From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #665 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Friday, 7 June 1996 Volume 05 : Number 665 In this issue: Re: SR-71 Glide Landing Re: SR-71 Glide Landing [new subject] Re: SR-71 Glide Landing Re: SR-71 Glide Landing [new subject] Simulated radar signatures... Re: radar stuff Black Helicopters Re: TACIT BLUE REPLY to Chuck's statment SR-71 dead stick landings Flying Wing RE: Black Helicopters Re: Flying Wing Re: SR-71 dead stick landings Re: SR-71 Dead Stick landings Re: TACIT BLUE (Ken Dyson) From- "Mark E. Schmidt" Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 20:29:45 +0100 Subject: Re: SR-71 Glide Landing Hi, Gee that's funny I've always been told that the SR glided like a rock....a big black rock.... John | / ^ \ ___|___ -(.)==<.>==(.)- --------o---((.))---o-------- SR-71 Blackbird U-2 Dragon Lady John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web Page:http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:24:55 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: SR-71 Glide Landing [new subject] According to some pilot descriptions, the SR-71 has such a large flat planform that there is considerable Wing-In-Ground effect. It becomes quite difficult sometimes to actually bring the aircraft down to ground from the last few metres of altitude. It appears that the landing procedure arises from ground-effect rather than lift/drag ratios then? Am I completely off here? As a side note on lifting bodies (I forget the correct technical terms), but the X-24B was about the best in that it "only" fell about one metre for every two and a half metres of forward travel. Sailplanes in still air manage well over thirty (?). ...and the Space Shuttle - apparently if you leapt out of one without a parachute, you would hit the ground second(!). - --Brett ------------------------------ From: clew@netcom.netcom.com (Hypoxic Wombat) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 18:23:37 -0700 Subject: Re: SR-71 Glide Landing John Stone wrote: >Gee that's funny I've always been told that the SR glided like a rock....a >big black rock.... > But the question is...can it skip across the water? (and from there into a tunnel, there to be mistaken for an unmarked helicopter?) - -- clew@netcom.com <*> The avalanche has already started. It's too late for the pebbles to vote. <*> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2925 ------------------------------ From: Earl Needham Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 21:52:06 -0700 Subject: Re: SR-71 Glide Landing [new subject] I've watched this discussion for a couple of days and knew that it is impossible to "routinely" land an aircraft with the engines shut down and no fuel left. It's just too dangerous. Finally, tonight I realized where my experience is in this -- at Kadena in 1980 I used to watch these guys land. And taxi back into the hanger! You just can't taxi without engines! 8-) Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM Commercial Pilot, ASEL, Instrument Airplane, Private Priveleges, Single-Engine Sea Have you really jumped ROUNDS? (Overheard at the Clovis DZ) > From: Brett Davidson , on 6/5/96 9:27 PM: > > According to some pilot descriptions, the SR-71 has such a large flat > planform that there is considerable Wing-In-Ground effect. It becomes > quite difficult sometimes to actually bring the aircraft down to ground > from the last few metres of altitude. It appears that the landing > procedure arises from ground-effect rather than lift/drag ratios then? > Am I completely off here? ------------------------------ From: Corey Lawson Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 21:18:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Simulated radar signatures... Sure, why not? It wouldn't be too hard to fit a stealth drone (or several hundred) with some sort of device that returns signals (probably only omnidirectional though) back to certain types of radar sets. The US has done something like this before (remember the 'Quail' missile? presented radar signature similar to B-52 to help steer radar-guided missiles away from B-52 in high altitude attack over Soviet Union)... and I'm sure they do so already to help test our radar sets and radar-based tracking systems and weapons. In fact, Clancy uses a similar trick in his last real novel (duh! why can't I remember the title? duhduhduh! and it's not the OpCenter ones), except in the penultimate attack against Japan the F-22's turn *OFF* their radar transponders and disappear from the Japanese AWACS screens, much to the annoyance of the Japanese controllers who thought they could pick them up and we didn't know... Similar devices already exist for subs (read up on your Tom Clancy novels for details) and other surface ships for some last-ditch protection from torpedo enemas. - -------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Corey Lawson + Daddy lets me drive slowly around the UW Bothell Computer Facilities + driveway on Tuesdays... but only on Tuesdays csl@u.washington.edu + -the Rainman 206.685.5209 + - -------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: dick@smith.chi.il.us (Dick Smith) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 96 0:52:24 CDT Subject: Re: radar stuff BaDKaRmA wrote: > would it be possible for a 'stealth aircraft' to absorb incoming radar, > and to send out its own , different reflection to give the illusion of > being furthe away or of a different aicraft size?? Yes, but it's probably not the preferred technique. If you are really stealthy, why let them know that something is out there by operating a deception jammer, which is at least subject to direction finding? Why not just stay quiet, and let somebody else (maybe a nice Wild Weasel) do stand-off jamming somewhere safe. Radar echos of aircraft aren't really useful for size, especially since anti-radar stealth. So about all you can hope to fool the enemy on by active jamming is distance (or speed, in a doppler system). I'd say that it's better to stay relatively invisible for as long as possible. Other opinions, are possibly valid. For people interested in a basic understanding of the operation of radar systems, I always recommend the "Hughes Radar Book", but I can never remember the exact title. Does someone else? Even better, does someone know how to buy it??? Best, - -- Dick Smith dick@smith.chi.il.us Web page returns: http://www.rice.iit.edu/~rgrhs393 ------------------------------ From: BaDKaRmA Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 10:52:12 +0100 (BST) Subject: Black Helicopters Wow, i wasnt expecting the response, that i got regarding the Black Helicopters, i thank you all for some informative, educational and humorus replys pat ______________________________________________________________________________ (md1br@herts.ac.uk) [32-11-42-13-51-24-42-34] [#9010-3425-3498-AEG-DIN-TOP] 'If you never happen to get this mail, Will anybody read it? I hope it makes the journey. The words I write matter to me, it would be a shame if they were wasted, and lost in an electronic void, for an eternity' -P.Joyce 1996 ______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 11:36:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: TACIT BLUE Just a quick message--Russ Easter and I are good friends (have been for about ten years). I'm now starting to get TACIT BLUE stories from him. I'm also acquainted with Ken Dyson. Dyson might have been out of the military and working for Lockheed by the time he flew HAVE BLUE. He also flew F-100s and F-4s in Nam--those of you who have read "Rolling Thunder" et seq will be please to know that Russ flew with the author (Mark Barent, I think) and characterizes the parts about the war as being very accurate. 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 Tue, 4 Jun 1996 Xelex@aol.com wrote: > Pilots: > Only five pilots flew TACIT BLUE. Their names, in order, are as follows: > Mr. Dick Thomas (Northrop) > Lt. Col. Ken Dyson (USAF) > Lt. Col. Russ Easter (USAF) > Lt. Col. Don Cornell (USAF) > Maj. Dan Vanderhorst (USAF) ------------------------------ From: "Travis J. Bennett" Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 10:13:45 -0600 Subject: REPLY to Chuck's statment > >From: "Terry Colvin" >Date: Wed, 05 Jun 96 08:04:08 GMT >Subject: SR-71 Glide Landing [new subject] > >Date: 4 Jun 1996 22:36:20 GMT >From: Chuck Buckley >Subject: HL vs VL landing. Re: DCX-A a joke re: SSTO? > >>>>but the SR-71 was not required to do glide landings, i suspect >>>>this was just a method of extending operations, reducing costs >>>>and reducing clean-up. >> Well, for the SR, it is simple. If they wanted to landed powered, they >>>would have had to increase the number of refuelings. It glide landed >>>because it was usually out of fuel. >> >>given that I have watched a SR-71 land under power and Mary shafer has >>described how the 71 used to make a cool powered fly-over before landing >>at dryden, i suspect the glide landing was a minor trick to extend range. > > 3 years of personal experience attached to Det 4, 9th SRW at RAF Mildenhall >UK from May 1984-87. > > I can not speak for NASA's useage now, but it was standard operating >procedure for the SR to land dry during my tenure with the aircraft. > I personaly was stationed at Beale for 4 years, working on SR photo equipment and never once did the SR land unpowered, or empty. The purpose for the cool down run around the base was exactly that, to cool the aircraft so that ground personel could begin work on it imeadiately. If they had come in unpowered, it would have been a long wait to tow the aircraft to the hanger, The SR-71 requires an external starter when it is on the ground.Besides, usually someone was in a big hurry to get the information that had just been gathered! Travis J. Bennett / \ Laramie, WY --(.)=<.>=(.)-- Computer Tech/Eng. tbennett@wyoming.com ------------------------------ From: "Joseph F. Donoghue" Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 12:30:00 EDT Subject: SR-71 dead stick landings Can anybody with an SR dash 1 see what it says about ZERO engine land- ings? I would not be surprised if this was an EJECT situation. Even the U-2, a much better glider, never intentionally comes home with the motor off. Joe Donoghue ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 01:46:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Flying Wing Does anyone in the list know what type of airfoil has the XB-35, YB-49 and B-2? I got a RC model blue print of the XB-35 and it has a symetric airfoil. I don't know if this is the original airfoil of the XB-35. If it is so, to mantain lift in a symetric airfoil flying wing need to keep a positive angle of attack (?). The reason I am asking is that I am in a team that is going to build a UAV base in a flying wing. We already have the technology for a ruddervon system (split-flap). Maybe we going to add two small vertical tail to make it more stable (just in case the ruddervon system fail). Another question is how efficience is the RCS of flying wing compare with a "conventional design"? Thanks in advance. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu "Well, here is a new ship (NCC-1701D)... But she got the right name (Enterprise)... Now, you remember that, do you? You treat her like a lady, and she will always bring you home." Dr. McCoy (Star Trek) ------------------------------ From: Paul.Biondolillo@scismail.sci.com Date: Thursday, 6 June 1996 1:13pm CT Subject: RE: Black Helicopters > Wow, i wasnt expecting the response, that i got regarding the Black > Helicopters, i thank you all for some informative, educational and > humorus replys I haven't received many messages on black helicopters. Are the messages being sent direct? It's nice to know something about the topic of discussion for a change ;-) I used to be an aircraft (helicopter) mechanic. Paul ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 10:59:30 PDT Subject: Re: Flying Wing All the Northrop designs had symmetrical sections. They were proprietary to the corporation. With a symmetrical section, alphaL(0) is 0, so some angle of attack is required. Since you are building a UAV (yeah, right) you don`t need fins since the you will have a closed-loop control system, and the rudders (as the split function of the elevators is reffered to in wingdom) are very effective. The vertical fins would need to be very large, since tail volume on a flying wing is restricted in length. Also, the only reason to build a flying wing is low RCS, since they are such inefficient airplanes. Its very difficult to get range or loiter time with a flying wing. Well, OK, they look cool too. Throw the book away for mission segment weight fractions during the initail sizing calculations, since the traditional equations don`t work for flying wings. I`m sure you could derive new ones, but even the Northrop people were way off, so it may be one of those iterative (spelled $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) methods. The biggest concern for stability in the yaw axis for flying wings is the sweep angle. Since there is no fuselage dihedral doesn`t do too much (obviously!) so the Dutch-roll roots can be a little funky. My homepage has a simulation of the YB at design point. (http://www.vivanet.com/"csmith9/index.html) There is a lot of data on lateral stability vs. sweep angle for spanloaders. If you go with the "traditional" contol system another fun trick you could use is to the ailerons as HLD`s. The symmetric section would work OK for a RSS system, but that might be a little tough for your team. I would go with a reflexed section with the proper moment coefficent and, beleive me, your life will be MUCH simpler. Just get the static margin large enough and its no different than a Aeronca Champ or a B17, or a Guillow`s Sleek Streek. Add 20 degrees of sweep to the wing and yaw will be controllable. Have fun, Chuck ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 15:59:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SR-71 dead stick landings Joe Donoghue is of course right -- never attempt a dead-stick landing with a Sled or intentionally switch off the engines -- see also the following three passages, quoted from the Dash-1: 1) Section III - Emergency Procedures, Propulsion Systems Emergencies, page 3-50: Glide Distance - Both Engines Inoperative ========================================= The glide distance chart, Figure 3-8, shows zero-wind glide distances with both engines windmilling. 375 KEAS glide speed is recommended for airstarts. Somewhat slower airspeeds provide greater range but reduced airstart capability. There is sufficient engine rpm for adequate hydraulic pressure to approximately 10,000 feet. ======= WARNING ======= Landing with both engines inoperative should not be attempted. 2) Section III - Emergency Procedures, Other Aircraft Systems Emergencies, Complete Loss Of Boost Pumps, page 3-87: Landing Approach ================ A straight-in landing approach without abrupt nose-over should be started approximately 20 minutes prior to intended landing, using approximately 250 _KIAS_ to _maintain a level or nose-up deck angle_. The probability of engine failure during approach is increased if rpm is advanced during approach. ======= WARNING ======= Bailout if a complete flameout occurs. Do not attempt a dead-stick landing. 3) Section V - Operating Limitations, page 5-2: Engine Operating Limits ======================= In-Flight Shutdown After any in-flight shutdown, a report must be made if the fuel shut-off valve was operated and/or if windmilling speeds less than 3400 rpm were experienced. While in-flight, intentional engine shutdown is not permitted during normal operation unless specifically authorized. And that's all I have to say about that (as Forrest Gump would say). - -- 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: John Stone Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 18:31:29 +0100 Subject: Re: SR-71 Dead Stick landings Hi, I asked Richard Graham (former SR pilot and 9 SRW Wing Commader) about the SR dead-stick landing this is what he had to say: - -- [ From: Richard H. Graham * EMC.Ver #2.10P ] -- >The SR-71 would be the last plane in world that would ever do a trick like >>that. > > If you were to shut down both SR engines at any low airspeed, you >immediately lose hydraulic pressure and would have to eject. We had >only one step to our emergency procedures of a dual hydraulic pump >failure: EJECT! The windmilling rpm from a dead engine is not >sufficient at low airspeed (probably under 250 knots or so) to keep the >hydraulic pumps circulating fluid. > > The problem compounds itself as you slow down even more. The >windmilling engines begin to turn slower and slower, the resulting drag >from non-rotating engines increases greater and greater. This results >in a very rapid decrease in airspeed or altitude...to the point where >you are probably headed straight down. > > I have never heard of any Air Force jet powered aircraft purposely >shutting down an engine to save on fuel. I do know the Navy's P-3s >shut down one of their four prop engines while they are on patrol, to >save fuel. hopefully this answers the question..... Best, John | / ^ \ ___|___ -(.)==<.>==(.)- --------o---((.))---o-------- SR-71 Blackbird U-2 Dragon Lady John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web Page:http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 18:40:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: TACIT BLUE (Ken Dyson) Mary wrote: >[...] Dyson might have been out of the >military and working for Lockheed by the time he flew HAVE BLUE. Lt. Col. (USAF) Norman Kenneth "Ken" Dyson was the first USAF pilot to fly a Lockheed HAVE BLUE aircraft, and the only pilot to fly the second HAVE BLUE prototype (HB-1002) from 07/20/1978 until 07/11/1979, when it crashed on its 52nd flight. Lockheed test pilot William M. "Bill" Park flew all 36 flights with the first HAVE BLUE (HB-1001) from 12/01/1977 until its crash on 05/04/1978. All HAVE BLUE flights were made from Groom Lake, and both aircraft crashed and were subsequently buried there. After this program, Ken Dyson was again the first USAF pilot to fly the Northrop TACIT BLUE aircraft (sometime between 1982 and 1985), after Northrop test pilot Richard "Dick" Thomas made the first flight on 02/05/1982. Those flights also originated from Groom Lake, but TACIT BLUE flew from other undisclosed sites as well -- Edwards AFB North Base and White Sands are some likely candidates. I don't know if Ken Dyson ever worked for Lockheed, but he later worked as chief test pilot for Rockwell International (North American Aviation Div.), where he was the first pilot to fly the first Rockwell/MBB X-31A EFM (Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability) test aircraft (BuAerNo 164584) on 10/11/1990 from Palmdale. He was at the unveiling of TACIT BLUE at Dayton on 05/22/1996, but I didn't speak with him. Does anyone know if he still works for Rockwell, or is he retired? - -- 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: "Alun Whittaker" Date: 6 Jun 1996 16:46:15 -0800 Subject: From- "Mark E. Schmidt" writes: >> ...... *Observables*, huh. Humans are so visual dominant... >> How about *low detectables* .... I disagree for two reasons: First, observation is not necessarily restricted to visual activity. In terms of "observing" hostile aircraft, recognition of engine sounds has always been a significant component. And, radar observations, while visually displayed are well outside of the visual electromagnetic spectrum. Secondly, observation implies continuous "detection" over a finite elapsed time or at worst a series of detections. Again, in regard to observing hostiles, this translates into a vector: position, course and velocity. You can detect a bogey but, if you can't track it, you can't lead it and you can't shoot it down. This was confirmed by the Stealth pilots over Iraq who came back claiming that "They could spot us but they couldn't track us". Alun Whittaker ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 18:16:46 Subject: Richard Bissell, Jr For the hard core skunk works enthusiast an interesting new source: Reflections of a Cold Warrior by Richard M. Bissell, Jr., with Jonathan E. Lewis and Frances T. Pudlo published by Yale University Press, 1996. The book was released last week and received by my bookstore, on order since the beginning of the year, today. Bissell died February 7, 1994. This biography is from his memoirs and includes a 49 page chapter on Overhead Reconnaissance with considerable detail about the U-2 and A-12/SR-71. Byron Weber ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 00:45:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: SR-71 dead stick landings > Can anybody with an SR dash 1 see what it says about ZERO engine land- > ings? I would not be surprised if this was an EJECT situation. You are correct. I already posted several quotes from the dash-1 in response to Chuck's claims on sci.space.tech. I think he is now conviced that he was mistaken. ------------------------------ From: BaDKaRmA Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:16:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: RE: Black Helicopters On Thu, 6 Jun 1996 Paul.Biondolillo@scismail.sci.com wrote: > > > Wow, i wasnt expecting the response, that i got regarding the Black > > Helicopters, i thank you all for some informative, educational and > > humorus replys > > I haven't received many messages on black helicopters. Are the messages being > sent direct? It's nice to know something about the topic of discussion for a > change ;-) I used to be an aircraft (helicopter) mechanic. > > Paul > unfortunatly most of the repys were sent directly to me, sorry pat ______________________________________________________________________________ (md1br@herts.ac.uk) [32-11-42-13-51-24-42-34] [#9010-3425-3498-AEG-DIN-TOP] 'If you never happen to get this mail, Will anybody read it? I hope it makes the journey. The words I write matter to me, it would be a shame if they were wasted, and lost in an electronic void, for an eternity' -P.Joyce 1996 ______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #665 ********************************* 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).