From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #691 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 6 August 1996 Volume 05 : Number 691 In this issue: Re: Microwaves and Flight Compression Lift v Wave Rider a/c Re: Waverider press-release Re:Recent trip to Edwards AFB... Non-Standard Designation modifiers (before ...) Designations AIRCRAFT DESIGNATIONS Designations and Electric Saucers Re: Microwaves and Flight Re: Compression Lift v Wave Rider a/c Re: Designations and Electric Saucers Re: Non-Standard Designation modifiers (before ...) Re: Non-Standard Designation modifiers (before ...) re: Designations and Electric Saucers Re: Non-Standard Designation modifiers (before ...) Tacit Blue article... Re: Non-Standard Designation modifiers (before ...) AIRCRAFT DESIGNATIONS 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: James Morris Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 20:57:46 +0000 Subject: Re: Microwaves and Flight As far as I can tell, the above-mentioned propulsion method is the topic of the next episode of the Australian science show, Quantum, to be televised this Thursday on ABC TV (Australia) at 8pm AEST. I'm not sure if the show is aired at all in the US, so, for those that are interested and outside Oz, the Quantum home page is at: http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/ They make some episodes available for sale on VHS tape (presumably in PAL format), and the contact details are given at: http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/philos.htm - - James. - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- James Morris http://aurora.apana.org.au/~jmorris/ - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: OnLine Date: Mon, 05 Aug 1996 11:44:54 Subject: Compression Lift v Wave Rider a/c Looking over some material on the XB-70 and noting its use of compression lift..I wonder if anyone would tell me how this differs fron the waverider concept...and does Lifting Body design figure in this too. Thanks David ------------------------------ From: OnLine Date: Mon, 05 Aug 1996 12:12:42 Subject: Re: Waverider press-release Brett writes >On Sun, 4 Aug 1996, OnLine wrote: >> 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. > >What it implies to me is something like horseriding. The horse is.. well >not subservient, but obedient and there is a very intimate relationship >between horse and rider and the horse is seen to have a personality. The >rider is not a passenger, but on the other hand, doesn't tell the horse to >do everything and may wonder why the horse does certain things. > >An apt analogy for a possible eventual state of affairs? Sounds about right to me Brett..but then I'm not an engineer ! One aspect that everyone is keen to stress, is that the F-15 ACITVE's intelligent flight control software in no way takes over from an experienced pilot's input, but simply helps optimise the a/c's survivability, given the dangerous and changing situation that follows a catastophic failure. It updates itself every second to make allowances for further deterioration in a way that a pilot simply couldn't. It's not a 'catastrophe autopilot', but a pilot aid, that maintains and enhances pilot authority. I'm sure this is the future of a/c flight control. Just wish they could get it to work with horses...I love 'em but they sense when you're unsure and then do what they like just to test you :) Best David ------------------------------ From: John Stone Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 07:52:14 -0400 Subject: Re:Recent trip to Edwards AFB... Hi, >Thanks for the wonderful trip report and the news from Det. 2! Your welcome. >The only thing I was wondering - did you get the special NASA and Det. 2 >SR-71 tours at Edwards because of 'connections', or are those available to >the public now? The tour was set up by a fried of a friend. Though as I understand it, the NASA SRs are on the NASA tour, but the Air Force SRs are not on the public tour. In fact, they won't allow cameras into Det 2, so alas no photos. 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: Hank_Lapa_at_PO-PLAZA1@SIGNALCORP.COM (Hank Lapa) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 08:02:20 -0400 Subject: Non-Standard Designation modifiers (before ...) (R), I think, also means "Reprocured," a "Navyism" whose _exact_ meaning eludes me at present. Applied to C-2A (R)Greyhound, but may also be applicable to F-14D(R). I thought the F-14s with recce capability (i.e., TARPS pod) were known as "F-14_ TARPS." Similarly, "A-6E TRAM" is identified as distinct from "A-6E" in NATOPS. I think some of our designation problems come from those "professionals" who don't understand the system being "influenced" by marketing weenies. Thus when you plan to build two versions of the Hornet, the F-18 and the A-18 (out of "A" sequence numbering aside), you tout the F/A-18. Still, for a while, the actual acft were correctly marked "F-18A." But as ignorance became dominant through popular use, I think today the actual acft are marked "F/A-18_." It also seems that the proverbial "little old lady in tennis shoes" in charge of designating new acft is working both ends of the sequence when it comes to T-trainers and H-helos. Who gets to decide to go back to "1"?? Man, what power! But hey, even the Brits have been infected with "illegal" designations, or so I've read, with their latest Sea Harrier, if memory serves. The prize for the biggest travesty, though, belongs to the submarine folks, who took the marketeers "twenty-first century submarine," or "SSN21" and decided that the vessel's pennant (hull) number was SSN-21, to be followed by sister ship SSN-22, of course!!! *Somebody* must've inhaled! (Charleton Heston smaches tablets here.) Sorry, couldn't resist the topic, Hank (anal-retentive) ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 08:58:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Designations Excellent series Andreas! I always thought that the early "R" helicopters all became "H" helicopters - you set me straight here. The only omission that occured to me is under the nonstandard designations for countries. Remember the most hideous one ever? The A-4PTM? PTM = Peculiar To Malayasia! I think someone at Grumman invented this one when they got the contract to rebuild the airframes. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: "Anderson, Rick" Date: Mon, 05 Aug 96 10:06:00 pst Subject: AIRCRAFT DESIGNATIONS With all the great information on the list lately regarding aircraft designations, I wanted to ask a question about some numbers I haven't seen. I vaguely remember reading a note a few years back in Jane's "All the world's aircraft" that the numbers between the F-111 and the F-117 (i.e. F-112, 113, etc.) may have been given to captured Soviet aircraft being flown at Groom Lake. Was this just pure speculation on their part or is there any real information on these numbers? (Course that assumes the F-117 was actually following a logical progression of numbers in the first place.....) This is Rick Anderson and a purely personal opinion. ------------------------------ From: CULLY@svr81trw.kee.aetc.af.mil (CULLY, George Mr) Date: 05 Aug 96 14:35:48 EDT Subject: Designations and Electric Saucers Have much enjoyed Andreas' designation notes; the subject is a complicated one, and there are errors in most listings, including his. Some are simple clerical mistakes, others are systemic misunderstandings not made any easier to avoid by inconsistent Service usage. Andreas is correct in citing DoD's "Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles" as an important contemporary authority, but the number is 4120.15L, not 4129.15L, and the most recent edition is dated March 1996; interested private researchers can buy a copy through NTIS by calling (703) 487-4600. For those lucky enough to have it, the best single volume listing of present and past designation sequences (USAAC/USAAF/USAF/USN/USA/USCG) that I know of was done by John M. Andrade. Called "U.S. Military Aircraft Designations and Serials since 1909," it was published in softback by Midland Counties Publications (U.K.) in 1979. Unfortunately, it's long since out of print, although I've heard rumors that a revised edition is presently being assembled. The respective Air Force (Swanborough/Bowers) and Navy (Bowers?) survey volumes in the Putnam Aeronautical series also contain respective Service designation sequence lists. USAAC/USAAF/USAF fiscal year sequential serial number lists and Navy equivalents ('BuNos', or Bureau of Aeronautics Numbers--an obsolete term, but still used) are also available through various sources. Sooner or later, some buff will probably put them all together in a data base on CD-ROM... On a different note, I seem to recall that Popular Science (or Popular Mechanics) ran a gee-whiz piece last year on an "electric saucer" concept that used an aerospike for propulsion, and electric potentials in lieu of maneuvering 'surfaces.' A ground-based (?) laser beam was supposed to provide the power source to run the thing. I probably have the the article somewhere, and will try to post particulars if anyone else can't cite it from memory, or at least pull it up more quickly from a better filing system. Geo. Cully, 81st Training Wing Historian Keesler AFB, MS ------------------------------ From: darknite@juno.com (*********** * *************) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 21:35:26 PST Subject: Re: Microwaves and Flight Hi This is probably off topic for this forum (at least as of now), but this research dates back quite a ways, do a search on "Myrabo" that should help give you more info. The basic concept goes back to some early research work done on warhead re-entry. This initially took the form of a small rocket firing in the direction of flight to speed the penetration via drag reduction (sounds counter-intuitive, but look for early references on "Aerospikes", and this has nothing to due with the propulsive engine of the same name, other than spawning the concept dynamics in the first place!). Later evolutions of this concept emerged in various forms, everything from ionization spikes projecting forward from leading edge surfaces to redirected, focused laser light to create a "plasma point pressure wave/body" ahead of the designated vehicle, thus transforming any shape craft into an ideal of streamlining. Myrabo's (not the only person involved in this research,...I just happen to be able to recall his, not to mention spelling it, easier. There is also a considerable amount of soviet research in this area I believe) early work utilized the laser variant of this concept. He managed to meld two additional (at least) technologies into this design, ie; beamed power (the laser energy to create the aerospike and power the craft was to come initially from surface based nuclear plants, later, these were to be supplemented then replaced by orbiting solar power sats, and an atmospheric version MHD drive (similar to the type studied in both the US and USSR for submarine propulsion----secret of "Red October"). After the demise of SDI, and the associated postponement of most high-energy laser development, Myrabo came into contact with some (now free to discuss former research) Soviet Microwave broadcast, and MHD propulsion researchers and reworked his concept craft to utilize this alternate energy source. The overwhelming majority of this work exists only on paper, with a few initial proof-of-concept studies (at least as far as can be determined publically). The theory is acceptable, and the practical application of it would undoubtedly yield craft that were 'miraculous' in terms of performance and capability (at some point down the line----maybe). Anyway, as you can probably tell from my post, I, at least at one time, found the idea remarkable to say the least (something I'm not noted for-saying the least that is :). Please, feel free to contact me, privately, (darknite@juno.com) and I'll be happy to spill off more related stuff, sites, or useful search phrases. darknite ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 17:00:58 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: Compression Lift v Wave Rider a/c On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, OnLine wrote: > > Looking over some material on the XB-70 and noting its use of compression > lift..I wonder if anyone would tell me how this differs fron the waverider > concept...and does Lifting Body design figure in this too. > AFAIK, the XB-70 was a waverider - the only difference was that it converted into a conventional (!) aircraft for take off and landing. It wasn't a lifting body, but some waverider designs do use lifting body principles by default because their wing sweep is so extreme that there are virtually no wings as such left. - --Brett ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 17:14:24 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: Designations and Electric Saucers On 5 Aug 1996 CULLY@svr81trw.kee.aetc.af.mil wrote: > On a different note, I seem to recall that Popular Science (or Popular > Mechanics) ran a gee-whiz piece last year on an "electric saucer" concept > that used an aerospike for propulsion, and electric potentials in lieu of > maneuvering 'surfaces.' A ground-based (?) laser beam was supposed to > provide the power source to run the thing. I probably have the the > article somewhere, and will try to post particulars if anyone else can't > cite it from memory, or at least pull it up more quickly from a better I have got a file, but workload is ridiculous... I suggest that you try -an excellent search engine- and punch in "Leik Myrabo" "lightcraft" etc. New Scientist and Avleak have had articles also. - --Brett ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 17:05:28 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: Non-Standard Designation modifiers (before ...) On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Hank Lapa wrote: > power! But hey, even the Brits have been infected with > "illegal" designations, or so I've read, with their latest > Sea Harrier, if memory serves. The British system is rather complex, so don't ask me for an explanation, ('cause I don't know) but AFAIK, there is the name of the aircraft (eg: "Sea Harrier"), a combination of letters indicating role, (eg: "FRS." for Fighter/Recon/Strike) then a number indicating the mark or upgrade -which would be a letter in the American system. Thus you can have a ground-attack Harrier GR. 7 and a multi-role fighter Sea Harrier FRS. 2... but otherwise pretty similar aircraft. Likewise there are Tornadoes in F-series designations as long-range interceptors and GRS-series Tornadoes as interdictor-strike aircraft. At least I think that's how it works. - --Brett ------------------------------ From: "Dave Hastings, OUCS" Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 09:44:22 +0100 Subject: Re: Non-Standard Designation modifiers (before ...) > On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Hank Lapa wrote: > > > power! But hey, even the Brits have been infected with > > "illegal" designations, or so I've read, with their latest > > Sea Harrier, if memory serves. > > The British system is rather complex, so don't ask me for an explanation, > ('cause I don't know) but AFAIK, there is the name of the aircraft (eg: > "Sea Harrier"), a combination of letters indicating > role, (eg: "FRS." for Fighter/Recon/Strike) then a number indicating the > mark or upgrade -which would be a letter in the American system. > Thus you can have a ground-attack Harrier GR. 7 and a multi-role fighter > Sea Harrier FRS. 2... but otherwise pretty similar aircraft. Likewise > there are Tornadoes in F-series designations as long-range interceptors > and GRS-series Tornadoes as interdictor-strike aircraft. > > At least I think that's how it works. > > --Brett > The latest Sea Harrier is designated FA.2 (or F/A.2). Remind you of anything? Usually 'F' stands for 'Fighter', 'R' for reconnaissance, 'G' for ground attack and 'S' for (nuclear) strike. Thus, Tornado GR.1 is the ground attack & recce version of the Tornado, and Tornado F.3 is the fighter (ie interceptor) version. The next version of the Tornado is the GR.4, which is an upgrade of the GR.1. There can also be sub-types, eg the TIALD-equipped Tornado is actually GR.1A and the maritime strike version is GR.1B! The Royal Navy seems to like using peculiar designations - as far as I know FRS. has not been used for anything except the Mk 1 Sea Harrier. 'A' has been used before, as in Hunter FGA.9, but here it seems to mean 'Fighter, Ground Attack'. FA. has never been used before. It implies that the Mk2 Sea Harrier no longer has a nuclear strike role. It is also pretty similar to the US F/A-18 designation! Dave - -- David Hastings | "If liberty means anything at all, Systems Programmer/News Manager | it means the right to tell people Oxford University Computing Services | what they do not want to hear" email: david.hastings@oucs.ox.ac.uk | - George Orwell homepage http://users.ox.ac.uk/~daveh/ | ------------------------------ From: (Jay Waller) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 96 7:36:41 EDT Subject: re: Designations and Electric Saucers >On a different note, I seem to recall that Popular Science (or Popular Mechanics) ran a gee-whiz piece last year on an "electric saucer" concept If anyone wants to look at the illustartion from the Pop. Mech. article it's at: http://www.tcet.unt.edu/~chrisl/examples.htm Regards, Jay - ------------- Original Text From: CULLY@svr81trw.kee.aetc.af.mil (CULLY, on 8/5/96 2:35 PM: To: Have much enjoyed Andreas' designation notes; the subject is a complicated one, and there are errors in most listings, including his. Some are simple clerical mistakes, others are systemic misunderstandings not made any easier to avoid by inconsistent Service usage. Andreas is correct in citing DoD's "Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles" as an important contemporary authority, but the number is 4120.15L, not 4129.15L, and the most recent edition is dated March 1996; interested private researchers can buy a copy through NTIS by calling (703) 487-4600. For those lucky enough to have it, the best single volume listing of present and past designation sequences (USAAC/USAAF/USAF/USN/USA/USCG) that I know of was done by John M. Andrade. Called "U.S. Military Aircraft Designations and Serials since 1909," it was published in softback by Midland Counties Publications (U.K.) in 1979. Unfortunately, it's long since out of print, although I've heard rumors that a revised edition is presently being assembled. The respective Air Force (Swanborough/Bowers) and Navy (Bowers?) survey volumes in the Putnam Aeronautical series also contain respective Service designation sequence lists. USAAC/USAAF/USAF fiscal year sequential serial number lists and Navy equivalents ('BuNos', or Bureau of Aeronautics Numbers--an obsolete term, but still used) are also available through various sources. Sooner or later, some buff will probably put them all together in a data base on CD-ROM... On a different note, I seem to recall that Popular Science (or Popular Mechanics) ran a gee-whiz piece last year on an "electric saucer" concept that used an aerospike for propulsion, and electric potentials in lieu of maneuvering 'surfaces.' A ground-based (?) laser beam was supposed to provide the power source to run the thing. I probably have the the article somewhere, and will try to post particulars if anyone else can't cite it from memory, or at least pull it up more quickly from a better filing system. Geo. Cully, 81st Training Wing Historian Keesler AFB, MS ------------------------------ From: "Phil Wellings" Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 15:28:51 +0000 Subject: Re: Non-Standard Designation modifiers (before ...) Just to really confuse things (just when you thought they made sense) please find below a few more comments on designations. > The latest Sea Harrier is designated FA.2 (or F/A.2). Remind you of anything? Nevertheless, I think it is still tasked to perform reconaissance. > Usually 'F' stands for 'Fighter', 'R' for reconnaissance, 'G' for ground attack > and 'S' for (nuclear) strike. Very true. However, the Tornado GR1 and Jaguar GR1 were (when stationed in Germany during the Cold War) widely reported as being tasked to deliver nuclear weapons yet no S designation was ever applied. > Thus, Tornado GR.1 is the ground attack & recce version of the Tornado, and > Tornado F.3 is the fighter (ie interceptor) version. The next version of the > Tornado is the GR.4, which is an upgrade of the GR.1. There can also be > sub-types, eg the TIALD-equipped Tornado is actually GR.1A and the maritime > strike version is GR.1B! To be picky, the GR1A is the version which has the twin Mauser 27 mm cannon replaced by infra red reconaissance equipment. It is currently operated by 2 and 13 Squadrons up at RAF Lyneham. I am not aware of a separate designation for TIALD equipped Tornados, but I believe that the Jaguar GR 1A carries TIALD. The Tornado GR1B is modified to fire the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile, and replaces the Buccaneer in this role at RAF Lossiemouth. Hence maritime attack is a better description, the Sea Eagle not being a nuclear missile - unless you know better :-) > The Royal Navy seems to like using peculiar designations - as far as I know > FRS. has not been used for anything except the Mk 1 Sea Harrier. > > 'A' has been used before, as in Hunter FGA.9, but here it seems to mean > 'Fighter, Ground Attack'. FA. has never been used before. It implies that > the Mk2 Sea Harrier no longer has a nuclear strike role. It is also pretty > similar to the US F/A-18 designation! I think the sad truth is that there is no comprehensive rigidly enforced naming convention in place. Phil - ------------------------------------------------------------------ My other .sig is funny. Phil Wellings, Systems Engineering, Martin-Baker Aircraft Co. Ltd. - ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ From: John Stone Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 11:14:26 -0400 Subject: Tacit Blue article... Hello, Air Force the magazine of the Air Force Association has in it's August 1996 issue, (besides that it's the Space Almanac Issue), it has an article about and the photos of Tacit Blue. 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: "Dave Hastings, OUCS" Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 16:24:07 +0100 Subject: Re: Non-Standard Designation modifiers (before ...) > > > Thus, Tornado GR.1 is the ground attack & recce version of the Tornado, and > > Tornado F.3 is the fighter (ie interceptor) version. The next version of the > > Tornado is the GR.4, which is an upgrade of the GR.1. There can also be > > sub-types, eg the TIALD-equipped Tornado is actually GR.1A and the maritime > > strike version is GR.1B! > > To be picky, the GR1A is the version which has the twin Mauser 27 mm > cannon replaced by infra red reconaissance equipment. It is > currently operated by 2 and 13 Squadrons up at RAF Lyneham. > > I am not aware of a separate designation for TIALD equipped Tornados, but > I believe that the Jaguar GR 1A carries TIALD. Doesn't the Tornado GR.1A carry TIALD as well? The TIALD-equipped Jags are GR.1Bs aren't they? > > The Tornado GR1B is modified to fire the Sea Eagle anti-ship > missile, and replaces the Buccaneer in this role at RAF Lossiemouth. > Hence maritime attack is a better description, the Sea Eagle not > being a nuclear missile - unless you know better :-) AFAIK the Sea Eagle is only equipped with a conventional warhead. Dave - -- David Hastings | "If liberty means anything at all, Systems Programmer/News Manager | it means the right to tell people Oxford University Computing Services | what they do not want to hear" email: david.hastings@oucs.ox.ac.uk | - George Orwell homepage http://users.ox.ac.uk/~daveh/ | ------------------------------ From: "Anderson, Rick" Date: Tue, 06 Aug 96 08:23:00 pst Subject: AIRCRAFT DESIGNATIONS With all the great information on the list lately regarding aircraft designations, I wanted to ask a question about some numbers I haven't seen. I vaguely remember reading a note a few years back in Jane's "All the world's aircraft" that the numbers between the F-111 and the F-117 (i.e. F-112, 113, etc.) may have been given to captured Soviet aircraft being flown at Groom Lake. Was this just pure speculation on their part or is there any real information on these numbers? (Course that assumes the F-117 was actually following a logical progression of numbers in the first place.....) This is Rick Anderson and a purely personal opinion. ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #691 ********************************* 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).