From: skunk-works-digest-owner@pmihwy.com To: skunk-works-digest@pmihwy.com Subject: Skunk Works Digest V6 #6 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@pmihwy.com Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@pmihwy.com Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Monday, 13 January 1997 Volume 06 : Number 006 In this issue: re: SR-71 mystery... again Re: Stealth F-16 Re: SR-71 Mystery..... Re: Stealth F-16 Re: SR-71 Mystery..... Re: SR-71 mystery... again alas, we sometimes jest SR-71 Top Speed Re: SR-71 mystery... again Re: Pulse Detonation Engine info and Wings Marathon.. Re: SR-71 mystery... again Re: Project Information Sought (RAGNAROK) 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: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Sat, 11 Jan 97 16:16:29 mA Subject: re: SR-71 mystery... again Normal sustained altitude for recon is around 83,000 feet. Another thing to keep in mind is that, wonderful as the work of the designers was, this is a plane the basic design of which took place in the late 1950s. Is it reasonable to expect that someone was capable of designing and building a manned Mach 10 airbreather in the 1958-1962 timeframe? Art Hanley Despite what you might want to Believe, none of any of the above Even remotely has anything to do With my employer. ------------------------------ From: "Ori" Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 07:52:57 MGT-200 Subject: Re: Stealth F-16 If I'm not mistaken the article called it f-16 "loan" the loan was somethign about a new ejection nozzle which makes it harder for detection. Ori Zakin > Date sent: 10 Jan 97 17:48:46 EST > From: "Thomas E. Collins" <73247.733@CompuServe.COM> > To: Ori Zakin > Subject: Stealth F-16 > Ori......... > If I am not mistaken you are probably talking/reading about Falcon 2000. The > aircraft from a front view and side view looks almost like an everyday F-16. The > major difference exists in the wing planform. Has an F-22 looking planform. Has > been around about as long as the F-22 program. USAF did not want to take L-M up > on the aircraft because of its threat to the F-22. > Cheers...........Tom > > ______________________________________________________________________ Ori Zakin http://www.makash.ac.il/~oriz/ oriz@www.makash.ac.il - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 04:22:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SR-71 Mystery..... On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, John Stone wrote: > Wei-Jen Su, > > Is the basis of accurate info now, how many people say it is so, have we > thrown out scientific fact? Physically the SR can go no faster then 3.6- > 3.7 mach, some of the limiting factors are heat, and the shock wave off the > nose entering the engines above that speed, causing the engines to unstart! > Yes, I know. I highly don't believe that the SR-71 can go that fast. Aero profesors from my school (some of them did works in hypersonics aircrafts) believe that the SR-71 will not go faster than Mach 4. After Mach 4, it will start melting. But, I just post the issue because my "personal friend" whom I know him very well, can up with the the same number (Mach 10) than a retired Air Force SR-71 pilot. Both claim this speed and they never meet each other... Coincidence?? Also, another friend of mine whom work as maintanence of SR-71 claim that this airplane can go faster than Mach 7. Just to mention some of the people that I spoke. > I'd still like to know who "Your Personal Friend " is? As always... I am not going to tell their names so I don't make them into troubles. But, I ask a lot of differents questions to them about very detail issue of the Blackbird (some of them even does not show in books) and all their answer are correct. They must worked on the Blackbird somehow. And even, I ask the same question like a year after and they give me the same answer (like police do it), if he lies, he will forget what he told to me. Well... hopefully they are going to declassied the top speed of the SR-71 before we die... :) May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net "Take off is a option, landing is not... tell this to a Harrier pilot" ------------------------------ From: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 12:24:14 -0800 Subject: Re: Stealth F-16 > If I am not mistaken you are probably talking/reading about Falcon 2000. The > aircraft from a front view and side view looks almost like an everyday F-16. The > major difference exists in the wing planform. Has an F-22 looking planform. Has > been around about as long as the F-22 program. USAF did not want to take L-M up > on the aircraft because of its threat to the F-22. I've seen some artist concepts (from GD/LMTAS) that show proposed F-16 variants similar to this, with a "JAST" wing, sawtooth intake reminiscent of a B-2 (upside down, of course), sawtooth gear doors (ala F-22, F/A-18E, etc), conformal stores carriage like the F-16XL, and a semi-faceted radome (again, like F-22). Nothing but artist's concepts possibly based on internal studies, or maybe just the artist's imagination... From the standpoint of the airframe, there have only been at most four variants ever built (and flown): 1) YF-16 (prototype) 2) F-16A/B/C/D (production versions) 3) F-16XL (cranked arrow wings) 4) F-2 (nee FS-X) for Japan's JASDF Greg Fieser ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:49:22 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re: SR-71 Mystery..... On Sun, 12 Jan 1997, Wei-Jen Su wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, John Stone wrote: ...... > > Wei-Jen Su, > > 3.7 mach, some of the limiting factors are heat, and the shock wave off the > > nose entering the engines above that speed, causing the engines to unstart! ...... > know him very well, can up with the the same number (Mach 10) than a Ye cannae change the laws 'o physics. Ach, see ye jimmy, bottle of scotch, Loch Lomond, Bonnie Prince Charlie etc etc... Some serious extraction of the michael, tension of the limb etc is involved here methinks. Seriously, I remember reading somewhere that the maximum recorded by an SR-71 was Mach 3.6. Individual aircraft can vary by a few percent in their performance and this is also dependent upon atmospheric conditions. Normal max *cruise* speed is usually around Mach 3.0 or even 2.8. I think that I'm refering to Crickmore or possibly Goodall here... Remember that "mere" Mach 3 is a remarkable achievement and not to be trivialised... even more so for the late 1950s. I doubt that the Blackbird could even make it to Mach 4, personally. - --Brett (a.k.a. Breac Innes MacDhaibhidh) PS: Traditional Scottish Xmas ornament - parking meter by the chimney. ------------------------------ From: blackbird@TELIS.ORG (Jon Price (PJ)) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 04:21:25 GMT Subject: Re: SR-71 mystery... again Wei-Jen, =46irst of all, get yourself a copy of Lockheed SR-71 The Secret Missions Exposed, by Paul Crickmore. Check out Appendix 1, page 193. This is a very comprehensive listing of all those who have flown in the A-12, YF-12, and SR-71 aircraft. If your friend truly was an SR-71 RSO, then his name will appear on this list. Next, I would like to quote several paragraphs from a book entitled Lockheed SR-71 Supersonic/Hypersonic Research Facility-Researchers Handbook Volume ll Technical Description. This is a publication done by Lockheed for NASA. Its purpose is to acquaint potential researchers with the capabilities of NASA's SR-71's and hopefully attract some private sector funding for research projects using the unique capabilities of the SR-71. Pay particular attention to 5.2.4. 4.4.2 Exploration of Mach Growth. The aircraft was designed for extended cruise flight at Mach 3>2. Various studies have been conducted regarding extending the speed of the SR-71 beyond 3.2. The results of these studies conclude that extension to Mach 3.5, for short periods of time (of 10 minutes or more)*, is feasible, with approach to that speed to be accomplished incrementally. Extension above Mach 3.5 will be more involved and difficult, requiring substantially greater effort.(Refer to Section V, paragraph 5.2.4, =46actors Limiting Speed Above Mach 3.2 and Sustained flight Above 85,000 Feet.) Mach extension to 3.4 can be achieved without any significant flight test program or change to the aircraft. Extension from 3.4 to 3.5 may require the addition of instrumentation; insulation of inlet hydraulic lines and, possibly, inlet actuators; and a flight extension program, which is planned. *(I believe that this is a typo and should be "of 10 minutes or LESS". Section V Extended Flight Capabilities 5.1 General The SR-71 was intended for maximum range flight at altitudes of or approaching 85,000 feet, with speeds at or approaching Mach 3.2. =46igure 1-10 in Section one, describes the previous speed and altitude envelope of the aircraft. During its military career, the SR-71 rarely and only slightly exceeded its design speed and altitude limits. Studies have been made to determine if these limits could be extended. Study results show that a Mach number of 3.5 is readily attainable, with sufficient thrust at that speed to carry a large external payload. 5.2 Extensions Of The Speed/Altitude Envelope. 5.2.1 (Not relevant ) 5.2.2 Speeds above Mach 3.2. As described in Section IV, paragraph 4.4.2, Exploration Of Mach Growth, various studied have concluded that it is feasible to extend the aircrafts speed out to Mach 3.5, for at least short periods of time. This extension in speed is shown in figure 5-1 by the shaded area to the right of the current design speed limit of Mach 3.2. 5.2.3 Altitudes Above 85,000 Feet. One of the studies conducted regarding Mach 3.5 flight also addressed achieving higher altitude flight. The study indicated that the aircraft could be zoomed to an altitude of about 95,000 feet. This would be accomplished with an aircraft gross weight of about 85,000 pounds. The aircraft would be accelerated from Mach 3.2 to Mach 3.5, at an altitude of 80,000 feet, then zoomed to 95,000 feet, with Mach decaying to approximately 3.2. The aircraft would subsequently settle back to an altitude of about 84,000 feet. =20 5.2.4 Factors Limiting Speed Above Mach 3.5 and Sustained Altitudes Above 85,000 Feet. The only structural limitation related to speed above 3.5 is a KEAS limit of 420, set by inlet duct pressures and temperatures which exceed acceptable values. Other factors which limit speed above Mach 3.5 are inlet capture area and excessive compressor inlet temperature (CIT). Factors which limit sustained flight at altitudes above 85,000 feet are wing area and/or propulsion system thrust. Replacement of existing outboard wing panels with larger ones will provide increased wing surface area. Increased thrust will require installation of a new powerplant and inlet design. The studies referred to above are as follows: 1. Documentation of Mach 3.5 Growth Capabilities, Lockheed Report No. SP-4322, January 1975. 2. Determination of Extended Speed Aerodynamic Effects, Lockheed Report No. SP-4399, August 1975. 3. Determination of Extended Speed Thermodynamic Effects, Lockheed Report No. SP-4347, March 1975. My hope is that after spending 1.5 hours typing this (2 fingers), it will put these rediculous speculations to rest once and for all, at least on this list. If it doesn't, at least I will be able to just repost this, rather than doing it all over again :-) Jon Price Longtime Blackbird Fan >> >> Well... coming back to the discussion of the SR-71 top speed. >>Recently, I spoke to a PERSONAL FRIEND of mine whom flow in the back = seat >>of the SR-71 (RSO), he told me that the SR-71 can fly over Mach 10 and >>over 95,000 ft. He flow from California to Japan in around one hour. = So... >>it is something wrong here or what??? If you remember my earlies = posts... >>at least three persons whom worked, flew, etc. the Blackbird claim >>that this airplane can fly over Mach 10... hey, lies do not happen more >>than twice and even with peoples that never met. >> >> May the Force be with you >> >> Su Wei-Jen >> E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu >> wjs@webspan.net >> >> "Take off is a option, landing is not... tell this to a Harrier >>pilot" >> >> - -- ************************************************** Jon Price If only Naval Aviators flew SR-71's, I'd be happy. Just imagine. "O.K. 3 wire Blackbird"! A PROUD member of the Tailhook Association. I am NOT known for being politically correct. *************************************************** ------------------------------ From: rons@xvt.com (Ron Schweikert) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 08:57:20 -0700 Subject: alas, we sometimes jest Good responses all regarding Su Wei-Jen's posting regarding speed and altitude of the SR. Su Wei-Jen, I don't doubt you had friends that told you the speed of the SR was Mach 10. As a former maintenence person and crew chief on the SR, we often heard wild stories (flew under water, had concrete tires, used a secret underground taxiway at Kadena etc. etc.). I must say a bit to my chagrin, that we often did nothing to set people straight. I guess it was a bit of perverse jesting on our part. I for one never meant any harm by it, it was just kind of fun. Sometimes however we did it for spite. I can recall conversations with people who told us crazy things about the aircraft, not knowing we worked initmately with it on an almost daily basis. When we tried to be nice and set them straight, they would argue with us, as if they "knew" we were trying to "maintain some military cover-up" so... sometimes we just acknowledged that "you're right, and by the way did you also know..." I'm sure your friend was just having fun, and meant no harm. But no, we're not covering anything up. 3.5 max (I could be wrong, and give those of you who know metallurgy better than I, 3.7, but no higher, as John Stone said, the shock wave would be in the wrong position for sustained speed). As it regards altitude, mission profile was 72K for training, 80+ for normal recon. I know of some (oops, probably get in trouble with that, so)... Any claims to higher than 85K for distance may be correct, but *is slant distance*. BTW, it's great to be back on the mailing list! Ron Schweikert 9th OMS, Beale AFB '74-'80 ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 08:04:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: SR-71 Top Speed Any talk of the SR-71 going Mach 10 is utter nonsense. Simply look at the NASA SR-71 experimenter's guide. There is a whole chapter on what would be required to get a SR to Mach 4 - the list of change is extensive, including big changes to the inlet system. A friend of mine works in the Skunk Works and tells me that the World's Fastest Air Breathing Man is Darryl Greenamyer, who as a Lockheed test pilot went Mach 3.6 in a SR. The World's Fastest Air Breathing Woman is probably Marta Bohn-Meyer, the NASA RSO. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Mary Shafer Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 11:47:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SR-71 mystery... again You are so gullible that I suspect that your "friends" are just trying to find out exactly what's so preposterous that even you won't blindly believe it. This reminds me of the time I, with a little help, convinced a fellow engineer that Naugahyde was the hide of a large mammal, related to the elephant, that lived in South America. Of course, I even drew him a sketch and explained how different parts of the hide were used for different purposes. In a subsequent message, you mention that you've checked everything else they've told you, even stuff that is not in any books, and they're always right. How do you check it if it's not published? As for your signature quote, a vertical landing is still a landing. Mary Shafer 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 Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > Well... coming back to the discussion of the SR-71 top speed. > Recently, I spoke to a PERSONAL FRIEND of mine whom flow in the back seat > of the SR-71 (RSO), he told me that the SR-71 can fly over Mach 10 and > over 95,000 ft. He flow from California to Japan in around one hour. So... > it is something wrong here or what??? If you remember my earlies posts... > at least three persons whom worked, flew, etc. the Blackbird claim > that this airplane can fly over Mach 10... hey, lies do not happen more > than twice and even with peoples that never met. > > May the Force be with you > > Su Wei-Jen > E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu > wjs@webspan.net > > "Take off is a option, landing is not... tell this to a Harrier > pilot" > > ------------------------------ From: tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com (Tom Robison) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 12:29:48 +0000 Subject: Re: Pulse Detonation Engine info and Wings Marathon.. >Steve King wrote: > >p.s. I ordered Bill Sweetman's book on Aurora, and it should arrive soon >(I hope..) does anyone else have this book? If so, is it good? I've been wondering about the Aurora book, too. Since much of it must be based on speculation, is there really anything to learn here? Granted, Sweetman's speculation is likely more informed than most. Can someone offer a brief review? Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Hughes Defense Communications, Hughes Aircraft Corp, Hughes Electronics Corp, General Motors Corp, God, or my wife. ------------------------------ From: freeman@netcom.com (Jay Reynolds Freeman) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:49:02 -0800 Subject: Re: SR-71 mystery... again Slightly off topic, but since Mary brought up the Nauga (the population I was introduced to inhabited the hills above Los Angeles, I didn't realize the range extended to South America as well)... The very clever New York Throg Excels by far the common dog: It's great for guarding goodies in the fridge. Outside at play, it's strong, but meek. With children, when they reach a creek, It gladly sticks its neck out -- for a bridge. -- author unknown Jay Freeman ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 11:44:55 -0800 Subject: Re: Project Information Sought (RAGNAROK) James J. Bjaloncik writes: >Greetings! Greetings! >In this regard, I am writing to find out if anyone on the mailing list >has any information on a project I seem to recall that existed many >years ago (I first got interested in aircraft and space as a youth back >in the '50's). I have a vague recollection of a project called >"Rangaroc" or something similar (the spelling may not be quite right, >since this memory goes back a good 35 years or so). It was either USAF >or NASA, quite possibly. I've sought information on this for about the >past year, having had my memory jogged by a close friend (ex-USAF). >However, my search has turned up nothing, including a negative response >from someone in USAF public relations. I'm quite sure, however, that I >distinctly remember something along this line. > >If anyone can throw any light on this project, or convince me that I'm >hallucinating, I'd be most appreciative. The only thing similar that I can recall is a plastic model kit produced back in the mid-70's (if I recall correctly) by the now defunct plastic model maker Aurora, named RAGNAROK. The Aurora RAGNAROK model was a rather interesting aircraft model of a hypothetical manned hypersonic orbital interceptor. I happen to have one I picked up several years ago. It's still relatively easy to find them in collector kit catalogs. They're getting more expensive however. The Aurora RAGNAROK model was actually a reissue of a 1959 Aurora model named the Proteus Nuclear Powered Hypersonic Airliner (I think I have that correct). The box art portrayed a gleaming silver hypersonic shape climbing into the sky with the words AURORA in red on the vertical tail! Definitely cool! At least it caught my eye back then. Anyway, what was interesting about that PROTEUS model was that back then of course (1959), turbojet engines were not very powerful and had poor range (indeed that was one of the motivations around the experimentation with HEF fuels (High Energy Fuels - like the Borane groups) to get range for the XB-70). The model of this conceptual airliner solved these problems 2 ways: 1. It used nuclear propulsion which was one approach researched back then (see the history of the ANP (Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion program)) to get global range. I think it even used the indirect cycle (a small model of the reactor was included with the model and could be lowered to the ground for servicing). 2. It employed manned tug aircraft to boost it's own weak turbojets to nuclear engine start speed. The tug turbojet aircraft would fly attached to it from takeoff up until just before nuclear engine startup, then the tug aircraft would detach and fly itself back to base. The manned tug aircraft looked very much like it was flying a very close mid-air refuelling operation. Indeed, the tug aircraft on the Proteus model had a large probe to attch to the Proteus for boost. I've always enjoyed this model, it certainly provoked conversation and thought, and I wish model makers today would produce subjects like it (for example Leik Myrabo's microwave and MHD propelled Mach 25 saucer would be a good nomination). In the mid-70's, Aurora changed the color to black, the transparencies to orange (it definitely looked futuristic! - heck I'm sure it helped with the UV rays at high altitude :) ) and then reissued it as the RAGNAROK Orbital Interceptor (the boost aircraft was retained, but not as a boost aircraft, but as a parasite fighter) to beat back the attack from space of the alien horde. The model was aptly named RAGNAROK, which in Norse mythology, is the name of the final battle between the giants, during which the world is destroyed. After the destruction of the world, according to the Norse mythology, a new Earth will appear and the process will begin anew. Larry ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V6 #6 ******************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@pmihwy.com". 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@pmihwy.com" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "georgek@netwrx1.com". 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 e-mail request by sending a message to majordomo@pmihwy.com with no subject and a line containing "get skunk-works-digest vNN.nMMM" (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number). You can get a list of all available digests by sending the one line command "index skunk-works-digest". If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R, Kasica