From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #660 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 23 May 1996 Volume 05 : Number 660 In this issue: Re: Looking for an answer I should know, but don't Re: When is Enough Enough? Re: Declassification of Area-51? c4i-pro FW: FIRST News Service Re: How fast can we go? Congress meddles again (JSF ) TACIT BLUE Re: Declassification of Area-51? unreal Re: Declassification of Area-51? re: What's at Tonopah tod Re: Have Blue color scheme Re- How fast can we go? Tacit and the Blues... Garret engines 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: egunter@connecti.com Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 14:10:07 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Looking for an answer I should know, but don't Ranges, such as those North of Las Vegas are usually called "Restricted Areas", and are so designated on Aeronautical Charts. For example, the Las Vegas Sectional Chart shows a Restricted Area-- R-4808N which is about 80 miles NNW of Las Vegas. Other than a dry lake bed called "Groom Lake" or something, there isn't much sign of human habitation, according to the chart. The Sectionals show controlling agencies, altitudes, and times of use for most restricted areas in case a pilot wants to transit those areas or has an emergency. 4808N says UNLIMITED for altitudes, CONTINUOUS for time of use, and "No air to ground communications" for controlling agency. Those are the kinds of areas most pilots like to avoid!!! Lesser used ranges, etc. will be publicized through a NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) system run by FAA or DOD. Pilots are responsible for checking NOTAMS (usually through a FAA facility) for their route of flight. Aircraft under radar control can be vectored around active restricted areas. At 10:49 AM 5/22/96 -0500, you wrote: >When various missle or aircraft tests are scheduled like the STS launches, >or other rocket launches, I would have to think that there must be >some sort of notice to aviators posted warning them that the area >around Kennedy Space Center or CCAFS will be closed. > >I think that this would be for an area down range where the pieces may >fall if something goes blooey. I would think that the actual immediate >area arond the launch site would be closed permantly to general >civilian air traffic. But I would think that contractor traffic >would be flying into/out of the KSC/CCAFS area. Do they receive >some special notice to avaitors that the area will be closed which >is not available to the public? > >The same question would be asked for large scale air exercises in the >Nevada or California or New Mexico areas surrounding the "non-existent" >mythical bases out that way. > >Now my main question, if there are such notice to avaitor messages >posted to the general public, possibly WWW type sites, where would >they appear and how long before the actual closing of the area? > >Direct from the halls of Edinboro University - (814) 732-2484 >and directly from the terminal of, - 142 Miller Bldg. > - Edinboro Univ. >Joe Pyrdek pyrdek@edinboro.edu > > ------------------------------ From: joeh@towel.engr.sgi.com (Joe Heinrich) Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 13:51:58 -0700 Subject: Re: When is Enough Enough? - --PART-BOUNDARY=.19605221351.ZM18255.engr.sgi.com Content-Description: Text Content-Type: text/plain ; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Zm-Decoding-Hint: mimencode -q -u Hah! Just *try* to unsubscribe from this list! --Ex-USAF 306x0 On May 21, 11:04, John Kelleher wrote: > Subject: When is Enough Enough? > (=A1=D0=E6=F1j=FBr!: Gaps in '>' indicate > > > If that day has passed, let me know so that I might unsubscribe. > > Thank you. > > > John Kelleher > Ex-USAF Imagery Interpreter (20650 & T8045) > Ex-USAF Chief of Intel Curriculum Development > Non-Ex-Civilian > > <>-- End of excerpt from John Kelleher - -- = Joe "Joe" Heinrich:::MIPS hardware writer joeh@sgi.com 415.933.4347 ping:150.166.96.48 for 56 free data bytes! - --PART-BOUNDARY=.19605221351.ZM18255.engr.sgi.com-- ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 15:43:35 -0700 Subject: Re: Declassification of Area-51? Arif, Rahan writes: > I have always been interested what caused the corrupt and black > world of our Government. I wouldn't use the word corrupt. We are all rightly worried about the bad things that can happen with these black activities. For example, the level of secrecy CAN (and DOES) enable money to be lost, as well as proper oversight, which can even lead to the law being violated either thru ignorance or even intentionally. BUT! Even though these bad things have happened, I believe that they have been in the minority of the situations. But again, how would anyone even know? We are also upset when it seems like the citizens of this country, which pay for these programs, seem to be the enemy at times, as the information seems to be kept from us more than the governments of other nations, that partake in Open Skies, for example. We are also concerned when we find that we sometimes pay multiple times for technology development, because some aspect of it is black. And today, another BIG problem is that lawmakers and their staffs, don't understand the technical issues. They know a good policy when they see one, but on a black program, less or no technical consultation to advise them about feasibility and other options, is probably the rule. But, given all the above, there have been very successful programs that the country has greatly benefited from. So I disagree that blackness is automatically corrupt. >... > But secrecy cannot be blamed entirley, because > another factor is the fact that our Government fails to give any > reason for some of its actions. I mean, I wouldn't be as interested in > Area-51 and black programs as I am now, if the Government would > atleast give some sort of explanation to its citizens and tax payers > for the existense and relevence to our "National Security" of these > "black" programs. As far as your concern about Area 51 is concerned. One might say that there is good reason to support the existence of Area 51! What am I talking about? If you count the 'good' programs that Area 51 has been host to against the 'bad' programs, you end up with a very good (PRO) number. Please educate me if I've left out any Area 51 programs that we know about, but tally these up: PRO Side: U-2 (Able to see how many Strategic Bombers the Soviets really had) A-12 blackbird (led to very successful U-2 successor, the A-12/SR-71 program) D-21 (not successful, but a good try, an A-12 UAV!) HAVE BLUE (led to F-117A stealth) TACIT BLUE (they won't admit it flew at Area51 - assume it did) (led to B-2 stealth) BAD Side: Toxic Burning Pits The above are the ONLY programs that I know about for sure, even though the govenrment won't admit that all of them were associated with Area 51. So based on this tally, how can you imply that Area 51 is a symbol of corruption? You may be right actually, but we don't have the numbers. And based on the above count, it doesn't look too bad to me! In fact, the place feels like an incredible success, except for its one known black mark! > Please don't get me wrong, I am not saying that secrecy and > confidentiality are bad. They are definetly very important tools in > protecting our National Security. ... > ... > The only reason the Stealth > was ever declassified was because it was flying and by chance it was > photographed and made public. Then there was no hiding it anymore. For > the most part, it all came out. Yes. In other words, the stealthiness of the airplane was enhanced by the fact that it was also denied to exist, in the manner that for awhile, the approach we took to stealth was unique, and to show the airplane would have tipped off what we were doing (especially to the Soviets who originally came up with the approach we actually used). You might say that we should have just told the world we're getting into stealth, without showing any pictures, well we did! > The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists came out with figure that the > Pentagon has well over 7 million classified secrects in its posession. I agree, that there are too many secrets. > What ever happened to that bill signed by Clinton that was supposed to > declassify atleast some of them? When TACIT BLUE came out just recently, it was mentioned in the press conference that one of the reasons for disclosure was an attempt to adhere to the presidential direction to declassify things. Someone has to be very watchful of these programs, but beyond that, I don't know what you can do to change the system. As technology provides more Trump Cards to a country, and Desert Storm showed the usefulness of those, the desire is of course to control them for yourself. Secrecy is an important part in doing that. Building and testing technology demonstrators can be an affordable way to explore and verify the technology. And operating these technology demonstrators in secret is required. ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Wed, 22 May 96 17:05:22 GMT Subject: c4i-pro FW: FIRST News Service A news service for .mil subscribers: ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: c4i-pro FW: FIRST News Service Author: "FitzMaurice, Frank P." at smtp-fhu Date: 17/05/1996 0826 "FitzMaurice, Frank P." - ---------- From: user-l Subject: FIRST News Service Date: Thursday, May 16, 1996 3:11PM Dear Colleagues at .mil Sites In the near term, you will be able to test a news service called FIRST! produced by Individual. This test will run for three months and there will be no charges during the trial period. In order to set up a profile that best meets DoD's needs, I have two requests: First, please review the topics listed below and choose those topics with the highest relevancy to your mission. Then respond within five working days via email to rwayman@dtic.mil. When the test begins, you will be notified how to access this information. In your email response including preferred topics, please provide your name and organization's name. Second, during the three month test phase, please take a few minutes and click on the "feedback" button on FIRST and send us some comments. Thank you in advance for your support. Rick Wayman for Clara Gannon, STINET Focal Point (703) 767-8050. Defense Industry Overviews Fixed-Wing Aircraft & Helicopter Overview Missile Systems Overview Aerospace Overview Defense Industry General Overview Non-U.S. Defense News Overview Defense Industry Spending Overview Military Uses of Space Space Defense Initiatives BMDO(SDI) Defense Satellites Military Aircraft Fixed Wing and Helicopter Overview Helicopters Fixed-Wing Aircraft Fighter Aircraft Attack Aircraft Bombers Electronic Warfare Aircraft Cargo & Maritime Aircraft Training Aircraft Aircraft Engines Stealth Technology Joint Service Programs Antisubmarine Warfare Autonomous Vehicles(UAVs) Ordnance and Gravity Bombs Ammunition and Artillery Guided and Un-Guided gravity bombs Battlefield Rockets Missiles Missiles Systems Overview Strategic Missiles Tactical Missiles Standoff Weapons Joint Service Programs Search and Track Military Search & Track Systems Military Radar Systems Electronic Warfare Avionics Flight Instrumentation C3I Ring Laser Gyros Naval Vessels Surface Vessels Submarines ASW UUVs New Technologies National Labs ARPA Standoff Weapons Stealth Technology Antonomous Vehicles(UAVs) Defense Satellites BMDO (SDI) Simulators Defense Communications and Electronics Military Electronics and Computers Military Communications Systems C3I Defense Agencies DOE ARPA Defense Industry Prime Contractors Prime Contractors Aerospatiale Boeing British Aerospace GEC General Dynamics General Electric GM Hughes Litton Lockheed Martin Loral McDonnell Douglas Northrop Grumman Motorola Raytheon Rockwell Thomson TRW United Technologies Commerical Aviation and Space Commercial Aircraft News US Airlines & Air Transport News Non-US Airlines & Air Transport Air Cargo News Commercial Aircraft Engine News GPS Satellite News Commercial Space News Air Traffic Control News Ground Forces Ground Forces Overview Tactical Missiles Ammunition & Artillery Guided & Unguided gravity bombs Miscellaneous Categories Application Layer Software Network Management E-Mail Groupware Open Computing Client/Server Computing Distributed Computing Electronic Commerce Open Systems Computing Middleware Information Tech. Connectivity & Standards Environmental Services Overview Hazardous Waste Transportation Hazardous Contamination & Spills Hazardous Clean-Up Hazardous Waste Processing & Storage Environmental Regulation OSHA & US Workplace Safety Municipal & Commercial Recycling Hazardous Waste Hazardous Contamination & Spills Hazardous Waste Transportation Hazardous Waste Processing & Storage Alternative Fuels Nuclear Electric Power Generation Energy Industry Environmental Report Web Security ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 18:52:18 Subject: Re: How fast can we go? >Paul Keller wrote: >I would presume that a nuclear ion rocket would be way to go with >this. I don't see having nuclear fusion within 20 years for this, at >least not in a form which would beat a nuclear fission powered ion >rocket. Does anyone on the list know what sort of specific impulse >(Isp) could be foreseably obtained from an ion rocket? If so, then I >would be interested in fishing out my old classical mechanics stuff >and figuring out what sort of velocities you could get from it, given >a reasonable launch reaction mass fraction. I'm inclined to assume >90% reaction mass fraction at launch to all-out. >Corrections/suggestions welcome. > The most promising technology for "fast" space travel is still nuclear pulse engines driven by hydrogen bombs (miniature bombs detonated behind the vehicle create waves to ride on), fusion rockets and possibly antimatter engines. (the first hydrogen antimatter molecules were made only a month ago at Cern). The maximum estimated attainable speed, based on known technology, is about 1/3 the speed of light. That would put in reach 17 star systems within 40 years! More speculative is an interstellar ramjet designed by R.W. Bussard in the early 60's that would scoop up hydrogen atoms into a fusion reactor and accelerate a vehicle almost to the speed of light. At that speed a trip from earth to the other side of the Milky Way would take 42 years their time, sixty thousand years our time. I know JPL is working on a nuclear engine/rocket. Maybe someone from there can tell us about their progress? Byron ------------------------------ From: betnal@ns.net Date: Thu, 23 May 96 02:41:21 GMT Subject: Congress meddles again (JSF ) Here's some news of the goings-on of those wonderful folks who brought you the tax system. When Congress forced the premature merger of ASTOVL into the JAST (now Joint Strike Fighter) program, a number of folks were worried that this would be a portent of other dubious decisions to come. Looks like they were right. Recently the House National Security Committee has recommended that no FY97 money appropriated for the JSF program be spent on the STOVL version of the aircraft. This has sent major shock waves through the Corps because JSF is The future of Marine fixed wing tactical air. In fact, after USAF, they are the largest customer for JSF. Great Britain is thrilled, since they are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the development program specifically for the STOVL version. The manufacturers (airframe and propulsion) have all joined in a joint response which essentially says, "What in heck is happening here"? International manufacturers and Governments are watching because JSF is expected to have wide export potential and because the STOVL version is expected to have the world naval air market (outside of France) sown up. This also has portents on how good a partner the US is on joint development programs (and our reputation is not good). According to Congressional Staffers, say the news reports, the JSF problem could go away if the Marines would give up AV-8B remanufacture and/or purchases of the F/A-18E/F. There's a couple of obvious flaws in this scenario: The AV-8B remanufacture program is only for 96 aircraft and is taking place 10 years before JSF is supposed to arrive. JSF is intended to replace the AV-8B as well as the Hornet. The F/A-18E/F program is untouchable in the first place. In the second place, that doesn't matter anyway because the Marines wisely bailed out of the F/A-18E/F program 18 months ago. This is quite a hit to the most advanced tactical and stealth aircraft the US is developing. "What in heck is happening here"? Art ------------------------------ From: Easton James Date: Thu, 23 May 96 10:07:00 PDT Subject: TACIT BLUE Regarding... >From: Mike Freeman >Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 13:49:47 -0400 .Subject: Tacit Blue >Does anyone have the address for the page that was up about the Tacit Blue? >I think that Paul McGinnis was the one that had it up, but I went to his page and can't find it. Thanks. Mike, The AirForceLINK TACIT BLUE page is at: http://www.dtic.mil/airforcelink/announce/index.html There is also a 49k .jpg full overhead view of TACIT BLUE, available from my web pages. If you want to by-pass the U*O related material, it's at: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/tbluetop.jpg James. Internet; 100626.2242@compuserve.com WWW; http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/ ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Thu, 23 May 96 6:19:19 EDT Subject: Re: Declassification of Area-51? larry@ichips.intel.com writes: > > > Arif, Rahan writes: > > I have always been interested what caused the corrupt and black > > world of our Government. > > I wouldn't use the word corrupt. > > The government bold faced lied about Have Blue. Wasn't it you, Larry, that posted the FOIA request dated a little before they unveiled it saying that the Air Force has no knowledge of it? They will also lie about the Groom Lake base by saying it doesn't exist, and then arrest people who take pictures of something that doesn't exist (I'm still trying to comprehend that one!). What I'm getting at is it's awfully hard to trust someone who has been caught in so many lies. If they're going to lie about things that the public already knows about......God help us! - -- 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: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 03:32:08 PDT Subject: unreal Was changing channels on the TV yesterday about 4:30 and the CSPAN had two people arguing in the House over the sattelite budget. The male congressman said, and I quote, "when I was I was a photo interpreter in the Airforce, we could read the serial numbers on the missles hanging off the a wings of airplanes from satellite photos." I`m sorry I didn`t get the guys name. Anybody else catch it? What a jerk. Talk about lying to Congress! Who elects these people? Chuck ------------------------------ From: OnLine Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 12:21:37 Subject: Re: Declassification of Area-51? rarif@chiaolink.dcmdc.dla.mil writes: > What kind of idiots do those people think we are telling us that a > base like Area-51 doesn't exist!!! Well then is it some sort of cool > looking hologram, mirage, or apparition, or is it that our eyesight is > getting very weak and we are all seeing things that aren't there. The > fact that the Government actually denies the existence of Area-51 > actually blows me away!!! What level of disgrace and dishonor has our > country come down to. I had reason to contact the Pentagon for an article on which I was working. Their position on A51 is not as you describe. They deny its existence. They say it has no official name as its simply a secure test location within the NTS. They even sent me a fax to that effect. I know it doesn't sound so dramatic as denying everything, but that's the actual situation. > Please don't get me wrong, I am not saying that secrecy and > confidentiality are bad. They are definetly very important tools in > protecting our National Security. But when they get out of hand they > can lead to complete chaos. I can't believe its gotten so bad that our > own Government is denying things that are physically there. You could > if you had the chance to, go out and touch one of the hangars at > Area-51. But in our Government's eyes they aren't there, or thats what > they want us to believe. This is based on a flawed premise: that 'they' deny it exists. > . The only reason the Stealth was ever declassified was because it >was flying and by chance it was photographed and made public. Then there >was no hiding it anymore. For the most part, it all came out. This is news to me. The first shot I saw of the F-117A was from a USAF press conference...not a very good one at that. I understood the reason it went public was because they wanted to operate in daylight...after all it had been flying for years in secret. Bean counters/accountants run the world now. Generally, all they seem to understand or care about is money and budgets. National defense doesn't often come cheap...often it's complicated with no short term payoff. Money men hate that sort of thing. If I was involved with developing a new aircraft or system I'd prefer, on balance for it to be 'black'...Less politicians trying to score points - less red tape - more engineers - no constant media analysis of each step....and less accountants. Incidentally, FWIW I've always found the US govt.depts and agencies to be most helpful and 'on the ball'...I wonder if some Americans appreciate how good they have it ;) Best David ------------------------------ From: albert.dobyns@mwbbs.com (ALBERT DOBYNS) Date: Thu, 23 May 96 00:56:00 -0500 Subject: re: What's at Tonopah tod EN> From: Earl Needham > Subject: What's at Tonopah today? > Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 21:46:16 -0600 EN> Since the F-117's left Tonopah, I've wondered just what's flying ou > there now. After all, it doesn't make much sense that a base would be = > built up as much as Tonapah Test Range and then just abandoned like = > that. Any ideas? EN> Earl I thought I read in some aviation magazine that TTR was being used as an "agresser" base where most of the planes were from NATO countries. I guess our guys (yes, I mean women included) fly out of Nellis. Everybody meets somewhere in the middle and the fun begins. The reason I remember this is because the topic of what does our Air Force do if a NATO pilot strays into the Groom Lake area by accident. I think the article said that after a few hours of intense lecturing, he is sent home....probably to face more heat from his Commander! Does this ring a bell with anyone else? <--Al--> * SLMR 2.1a * "Be quick, be quiet, be on time" -Kelly Johnson ------------------------------ From: Jeff H Clark Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 11:37:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Have Blue color scheme michaelg@csd.uwm.edu asked where I got the Have Blue airplane model. Well, the model itself is made by Pegasus, a small British model company. It had about seven plastic parts that needed a lot of sanding for the fuselage, white meteal seat landing gear and pitot, and a clear plastic canopy that in my kit had one side thicker than the other, so I had to make a copy of it, which didn't look all that great. I got the kit for $9 at a model show. I do know that a company called Precision Enterprises Unlimited, in Vermont, sells the kit, and also sells a 1/48 vac-u-form kit made by Maintrack / Project X. Unfortunately, both are apparently out of production, and the 1/72 kit was a limited edition of 1000. However, if you ask around hard enough, you'll find one of them. Precision Enterprises is a good mail order company, and they advertise in every issue of _Fine Scale Modeler_. If anyone wants more info, just ask. Jeff Clark jclark@freenet.scri.fsu.edu ------------------------------ From: "Alun Whittaker" Date: 23 May 1996 08:57:34 -0800 Subject: Re- How fast can we go? BaDKaRmA wrote: >> If we made, and launched these 'vehicles' could they overtake >> the voyager probes? thus makeing then totally redundent? I'll probably be shot for quoting yet another SF writer but didn't Arthur C. Clarke upset a lot of people with a speech made at a UN conference in the sixties (I can't find the reference but I know it was re-published in a book of his essays) in which he pointed out that launching an interstellar probe was pointless during the next 100 years since anything sent out during that period would inevitably be overtaken by several generations of technologically improved vessels before reaching anywhere of any interest. Alun Whittaker ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 09:39:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Tacit and the Blues... Yes, I am getting sick of hopscotching over the hogwash when reading my copy of the digest. This is especially galling to me, as we have just seen the revealing of the another black aircraft, Tacit Blue and noone is talking about it. To get things back on track, here is a little tidbit for you to chew on... Several weeks ago, before Tacit Blue was revealed, I said that I wasn't aware of Scaled Composites having built a sub-scale prototype of the B-2. While it turns out that I was kinda wrong and kinda right. Yesterday, someone from Scaled told me that it is now public knowledge that Scaled Composites built portions of Tacit Blue. Seeing that it first flew in 1982, this means that it was one of Scaled's first projects (if I remember right, Scaled was founded in 1982, but they did prototyping work as the Rutan Aircraft Factory before that). My source promised to fax me a copy of the Scaled Newsletter describing their involvement, and I will pass it on after I recieve it. On the same topic - according to Av Week, Tacet Blue was powered by two Garrett ATF-3s. This engine was previously only used on the Ryan Compass Cope prototype and some Dassault Falcon 20s (including the Coast Guard Falcons). Rumors have been around that it was also used on several secret programs. The engine is very strange in that the turbine is reverse flow. The air comes out of the compressor, goes to the aft end of the engine, turns forward, goes through the combustor and turbine and then turns again and is dumped out through several ports around the core cowl. I have often wondered why Garrett went to all the trouble - they claim that this arrangement reduces shaft lengths and makes the accessories more accesible (they are at the aft end of the whole thing). It occurs to me that the real reason is that this arrangement makes it impossible to look up the exhaust, directly at the turbine! Hence, the rear aspect radar signature is infinitely better, and the IR signature is also probably better. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 10:54:01 PDT Subject: Garret engines David Lednicer writes: I have often wondered why Garrett went to all the trouble - they claim that this arrangement reduces shaft lengths and makes the accessories more accesible (they are at the aft end of the whole thing). It occurs to me that the real reason is that this arrangement makes it impossible to look up the exhaust, directly at the turbine! Hence, the rear aspect radar signature is infinitely better, and the IR signature is also probably better. (End quote) Not likely. The Garret engines are designed for and used extensively for general aviation aircraft. Lear, Falcon, Cessna, and others have used them for years. The flow turning was done so a centrifugal, instead of axial, turbine (and hence 1 stage and MUCH cheaper) could be used. There was nothing sneaky or steathy involved. The original Junos, in fact, used this arraingement! We had a J79 in the lobby at Furnas Hall. I always marveled at the hot section, and never did manage to count all the blades in the turbine section. I can only guess what they cost to replace on a hot start-no wonder my taxes are so high! Also, not many pure jets survive. Today all fighters use fans. Since fans are either VAT or FAT - low bypass, low compression engines as used in fighters (allowing reheat at the cost of TSFC) you look up the nozzle into a mixing chamber anyway, not the turbine. The mixed bypass and core products are probably as "cool" as the Garret exhaust. Chuck ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #660 ********************************* 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).