From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #689 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Sunday, 4 August 1996 Volume 05 : Number 689 In this issue: Re: Pepsi Harrier Welcome back Waverider press-release Re: Missile sighting in Mojave Desert Re: Waverider press-release Anreas Lives Re: Welcome back Re: Waverider press-release Re: Waverider press-release Re: Waverider press-release Recent trip to Edwards AFB, CA 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: Brett Davidson Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 17:32:53 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: Pepsi Harrier On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Hypoxic Wombat wrote: > The avalanche has already started. > It's too late for the pebbles to vote. > <*> He has always had the Harrier.... :-) - --Brett ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 08:56:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Welcome back It's certainly good to see Andreas participating again! Just two exceptionally minor quibbles with his excellent write-up on military designations. 1) The V-3 designation was used, for the Bell XV-3 tiltrotor demonstrator, that proceded the XV-15. 2) The H-14 designation was used for a Firestone/G&A helicopter. The H numbers that I find as unused are: 38, 42, 44 and 45. If anyone is interested, I have a list of all of the Hs, from 1 to 67 and 1 to 6, in the repeat series. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: JOHN SZALAY Date: Fri, 2 Aug 96 12:19:45 EDT Subject: Waverider press-release Subj: Intelligent Test Aircraft Unveiled in Wisconsin Today Don Nolan-Proxmire Headquarters, Washington, DC August 2, 1996 (Phone: 202/358-1983) Mary M. Spracher Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA (Phone: 757/864-6527/6120) Robert M. Pap Accurate Automation Corp., Chattanooga, TN (Phone: 423/894-4646) RELEASE: 96-154 INTELLIGENT TEST AIRCRAFT UNVEILED IN WISCONSIN TODAY NASA and the U.S. Air Force today unveiled a jet-powered aircraft equipped with state-of-the-art flight control technologies that will demonstrate a computerized flight control system that learns as it flies -- especially important for the demands of ultra high-speed flight. Called the Low-Observable Flight Test Experiment (LoFLYTE), the 8-foot-4-inch aircraft, announced at a briefing in Oshkosh, WI, has been developed by Accurate Automation Corp., Chattanooga, TN, for NASA and the Air Force. The program contracts are being administered through NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, and the Air Force Wright Laboratory, Dayton, OH, under the Small Business Innovative Research Program. The experimental LoFLYTE aircraft will be used to explore new flight control techniques involving neural networks, which allow the aircraft control system to learn by mimicking the pilot. The model is a Mach 5 waverider design -- a futuristic hypersonic aircraft configuration that actually cruises on top of its own shockwave. Waverider aircraft, powered by airbreathing hypersonic engines, would fly at speeds above Mach 4. LoFLYTE represents the first known flying waverider vehicle configuration, but upcoming flight tests at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, will be flown only at low subsonic speeds to explore take-off and landing control issues. The remotely-piloted aircraft has been designed to demonstrate that neural network flight controls are superior to conventional flight controls. Neural networks are computer systems that actually learn by doing. The computer network consists of many interconnected control systems, or nodes, similar to neurons in the brain. Each node assigns a value to the input from each of its counterparts. As these values are changed, the network can adjust the way it responds. The aircraft's flight controller consists of a network of multiple-instruction, multiple-data neural chips. The network will be able to continually alter the aircraft's control laws in order to optimize flight performance and take the pilot's responses into consideration. Over time, the neural network system could be trained to control the aircraft. The use of neural networks in flight would help pilots fly in quick- decision situations and help damaged aircraft land safely even when controls are partially destroyed. The main objective of LoFLYTE is to demonstrate the utility of such a flight control system that learns through experience, said Robert Pegg of Langley's Hypersonic Vehicles Office. In addition to experimenting with neural networks, the flight of the model also is key as a low-speed demonstration of a hypersonic vehicle. "We're very interested in both outcomes, both the neural net technology and the flight characteristics," he said. "We see a big advantage to using this type of control system in a hypersonic vehicle," Pegg said. "At those high speeds, things happen so quickly that the pilot cannot control the aircraft as easily as at subsonic speeds." The initial configuration for the aircraft was developed at Langley. Accurate Automation Corp. will then integrate the neural network technology into the Langley design. Successful tests of the waverider concept in Langley's 12-foot Low-Speed Wind Tunnel and 30- by 60-foot Full Scale Tunnel preceded the development of this model aircraft. The construction of the model was completed at SWB Turbines, Appleton, WI. The company also provided the small turbine engine that powers the model. The shell of the model was built at Mississippi State's Raspet Flight Research Laboratory and then shipped to SWB Turbines so that the radio control gear and the engine could be installed. The waverider was chosen as the testbed for the neural networks because the configuration has an inherently high hypersonic lift-to-drag ratio. If neural networks can control this "worst-case scenario" configuration, then they should be able to handle virtually any other configuration. The waverider configuration was also chosen because it allows for long hypersonic cruise ranges of up to 8,000 miles. At an altitude of 90,000 feet, a Mach 5 waverider would fly at a rate of one mile per second. "We want to make the public aware that the government is getting a good return on its SBIR-invested money," Pegg said. "We hope this project will help us further demonstrate to the public that the SBIR program is a viable investment for the American people." Technologies being implemented in the LoFLYTE program could eventually find their way into commercial, general aviation and military aircraft. - end - NASA press releases and other information are available automatically by sending an Internet electronic mail message to domo@hq.nasa.gov. In the body of the message (not the subject line) users should type the words "subscribe press-release" (no quotes). The system will reply with a confirmation via E-mail of each subscription. A second automatic message will include additional information on the service. NASA releases also are available via CompuServe using the command GO NASA. ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 14:00:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Missile sighting in Mojave Desert On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Byron Weber wrote: > About 6-8 months ago I was snooping around Mojave Airport. Northrop > has a small facility there and at the back of a fenced yard were half > a dozen painted red, target drones, minus their wings, collecting > dust and rusting. Could it be? Very high probability that it was a target drone. Thanks for the replay. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net "During the war (Desert Storm), I ate, I slept, and I flew. You couldn't go to town or off to the mountains. Not allow to do that. We had a joke back then: 'The only time they let you off base is to go bomb Baghdad.'" Capt. Matt Byrd (F-117 pilot) ------------------------------ From: thad@hammerhead.com (Thaddeus J. Beier) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:58:00 -0700 Subject: Re: Waverider press-release I've used neural networks to do color correction, and have read the literature, and what they are talking about for neural-network control of airplanes is completely insane. A big problem with neural networks is that they are black boxes. That is, while they do generate the correct response to the given inputs, there is no way of knowing why they work. Further, there is no guarantee whatsoever that a set of inputs outside the training set will generate a useful response; you just have to try it and see. Most often, you will get something completely wrong as a response to a unforseen situation. I'd much rather have an engineer use old-fashioned methods to try to understand what the airplane is doing. There is no understanding with neural networks, there is no way of looking at the resulting network and saying "See? When the canard is rate-limited, the controller dumps the flaps" or anything like that. It just works, probably. Similarly, there is absolutely no way of proving that a neural network will perform correctly even at all the points inside the envelope. With engineered systems, you can look at the equations, and analytically show that the system will do the right thing everywhere. With a neural network, you have to try it and see. In a multi-dimensional parameter space typical of advanced flight systems, this is impossible; there are trillions of points to try in the envelope. Neural networks are cool, no question. They're great for non-life-critical applications, they are simple, fast, and sometimes work amazingly well. But they are no substitute for understanding. thad - -- Thaddeus Beier thad@hammerhead.com Visual Effects Supervisor 408) 286-3376 Hammerhead Productions ------------------------------ From: keenank@juno.com (Kevin R Keenan) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 1996 00:25:10 EDT Subject: Anreas Lives It's clear to see that no matter how much work he has, Andreas couldn't stay off the list when the subject of a/c designations came up. As usual, he has cleared up our hazy misconceptions with a multi-megaton nuke flash of clarity. Welcome back, Andreas. You ARE the man. Kevin Keenan Kennedy Space Ctr. ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 06:44:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Welcome back Sorry to correct you, David, but I was correct on both counts, even though I made two small (different) errors in the list: the V-12 designation was used two times, and the H-1, H-2, H-3, H-7 and H-9 are also missing. But first things first: David wrote: >1) The V-3 designation was used, for the Bell XV-3 tiltrotor >demonstrator, that proceded the XV-15. The Bell XV-3 was designated in the old V - Convertiplane series of the USAF/US Army, which existed from 1952 to 1956 (nominally until 1962), and included the following three designations: V - Convertiplane, 1952 - 1956 ============================== V-1 - McDonnell M.82, originally designated XL-25-MC (in USAF/US Army "L"iason series), then briefly designated XH-35-MC (in USAF/US Army "H"elicopter series), and finally XV-1-MC; 2 XV-1 built (FY-Serial: 53-4016 - 53-4017); V-2 - Sikorsky S.57, not built (design study only), (it is possible that the FY-Serial: 53-4403 was reserved for the XV-2-SI); V-3 - Bell 200, originally designated XH-33-BF, redesignated XV-3-BF, 2 XV-3 built (FY-Serial: 54-0147 - 54-0148); At about the same time, a semi-official, temporary designation series for manned flying platforms existed: HO - Flying Platform, 1955 - 1956 ================================= HO-1 - Hiller, 'Flying Platform', 2 YHO-1E-UH (FY-Serial: 56-6944 - 56-6945), redesignated VZ-1-UH; HO-2 - DeLackner DH.4, 'Aerocycle', 12 YHO-2 (FY-Serial: 56-6928 - 56-6939); From 1956 to 1962, the US Army used its own little designation system, but all aircraft were redesignated in 1962 under the Joint Designation System. All ended up in either the H - Helicopter series or in the V - V/STOL series, which (in my opinion) is as ridiculous as it gets, with all the different types of aircraft, many redesignations, and several missing entries. The following Designation System was used by the US Army from 1956 to 1962: US Army designation 1956 - 1962 Used Changed in 1962 to ======================================================================= AC - Aircraft, Cargo AC-1 - AC-2 V - V/STOL series AO - Aircraft, Observation AO-1 - AO-3 V - V/STOL series AU - Aircraft, Utility (AU-1) (U - Utility series) HC - Helicopter, Cargo HC-1 H - Helicopter series HO - Helicopter, Observation HO-1 - HO-6 H - Helicopter series HU - Helicopter, Utility HU-1 H - Helicopter series VZ - VTOL Research VZ-1 - VZ-11 V - V/STOL series Listed here, are all V/STOL and related designations: US Army Joint Remarks, Description ========================================================================== (AU-1) (U-1) (DeHavilland DHC-3 Otter, reserved designation, not used); AO-1 V-1 Grumman G.134, Mohawk, 333 AO-1 / OV-1, several versions; AO-2 Goodyear 466, Inflatoplane, 1 XAO-2-GI (FY-Serial: 57-6537); AO-3 Goodyear 468, Inflatoplane, 5 XAO-3-GI (FY-Serial: 57-6531 - 57-6536); AC-1 V-2 DeHavilland Canada DHC-4, Caribou, 56 AC-1-DH / CV-2A-DH and 103 AC-1A-DH / CV-2B-DH, 1968 redesignated to C-7A and C-7B; V-3 not assigned, because the XV-3 was still on US Army charge; VZ-1 Hiller, 'Flying Platform', 2 VZ-1-UH, ex YHO-1E-UH, (FY-Serial: 56-6944 - 56-6945); VZ-2 Vertol 76, 1 VZ-2-BV (FY-Serial: 56-6943); VZ-3 Ryan 72, Vertiplane, 1 VZ-3-RY (FY-Serial: 56-6941); VZ-4 Doak 16, 1 VZ-4-DA (FY-Serial: 56-6942); VZ-5 Fairchild M.224-1, 1 VZ-5-FA (FY-Serial: 56-6940); VZ-6 Chrysler, 2 VZ-6 (FY-Serial: 58-5506 - 58-5507); VZ-7 Curtiss-Wright, 2 VZ-7-AP (FY-Serial: 58-5508 - 58-55-09); VZ-8 Piasecki 59K, Airjeep, 2 VZ-8-PH (FY-Serial: 58-5510 - 58-5511); VZ-9 Avro Canada, Avrocar, 1+1 VZ-9-AV (FY-Serial: 58-7055); VZ-10 V-4 Lockheed, Hummingbird, 2 VZ-10-LO / XV-4A-LO (FY-Serial: 62-4503 - 62-4504), the 2nd was later modified to XV-4B; VZ-11 V-5 Ryan, Vertifan, 2 VZ-11-RY / XV-5A-RY (FY-Serial: 62-4505 - 62-4506), the 2nd was later modified to XV-5B; VZ-12 Hawker Siddeley P.1127, 2 VZ-12-HS (FY-Serial: 62-4507 - 62-4508) never delivered; (VZ-12) V-6 Hawker Siddeley (P.1127), Kestrel, 9 XV-6A-HS (FY-Serial: 64-18262 - 64-18270), (RAF Serial: XS688 - XS696), only 7 delivered; ex Tri-Nation test aircraft; AC-2 V-7 DeHavilland Canada DHC-5 Caribou II/Buffalo, 4 AC-2-DH / CV-7A-DH (FY-Serial: 63-13686 - 63-13689), 1968 redesignated to C-8A; V-8 Ryan 164, Fleep, 2 XV-8A-RY (FY-Serial: 63-13003 - 63-13004) second canceled; - the AV-8 aircraft is numbered under the "A"ttack series; V-9 Hughes 385, 1 XV-9A-HU (FY-Serial: 64-15107); V-10 North American (Rockwell) NA.300, Bronco, 360 OV-10-NH, many versions, including 18 for Germany, 32 for Thailand, 16 for Venezuela, 16 for Indonesia; V-11 Parsons Corp./Mississippi State University, Marvel, 1 XV-11A (FY-Serial: 65-13070); V-12 Fairchild-Hiller (Pilatus) PC-6/B Heli-Porter, 25 OV-12A (BuAerNo: 157102 - 157126), all canceled; - reassigned to Rockwell International, 2 XFV-12A (BuAerNo: 161080 - 161081), never flown (untethered); V-13 not assigned, maybe due to superstition? V-14 not assigned, maybe black program? V-15 Bell 301, 2 XV-15A-BF (did not receive any military serials, instead civil registered to NASA as 'N702NA'/'NASA 702' and 'N702NA'/'NASA 702'); V-16 McDonnell Douglas 'Super Harrier' project, canceled; V-17 not assigned, maybe black program? V-18 DeHavilland Canada DHC-6-300, Twin Otter, 6 UV-18A-DH (FY-Serial: 76-22565 - 76-22566, 79-23255 - 79-23256, 82-23835 - 82-23836), and 2 UV-18B-DH (FY-Serial: 77-0464 - 77-0465); V-19 not assigned, maybe black program? V-20 Pilatus PC-6 Turbo Porter, Chiricahua, 2 UV-20A (FY-Serial: 79-23253 - 79-23254); V-21 not assigned, maybe black program? V-22 Bell/Boeing, Osprey, 6 V-22A (BuAerNo: 163911 - 163916), (planned versions: CV-22A, HV-22A, MV-22A, SV-22A); V-23 Skytrader Corp., UV-23A, tactical transport, modified for armed reconnaissance (based on Dominion Skytrader 800 ?), (FY-Serial: ???); David continued: >2) The H-14 designation was used for a Firestone/G&A helicopter. The H >numbers that I find as unused are: 38, 42, 44 and 45. If anyone is >interested, I have a list of all of the Hs, from 1 to 67 and 1 to 6, in >the repeat series. The USAAF introduced in 1941 the R - Rotary Wing designation for its newly developed helicopters. In the years from 1941 to 1947 the USAAF introduced 16 "R" designations. The USAF abandoned the "R" series in 1948, and introduced its own H - Helicopter series. Several, but not all, "R" designated aircraft were redesignated in the "H" series. In 1956, the US Army created its own (short lived) designation system, including some new helicopter designations. In 1962, the USN/USMC/USCG and the US Army had to abandon their designation systems, and all helicopters still in use were redesignated under the new Joint System, either in the new sequence or in the old USAF sequence. The following lists contains all those helicopter designations: USAAF USN/USMC USAF Remarks, Description US Army USCG Joint ========================================================================== R-1 Platt-LePage, 1 XR-1, 1 XR-1A; R-2 Kellett, 1 XR-2, modified YG-1C; R-3 Kellett, 1 XR-3, modified YG-1B; R-4 HNS H-4 Sikorsky VS.316A, Hoverfly, many versions; R-5 HO2S, HO3S H-5 Sikorsky VS.372, Dragonfly, many versions; R-6 HOS H-6 Sikorsky VS.316B, Hoverfly, many versions; R-7 Sikorsky project, modif. R-6; R-8 Kellett, 1 XR-8, 1 XR-8A; R-9 H-9 G&A (Firestone) 45, 1 XR-9A/B; R-10 H-10 Kellett, 2 XR-10, 10 R-10/YH-10 can. R-11 H-11 Rotorcraft, 1 XR-11; R-12 H-12 Bell 48, 4 versions, 13 built, 34 can.; R-13 HTL, HUL H-13 Bell 47, Sioux, many versions; R-14 G&A (Firestone), 3 XR-14, can.; R-15 H-15 Bell 54, 3 XR-15; R-16 H-16 Piasecki PV.15, Transporter, 4 versions; H-17 Kellett (Hughes), 1 XH-17; HO5S H-18 Sikorsky S.52, 4 YH-18, 79 HO5S-1, 8 HO5S-1G; HO4S, HRS H-19 Sikorsky S.52, Chickasaw, many versions; H-20 McDonnell M.38, Little Henry, 2 XH-20; HRP H-21 Piasecki, Work Horse/Shawnee/Rescuer, many v.; HTK H-22 Kaman K.225, Huskie, 1 YH-22, 2 XHTK-1; HTE H-23 Hiller Model 360/UH12, Raven, many versions; H-24 Seibel S.4A, 2 XH-24; HJP, HUP H-25 Piasecki/Vertol, Retriever, many versions; H-26 American Helicopter XA8, 5 XH-26; H-27 Piasecki, 1 XH-27, redesignated YH-16A; H-28 Hughes, project only, XH-28 can.; H-29 McDonnell M.79, project only, XH-29 can.; HUM H-30 McCulloch MC.4A/4C, 3 YH-30, 2 XHUM-1; H-31 Doman LZ.5, 2 YH-31, to VH-31; HOE H-32 Hiller HJ.1, Hornet, 14 YH-32, 3 XHOE-1; H-33 Bell 200, XH-33 redesignated to XV-3; HSS-1, HUS H-34 Sikorsky S.58, Choctaw/Seabat/Seahorse, many; L-25 H-35 McDonnell M.82, ex XL-25, redesignated XV-1; H-36 Bell (?), project, (FY-Serial: 59-5926); HR2S H-37 Sikorsky S.56, Mojave, many versions; H-38 Sikorsky, 1 for MAP, (FY-Serial: 54-4047); H-39 Sikorsky S.59, 3 XH-39, modif. YH-18A; (HU-1A) H-40 Bell 204, 3 XH-40, 6 YH-40, (as HU-1A); H-41 Cessna CH.1B, Seneca, 10 YH-41, 11 UH-41A MAP; (H-42) skipped (?); HOK, HTK, HUK H-43 Kaman K.600, Huskie, many versions; (H-44) skipped (?); H-45 (?), project, (FY-Serial: 62-5980); HRB H-46 Vertol (Boeing) 107, SeaKnight, many versions; HC-1 H-47 Vertol (Boeing) 114, Chinook, many versions; (HU-1B) H-48 Bell 204, Iroquois, 1 XH-48, can. (to UH-1F); (H-49) skipped (?); ======== HU-1 H-1 Bell 204 etc., Iroquois/Cobra, many versions; HU2K H-2 Kaman K.20, SeaSprite, many versions; (HR3S), HSS-2 H-3 Sikorsky S.61, SeaKing/Pelican, many versions; HO-1 Sud Aviation SO.1221, Djinn, 3 YHO-1-DJ; HO-2 Hughes 269A, 5 YHO-2-HU; HO-3 Brantly B.2, 5 YHO-3-BR; HO-4 H-4 Bell 206, 5 YHO-4-BF / YOH-4A; HO-5 H-5 Fairchild Hiller FH.1100, 5 YHO-5-UH / YOH-5A; HO-6 H-6 Hughes (MDC), Cayuse, many versions; ======== DSN H-50 Gyrodyne DASH, many versions; H-51 Lockheed 186, Aerogyro, 2 XH-51A, 1 XH-51N; HU2S-1G H-52 Sikorsky S.62A, SeaGuard, 99 HH-52A; H-53 Sikorsky S.65, SeaStallion/Dragon, many ver.; H-54 Sikorsky S.64, Tarhe, 97 built in 3 versions; H-55 Hughes (Schweizer) 269, Osage, 792 TH-55A; H-56 Lockheed, Cheyenne, 10 YAH-56A; H-57 Bell 206A, SeaRanger, 180 TH-57A/B/C; H-58 Bell 206A, Kiowa, several versions; H-59 Sikorsky S.69, 1 XH-59A, 2 YH-59A; H-60 Sikorsky S.70, Black/Sea/etc. Hawk, many ver.; H-61 Boeing-Vertol 179, 3 YUH-61A; H-62 Boeing-Vertol 301, 1 XCH-62A canceled; H-63 Bell 409, 2 YAH-63A; H-64 McDonnell (Hughes), Apache, several versions; H-65 Aerospatiale SA.365, Dolphin, 96+1 HH-65A; H-66 Sikorsky, Comanche, 1 YRAH-66A, maybe more; H-67 Premier Aviation/Bell 206B, Creek, 135 TH-67; Sorry for the length, but I got carried away, again. - -- 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: Brett Davidson Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 14:46:40 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: Waverider press-release On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Thaddeus J. Beier wrote: > literature, and what they are talking about for neural-network control > of airplanes is completely insane. > > A big problem with neural networks is that they are black boxes. That > is, while they do generate the correct response to the given inputs, there > is no way of knowing why they work. Further, there is no guarantee On a rather abstract tangent here... A couple of years ago, Scientific American ran an article on the use of computer simultation in theoretical mathematics. The article was entitled "The Death of Proof" and featured a lot of mathematicians outraged by the prospect of having to accept as articles of "faith" what the machines presented to them without being able to actually UNDERSTAND it. I'm wondering if this represents some sort of threshhold in the development of technology where human consciousness becomes simply a part of the design process rather than the totality of the process. Some historians have talked about "horizons" of perception, where the scale or complexity of a situation expands beyond the capabilities on anyone to perceive it. While I consider most of the claims of Artificial Intelligence researchers to be, to put it politely, a bit excessive, the narrow pseudo-intellectual capabilities of some machines can obviously exceed some human capabilities. If forms of AI are increasingly used in design, engineering and operation, then there is going to be an added dimension of skunkiness: not merely secrecy, but actual inexplicability. If only from an academic perspective, I find the implications intriguing.... - --Brett ------------------------------ From: Greg Weigold Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 12:28:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Waverider press-release <> On Sun, 4 Aug 1996, Brett Davidson wrote: > > > If only from an academic perspective, I find the implications intriguing.... > > --Brett > If we allow machines/computers to fly airplanes in this manner, are we opening the door to the realms of possibilities that the SF writers have envisioned for years? Where the machines become the superior intellect on this planet, and humans are only the dumb passengers. Maybe Asimov's Three Rules of Robotics are even more important and more REAL than even the 'good doctor' would have believed. Are we getting a little divergent here? - -couldn't pass this one up! <> ===== Greg Weigold, Prog/Analyst Supr. ====== Policy Mgmt. Systems Corp. Columbia, SC 29202 voice:(803)-735-6952 fax:(803)-735-5788 or 5542 e-mail:aa103371@dasher.csd.sc.edu or gregweigold@pmsc ------------------------------ From: OnLine Date: Sun, 04 Aug 1996 18:16:11 Subject: Re: Waverider press-release Greg Weiglold writes ><> >On Sun, 4 Aug 1996, Brett Davidson wrote: > >> >> >> If only from an academic perspective, I find the implications intriguing.... >> >> --Brett >> >If we allow machines/computers to fly airplanes in this manner, are we >opening the door to the realms of possibilities that the SF writers >have envisioned for years? Where the machines become the superior >intellect on this planet, and humans are only the dumb passengers. The neural net software developed by NASA/McD-D and installed in the F-15 ACTIVE interprets the pilot's control inputs to make the best possible use of whatever elements of control are left after a catastrophic failure or explosion of the a/c...seems like an excellent integration of man/machine. For those who might not be aware of the programme, the F-15 ACTIVE has been chosen because its canards and 3-D thrust vectoring capability allow for simulations of major failures, and is an amazing piece of work. Not much fear of machines taking over from what I hear from those folk heavily involved in AI. Hypersonic travel is perfect for computer control.. particularly of the neural net variety, because everything...you guessed it ...happens so fast ;0 Let's face it, even the "slowcoach" SR-71 uses SAS...computers are our friends...all is well. Best David ------------------------------ From: John Stone Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 16:05:33 -0400 Subject: Recent trip to Edwards AFB, CA Hi All, Kim (my wife) and I just returned from a short trip to Edwards AFB and Southern California. The major reason for our trip was to crew for our friend Jose Wilkie, who was running in the Badwater, Ca to Mt. Whitney foot race (139 miles) non-stop (so to speak). He finished 8th, BTW. There were several interesting events before and during the race, as we were driving from Las Vegas to Badwater on 95 west, we went past the Indian Springs Range where there were two A-10s doing some practice strafing, bombing on the range, which we could see from the road. As Kim is a big A-10 fanatic, she was fairly excited! Then during the race, as we were descending down to the Saline Valley from the Panamint Mountains, we were about 150-200 feet above the valley floor when we hear this loud jet noise and flying from right to left at about 500-1000 ft was a B-2 and chase aircraft with orange tail. What a sight. But that's not all as we got into the next series of mountains, we heard very loud jet engine noises, after the B-2 incident we were very interested as to what it was then all of a sudden out of a canyon to our left zoomed a F-18 and it flew over our head by about 500 feet, and disappeared into another canyon, and then it jumped out of that canyon and dove into the next canyon and was gone! With the end of the race Saturday, we headed down to LA and to hang out and recuperate from the Thursday-Saturday foot race. As we're cruising down from Mt. Whitney on 14, we went past Mojave, CA, the "Davis-Monthan" of the civil airline fleet. There were at 30-50 airliners parked in storage there! Pretty interesting. We spent Sunday evening with a friend of our's father who happens to have worked at the Lockheed and Skunk Works from the 40's through the 80's. He did some of the design work on P-38, P-80, U-2, Jetstar, A-12, D-21, YF-12, SR-71, and many other aircraft put out by the Skunk Works. He was also project manager for U-2R program, his last job before retiring was on the F-117. We had an interesting evening of being pests and trying to weasel good stories out of him. Nothing new but it was very interesting, and it was interesting seeing all his memorabilia he has collected over the years. Monday we headed to the beach to gather up some So. Calif. sun, and when we got to Will Rogers State Beach, (honest, we didn't know this before hand!) they were filming an Baywatch episode there! Monday afternoon we headed out to Edwards AFB, where we had a tour sent up of the NASA facilities and the Air Force Det 2 on Tuesday. After checking out the numerous NASA test aircraft F-16s, one was the laminer flow plane I think F-16XL (I'm sure there are several of you who know what the correct designation is...8^) ), F-18s and T-34, and if I remember correctly it was Promethius (?), a test carriring drone. We didn't get to see Darkstar as it was up at the radar range! Then over to the NASA SR-71 hanger where we saw the A which the LASRE will be attached to and the B (trainer). There were about 6 techs scurring around the A working on getting the test equipment correctly calibrated that will be used with the LASRE, and they had had a problem with several of the test leads which led them to having to remove the port vertical rudder and the pivot post to replace the leads and they had just got done replacing the post and rudder monday. Almost all the bays were open and brimming with test eqiuipment. They had all sorts of neat SR bits and pieces sitting around the hanger: 3 complete drag chutes, weights to put in the nose of the SR to keep the balance right, when not flying with any sensors or test equipment in it, tires on the wheels, and various body panels and hatches. The cockpits look basically the same as the pics and the dash 1. While the RSO cockpit looks sparse, on the front panel, the view sight and ASARS panel have instruments have been replaced with a GPS panel, the antenna has been mounted between the pilot and RSO hatches on the top of the aircraft (the AF SRs have not yet been modified with GPS!). There was a big void on the left side of the cockpit as they had removed the LASRE control panels to go up with the LASRE to do the rocket test firings. BTW I asked about the delay of the testfiring and they said it's been moved back appoxamantly 6 months, not due to the SR, but due to rocket problems! After that we moved on to Det 2, where were meet by Lt. Col. Jim Greenwood and THE TOUR started....we first went to the J-58, run by Pratt & Whitney and jointly serving the AF and NASA. There were about 8-10 engines on the engine carts, scattered around the room. As a footnote, we were told that Edwards has an engine shop, that does all the engine work at Edwards, except for the J-58s, which are maintained by the P&W folks. Then on to the ops offices (which are not well populated, due to the current fiscal debate over the SR). The only flight personnel at the Det are RSOs as the 3 pilots are scattered, as the SRs aren't flying right now. From there we moved on to the Heritage Room, if you've visited the Beale Museum (when it was open), you saw the Bar, Tie pole and carvings of the SR squadron, wing and Det logos, including a board with the name of all the military VIP flights and of course the wall of photos of every Air Force SR crew, and many items from the history of the SR, they've all been moved to Det 2 and placed in a room overlooking the flightline at Edwards. Then onto the small PSD area, they do not have permanent PSD personnel at Det 2, they are serviced by the NASA PSD folks, they're hoping after the funding problems are over that they can have a permanent group of AF PSD folks from Beale. As I mentioned earlier, with the budget problems, the population at the Det is quite sparse, just a skeleton crew on hand. There are areas for the people maintaining the DEF systems, and also the sensor crews, which are not manned at this point, due to the AF SRs are not flying. We then moved on to the hanger area where, beleive it or not there was life! There were 5-8 maintenance types working on the SR, they were doing some hydraulic work on it, and had one of the "hot carts" connected to the bird and as we were leaving the hanger they were doing a test on the hydaulic system, where they heat up the hydraulic fluid to do a "Hot Test", simulating flight conditions. It was very noisey and smokey....as we left But back to the tour...Finally got to see the real time data link set-up on the AF SRs, it is situated just in front of the front wheel well, just below the RSO cockpit, it is about 12-18" long, 8-10" diameter elongated bulb looking thing, that has been nicknamed "The Wart". It is controlled from the RSO cockpit. I asked about whether it caused any disturbances and Jim said that it does cause some but doesn't seem to be detrimental, except to the fuel economy, they did have to "loosen" up the spike and door regime "a little" to compensate for the added drag! Then we checked out the cockpit areas, funny the front looks suprisingly familiar, just like the dash 1! ;). While the RSO cockpit has had some remodeling the ASARS screen is there, but the viewsight screen is gone, Jim said that it was removed because no one liked it, he also mentioned that the RSOs were trying to get it reinstalled as they were the ones that used and LIKED it, he was also muttering something about no one asked us about it before they removed them. I asked Jim about the GPS that was installed on the NASA SRs and he said that they were happy with the INS system, but that the GPS would be a nice bonus, but he didn't think they would have it added! With that we toured a few more offices and meet some more personnal and we were on our way. We also saw the Flight Test Museum and visited Blackbid Airpark while we were out and they are well worth the time to look over if your in the area. We headed back to Las Vegas and caught our flight the next day and home to Kentucky. Thanks for letting me share our vacation.... 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 ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #689 ********************************* 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).