators. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ BLACK MAGIC Americas Spyplanes: SR-71 and U-2 Michael O'Leary, Eric Schulzinger Motorbooks International Publishers and Wholesalers - 1989 (144 pgs-hdbd, ISBN 0-87938-358-5) Comments: Excellent excellent pictures of both planes all in color in air and at base. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lockheed Blackbirds Anthony M. Thornborough, Peter E. Davies Motorbooks International Publishers and Wholesalers - 1988 (143 pgs- sftbd, ISBN 0-87938-340-2) Comments: Great b&w and color pictures of all variants of U-2 and SR-71 families. Many sketches showing differences between models. Several good drifts sight views from U-2 cockpit. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SR-71 BLACKBIRD Lockheed's Mach 3 Hot Shot Paul F. Crickmore Osprey Publishing Limited - 1987 (128 pgs-sftbd, ISBN 0-85045-794-7) Comments: Excellent all color pictures of SR-71, U-2's, KC-135Q and T- 38's on ground and air. Many refueling pictures plus ground support and closeups of the Blackbirds undercarriage. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ US Spyplanes Erik Simonsen Warbirds Illustrated No. 24 Arms and Armour Press Limited - 1987 (72 pgs-sftbd, ISBN 0-85368-626-2) Comments: Excellent b&w pictures mainly of A-12, YF-12A and SR-71 plus several pgs of U-2's and D-21's (one picture with B-52 in air with two D- 21's under wings). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird Paul F. Crickmore Osprey Publishing Limited - 1986 (200 pgs-sftbd, ISBN 0-85045-653-3) Comments: Excellent b&w pictures and history of A-12, YF-12A and SR-71. Pictures taken from post Libya bombing in 1986. Many pictures of planes in various stages of construction and repair. Of the few color picture there are two notable ones: A J-58 mounted in the test stand with the afterburner section glowing red-orange and another spectacular picture of a massive flame emanating from one engine during a 1986 Mildenhall Open Day! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ American Spyplanes Mike Spick Osprey Combat Aircraft Series Osprey Publishing Ltd. - 1986 (48 pgs-sftbd, ISBN 0-85045-719-X) Comments: Mostly b&w with a few color pictures. About 60-40 U-2 vs SR-71 in content. Very brief information content. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lockheed SR-71 (A-12 / YF-12 / D-21) Jay Miller Aerofax Minigraph 1 - 1985 (40 pgs-sftbd, ISBN 0-942548-25-6) Comments: Many many great b&w pictures of development and testing of all variants of SR-71. Pictures of front & back seats of YF-12A and a excellent set of pictures of D-21's (GTD-21A's & B's) for A-12 (M-12) and B-52H respectively. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SR-71 Blackbird in action Aircraft No. 55 Lou Drendel Squadron/Signal Publication - 1982 (47 pgs-sftbd, ISBN 0-89747-136-9) Comments: Good b&w pictures and history of development of A-12, YF-12A and SR-71A & B. Brief comments on D-21 with good sketches showing details of various features of the planes. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Art Hanley "My employer has nothing to do with this" (keeps the lawyers happy) ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #640 ********************************* 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).