From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #711 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Monday, 30 September 1996 Volume 05 : Number 711 In this issue: Starship Rudders "XB-70 like" skeptic Re: "XB-70 like" skeptic Re: "XB-70..." Re: "XB-70..." "XB-70 like" Sighting Re: Starship Rudders Re: "XB-70..." Re: "XB-70..." XB-70...? Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting Re: XB-70...? Re: "XB-70 like" skeptic Re: XB-70...? Re: XB-70...? Re: Starship Rudders Re: Starship Rudders 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: David Lednicer Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 13:55:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Starship Rudders Chuck, Techncally, you are correct - the rudders on the Beech Starship (Rutan VariEze, Long EZ and Defiant) are on upwards pointing extensions of the wing. So, theory could by construed to say that by changing the lift of the winglet (by deflecting the rudder) you are increasing or decreasing the bound circulation of the wing. This then would result in a decrease or increase in wing lift, seen as a rolling moment. HOWEVER, this is not noticed in flight. All four aircraft that I have mentioned here have perfectly normal response to a rudder input (well, yes, the early VariEze and Long EZ rudders were to small, but we're not talking about this here). There is nothing bad about using the winglets both as winglets and vertical stabilizers. Yes, canard aircraft have their problems. Remember though that it is an engineer's job to design products for the market. And the market loves canard aircraft. The Starship might not have sold well, but Burt's other aircraft have made him a wealthy man. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: ConsLaw@aol.com Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 00:02:23 -0400 Subject: "XB-70 like" skeptic About the "XB-70 like" aircraft, Andreas wrote: "Does anyone have other suggestions?" I'm going to say bluntly what others have implied. It doesn't exist. This witness sighting no more proves the existence of such an aircraft than numerous flying saucer sightings prove the existence of flying saucers. In fact, if I had to bet, I'd say the odds are better that flying saucers exist than the XB-70 like aircraft. I don't think it is a case of mistaken identity with a Beach Starship or whatever. The description clearly indicates not only a knowledge of the appearance of the XB-70, but also a knowledge of the reasons for its design. The description describes a large supersonic aircraft that uses compression lift. I don't believe the aircraft exists for two reasons. 1. It would be more expensive than virtually all of the hypothetical aircraft that have been discussed on this list, primarily due to its size. 2. What reason would anyone have to build it? The mothership concept was proven to be unnecessarily expensive in the MD-21 project. Later versions of the D-21 showed that using a cheap rocket booster to get to the operating speed of an advanced engine is superior to a dangerous combined flight with an expensive supersonic mothership. We have no need for a B-70 type bomber. In fact, we didn't have enough need at the peak of the cold war to justify the B-70. The design described does not seem to be very stealthy, so it probably wouldn't be a very good recon aircraft. If it were a technology testbed for an advanced supersonic airliner, it wouldn't need to be a blackworld aircraft, and neither the defense department or the CIA would let the project take valuable dollars away from other things they want. No flames please. I have no need to contest the sincerity of the observers. If I made 20 experimental observations, and one observation varied markedly from all of the others, I can make an educationed guess that the divergent datapoint is spurious without impugning the integrity of the observer (which in this case would be me.) I might be wrong, but until I have a hypothesis that explains the exceptional observation, I must accept the possibility that the divergent result is an error. I'll take hundred to one odds on this one. Steve Hofer aka Conslaw@aol.com (asbestos clothing on) ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 09:50:04 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: "XB-70 like" skeptic Not a flame. Only the presentation of hypotheses, and *only* hypotheses. On Sat, 28 Sep 1996 ConsLaw@aol.com wrote: > 2. What reason would anyone have to build it? > > The mothership concept was proven to be unnecessarily expensive in the MD-21 > project. Later versions of the D-21 showed that using a cheap rocket Specifically in this role, with this setup it might have been too expensive. However, I think that some speculation about the role of this aircraft (if it exists etc) rely too heavily on apparent similarities with the XB-70 and the Blackbird and therefore assume nearly identical roles. I don't think that this is justified... actually, I tend to agree that accepting its existence is entirely justified, but I'm at least as prone to wishful thinking as anyone. Random points in random order: Actually, as well as "offspring of XB-70 and Blackbird," I think that one could also detect something of the YF-23 (blended, chined fuselage, sort-of delta, ~45 degree dihedral control surfaces) That was a stealthy design, despite having boxy underwing intakes. However, stealth might not be an issue. Questions about the canards: What is their placement - exactly at the extreme tip of the nose? What sort of chord do they have and are they swept? Could they be stowable and only used at low speed? Canards were proposed for the Blackbird, but were found to interfere with the inlets... with the inlets in a different position this would not be a problem. Sometimes said that the "mothership" could be an on-demand satellite/ asat launcher. This sort of capability has been on the Pentagon Xmas list ever since Challenger. It does appear to be designed to accomodate something on its back: light slender body, but large wing area and big engines and what are apparently major control surfaces at the wingtips and widely canted outwards rather than inboard. Admittedly the D-21 was launched from between the canted-in fins of the M-12 with success (the crash that occured was unrelated), but it was a tight squeeze that gave the designers headaches and scared everyone. The problems inherent in wingtip fins might be considered worthwhile if a winged or lifting-body upper stage is being piggybacked. It could be something like the Saenger lower stage then, though relatively slower and launching a smaller (ballistic?) upper stage. I've heard a lot of comment that 2STO is cheaper and more flexible and more reliable than SSTO. If you split the stages around Mach 3-4, you don't have to worry about complicated turbojet-ramjet-scramjet-rocket combinations, just advanced turbojets on the lower stage and, (pulsejets and) rockets on the upper stage. Skylon, I note, tends to avoid any X-30 like mucking about in the atmosphere at any speed over Mach 6. If it is a satellite (spaceplane?) launcher, it needn't be particularly stealthy, never going near anyone else's radar. It couldn't launch Keyholes or Lacrosses. Laws of physics and all that: resolution and wavelength and range plugged in the right formula equals large diameter mirror/antenna. Short-term elint, comm relay, replacement of satellites shot down in wartime and high-orbit asat during wartime etc. would still keep such a vehicle busy. Complex missions like logistical supply (manoeuvring fuel restock etc) to advanced satellites already in orbit might be an eventual possibility. Manned missions - repair, inspection? OK, time to stop drinking, but basically, there are a lot of "black" things to do in space and an on-demand launcher capability would be highly desirable to Space Command. Why not a Black Horse? They didn't think of it perhaps? Maybe the concept doesn't scale up very well and is limited to very small payloads and so there isn't one... or there is one serving the low end of the scale and that is what "Aurora" is, as someone (whose name I forget - sorry) suggested a while ago. Cost: Indeed, lots. I have no comments here. To mix metaphors, I am building palaces on grains of sand and treating the black world as an intellectual train set to play with. However, I do believe that I have argued that such a plane is not a ridiculous proposition. That does not, of course, mean that it does exist. Scepticism is healthy. Personally, the witnesses seem credible and the sightings have consistent threads through them, but being a professional academic and teaching courses whose subjects include theories of perception, having seen some spectacular IFOs and having done historical research aplenty, I do know that even the most reliable eyewitness accounts, while describing SOMETHING, do not neccessarily describe what's really there. Speculation may not clarify, but lead one on wild goose chases... Still, this is interesting. - --Brett ------------------------------ From: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 09:02:58 -0700 Subject: Re: "XB-70..." I've been laying low on this one, since I don't really have anything to contribute. Let me just say that I've seen and photographed the sole remaining XB-70 at WPAFB on numerous occasions (before it was moved inside), and I work just off the approach end of Addison airport in north Dallas, where guys with too much money keep their Starship(s), and it would take a real stretch of the imagination to confuse the two, escpecially considering the difference in size, etc... One thought on a possible explanation - isn't one of the Tu-144s (russkie SST) over here now? I don't remember any canards on it, tho.. OK, the real reason I'm posting: I'm unfamiliar with this "Black Horse" concept - can someone fill me in? Thanks, Greg "my employer? uh..." ------------------------------ From: jwp@lubrizol.com Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 13:41:29 +0000 Subject: Re: "XB-70..." habu wrote: > > I've been laying low on this one, since I don't really have anything to > contribute. Let me just say that I've seen and photographed the sole > remaining XB-70 at WPAFB on numerous occasions (before it was moved > inside), and I work just off the approach end of Addison airport in > north Dallas, where guys with too much money keep their Starship(s), > and it would take a real stretch of the imagination to confuse the two, > escpecially considering the difference in size, etc... One thought on > a possible explanation - isn't one of the Tu-144s (russkie SST) over > here now? I don't remember any canards on it, tho.. > > OK, the real reason I'm posting: I'm unfamiliar with this "Black Horse" > concept - can someone fill me in? > > Thanks, > > Greg There is a web page on Black Horse at http://www-im.lcs.mit.edu:80/bh Joe Pialet jwp@lubrizol.com ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Mon, 30 Sep 96 14:59:58 SET Subject: "XB-70 like" Sighting >I've been laying low on this one, since I don't really have anything to >contribute. Let me just say that I've seen and photographed the sole >remaining XB-70 at WPAFB on numerous occasions (before it was moved >inside), and I work just off the approach end of Addison airport in >north Dallas, where guys with too much money keep their Starship(s), >and it would take a real stretch of the imagination to confuse the two, >escpecially considering the difference in size, etc... >Greg (Sun, 29 Sep 1996 09:02:58 -0700) Could be a Beech Starship after all... The photo on http://airspacemag.earthlink.net/NBAA/NBAA_News10.html is really bad and confusing, since it seems that there is another plane behind the Starship. I have seen two other photos, one of a 85/100 model (1982) and one of the prototype (1983), and it looks more like an XB-70. The main wings are not located at about the middle of the fuselage, but more towards the rear. However it's still not a delta. > One thought on >a possible explanation - isn't one of the Tu-144s (russkie SST) over >here now? I don't remember any canards on it, tho.. No canards on the photos of the TU-144 I have just looked at. J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 04:28:23 PDT Subject: Re: Starship Rudders David Lednicer writes: >All four aircraft that I have mentioned here have >perfectly normal response to a rudder input (well, yes, the early VariEze >and Long EZ rudders were to small, but we're not talking about this here). >There is nothing bad about using the winglets both as winglets and vertical >stabilizers. Having flown the EZ and LongEZ I would bear to differ. The roll input is there. What do you base the above comment on? Chuck ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 08:06:20 PDT Subject: Re: "XB-70..." habu wrote: > I work just off the approach end of Addison airport in > north Dallas, where guys with too much money keep their Starship(s), Ahh, Addison..... Non-federal control tower. Falcon Airways. Remember when the G1`s with the weird appendages were parked there marked "Cental Illinois Airlines?" We all though it was pretty funny! They where white with orange trim. The pilots and crew had E-Systems parking permits on their cars. Addison is really neat. You get to buzz the Byron Nelson Classic if you depart to the NE. Chuck ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Mon, 30 Sep 96 8:54:48  Subject: Re: "XB-70..." Greg, Relatively briefly, since Joe gave a ref. to the web page: "Black Horse" refers to a particular kind of SSTO vehicle that came resulted from the question, "What if you didn't have to lift All the fuel necessary to get to orbit from the ground?"? A Black Horse takes off like a conventional aircraft. After reaching 30,000 feet or so, it air refuels from a conventional tanker aircraft, taking on sufficient propellant to continue on to orbit. After the mission, it returns and lands like a conventional aircraft. The advantage is that you don't have to build a vehicle big enough to carry all the fuel and oxidizer needed to get to orbit, or lift all that weight on thrust alone. In fact, you don't have to build a vehicle big and heavy enough to lift off from the ground, fully fueled. You can take off partially fueled and fill it up all the way later on. The SR-71 did this. Because you can change your course aerodynamically prior to the orbital insertion burn, you don't need as much thrust or fuel. There are both military and conventional proposals. The biggest difference I've seen is that military proponents are willing to go with an all-rocket concept (from takeoff), while the civil proponents want and air-breathing rocket combination. The former is simple and , while the latter is more versatile both in operational basing and mission, but more expensive in initial cost (though not operating cost). The civil concept also has more versatility in fuels. The later you can delay the conversion to rocket power, the less energetic fuel you need. For example, if you use a ramjet (which doesn't have to be very efficient since it would only be used for a short time) to delay conversion to rocket until Mach 6, you can fly the entire mission using only conventional JP-5 (plus oxygen) with now "rocket fuel" at all. My previous post noted that the reports of the sightings of the mystery plane refueling over the North Sea described a vehicle that looked like a Black Horse, and it was flying a profile that would fit that of one departing England and preparing to go into space, possibly on a polar orbit. These latest sightings also fit the description of such a vehicle, so I thought I'd throw in a far-out hypothesis. If I remember correctly (I didn't save the messages), they were seen in Ohio? Possibly operating out of Wright Pratt. Some descriptions of how such a vehicle would look, have small canards at the nose for low speed pitch control. Again I have absolutely No evidence to support this. I know-- when I get home tonight I'll go see if those guys in the car with binoculars, who've been sitting across from my house all weekend, have any ideas. Art Hanley To those that wouldst query, "Dost thou speaketh for thine employer?", I say thee, "Nay"! ------------------------------ From: seb@tadpole.co.uk (Steven Barber) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 17:17:56 +0100 Subject: XB-70...? Habu said: >... One thought on >a possible explanation - isn't one of the Tu-144s (russkie SST) over >here now? I don't remember any canards on it, tho.. > Ah, a credible explanation - the Tu-144 *does* have canards, placed like "eyebrows" over the cockpit area. The programme screened in the UK about the Paris Airshow crash stated that these were of particular interest to the French, which is what caused them to send up a Mirage to get close-up photos of the canards in flight - which in turn caused the crash. The same programme also stated that a Tu-144 had been restored into operational condition for research into a new-generation SST in collaboration with some US firms, fronted by NASA. Mary, are you on-line and care to comment on this? A Tu-144 would fit the description pretty well but not perfectly - unless more modifications have been done as part of the testing (possible). Anyone able to add anything? Regards, Steve PS The canards were a late addition, they were not on the original design - many of the details were reputedly stolen from Concorde by the Russians but they didn't get the wing design right - hence the change in engine layout and addition of canards late in the program. ------------------------------ From: John Burtenshaw Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 17:08:38 -0100 Subject: Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting >> One thought on >>a possible explanation - isn't one of the Tu-144s (russkie SST) over >>here now? I don't remember any canards on it, tho.. > Hi All, Just to clear up the matter of the TU-144 "Konkordski" and if it has canards. Yes it does. After the Paris Airshow crash the Russians redesigned the TU-144 and added retractable canards for low-speed handling. These are just behind the cockpit and lay flat against the fuselage in retracted position. Concorde, of which the TU-144 is a copy, has a more efficient wing at low speeds and therefore does not need canards. With the canards stored it maybe mis-identified as a Concorde which would not cause too much excitement. Now, if NASA is testing a TU-144 in the States it may explain the latest sighting, but what of the earlier ones? Regards John =========================================================================== John Burtenshaw Internet Applications Developer The Computer Centre, Bournemouth University - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Postal Address: Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, POOLE, Dorset, BH12 5BB U.K. Internet: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk Phone: 01202 595293 Mobile: 0850 240931 =========================================================================== ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 10:08:38 PDT Subject: Re: XB-70...? Gosh, I`m verbose today! Carefull with add-on canards on a high-speed heavy. They can be added to (aero)dynamically damp fuselage vibrations which render expensive sensing systems useless. This was why the second set of canards was added to the second B-70 prototype. Between all the heating and shock waves and peeling paint and changing mass large supersonic airframes can aquire some pretty weird unanticiapated quirks in flight. The SR71 got around a lot of these problems by being a titianium and Iconel brick-****house. The integrated fuselage formers and spars are an example. The The B-70 #1 had fuselage vibration problems, so the small canards were designed as part of an active system to negate them. I still say if the A/C (s) seen were of the "Black Horse" genre, the noise would have left a lasting impression on the observer. Chuck ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 11:11:41 -0700 Subject: Re: "XB-70 like" skeptic >About the "XB-70 like" aircraft, Andreas wrote: "Does anyone have other >suggestions?" > >I'm going to say bluntly what others have implied. It doesn't exist. ... Ok. Let me ask you a question. After reading your post, may I assume that you don't believe in any other black aircraft that has been the subject of a sighting as well? Larry ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Mon, 30 Sep 96 11:08:38  Subject: Re: XB-70...? Charles: I thought the second canards on the XB-70 were put on specifically to induce vibration for supersonic and SST research. On the Black Horse, one of its advantages is that you don't need an exotic powerplant. If one was at the altitude this aircraft was observed at, all you'd hear were regular jet engines, because that's what would be running. You can actually get many of the benefits of the Black Horse concept even if you never go supersonic on the airbreathing engines. However, the higher the speed that you can reach while "breathing", the less fuel (in enregy and quantity) you need to carry overall. Art Hanley Not only do my employers not endorse the views above, they aren't even aware of them. ------------------------------ From: David Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 19:09:20 Subject: Re: XB-70...? >Habu said: >>... One thought on >>a possible explanation - isn't one of the Tu-144s (russkie SST) over >>here now? I don't remember any canards on it, tho.. >> > >Ah, a credible explanation - the Tu-144 *does* have canards, placed like >"eyebrows" over the cockpit area. The programme screened in the UK about >the Paris Airshow crash stated that these were of particular interest to >the French, which is what caused them to send up a Mirage to get close-up >photos of the canards in flight - which in turn caused the crash. The same >programme also stated that a Tu-144 had been restored into operational >condition for research into a new-generation SST in collaboration with some >US firms, fronted by NASA. > >Mary, are you on-line and care to comment on this? > >A Tu-144 would fit the description pretty well but not perfectly - unless >more modifications have been done as part of the testing (possible). >Anyone able to add anything? Only that AFAIK the Tu-144LL tests are being conducted in the former Soviet Union...at Zhukovsky airfield ? The a/c in question is fitted with canards. The NASA / Industry team experiments will be conducted in co-operation with Tupelov over a six month period ending any day now if they haven't already concluded. The cost of building anything like the XB-70 has got to be huge..which is one of the drawbacks to TSTO. I seem to remember sightings of such an a/c around A51 for quite some time. When I saw the Tu-144 at Paris, it was the noisiest a/c I'd heard for may a day. It would make sense for the US to have gotten hold of a 144, because despite its problems, it's still a Mach2 passenger/carrier a/c, ready to go for a fraction of the development cost of starting with a fresh sheet of paper..or blank VDU screen. With Pathfinder being such a good idea, why spend resources on building a TSTO when you've got the chance of going for a S+a bit STO ? Hmmm... David ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 16:19:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Starship Rudders Any roll from rudder deflection is likely caused by the vertical offset of the rudders above the CG of the aircraft. To settle this, I will run my CFD model of the Long EZ tomorrow with and without a rudder deflection. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: David Lednicer Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 17:15:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Starship Rudders OK, I couldn't wait - I ran the Long EZ model with and without rudder deflections late this afternoon. What it shows is that you are 40% right and I am 60% right. For longitudinally trimmed flight, for right half of the model, the code calculates: Rudder Defl. Wing CL Wing CMx Winglet CS Winglet CMx 0.0 deg .0134 .0141 -.0188 .0037 1.0 deg .0136 .0143 -.0207 .0040 The rudders on the Long EZ only deflect outwards (last I knew), so if the right rudder is deflected outwards (as here), the left rudder wouldn't move. Hence, the right rudder/wing produces all of the rolling moment. As you can see, the rolling moment (CMx) increases by .0005 when the rudder is deflected 1 degree. The wing contributes .0002 (40%) of this and the winglet contributes .0003 (60%) of this. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #711 ********************************* 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).