From: skunk-works-digest-owner@pmihwy.com To: skunk-works-digest@pmihwy.com Subject: Skunk Works Digest V6 #7 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@pmihwy.com Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@pmihwy.com Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 14 January 1997 Volume 06 : Number 007 In this issue: Re: SR-71 Mystery... again D21 at Air Force Museum USAF spaceplane..again Location of D-21 at WPAFB F-16 Versions Re: SR-71 Mystery... again Avro Arrow - CF105 Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #6 Re: Location of D-21 at WPAFB Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #6 Re: F-16 Versions Re: D21 at Air Force Museum Re: Pulse Detonation Engine info and Wings Marathon.. Re: More Nauga. 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: gregd@cambertx.com (Greg Fieser) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 97 14:26:19 PST Subject: Re: SR-71 Mystery... again Su Wei-Jen wrote: > 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... Lockheed and NASA, through Jon Price, replied: > 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). <> Su Wei-Jen, First of all, I think you need to re-evaluate your relationship with this so-called *PERSONAL FRIEND*. Friends don't let friends drive drunk, friends don't let friends drive Fords, and true friends don't lie to you. While some people do lie for a living - defense lawyers, politicians, and O.J. Simpson come to mind - they *don't* lie to their friends (well, maybe O.J. ...) Jon Price's excellent post of NASA/Lockheed published data reiterates what I have read and been told over and over again from a number of sources - that the speed limitations of the SR-71 at altitude are primarily due to CIT. Dave Peters is not a PERSONAL FRIEND of mine, but I have met the man. I can say the same of Bob Gilliland, Richard Graham, Steve Ishmael, Dick Abrams, and others who have either flown or flown in the SR-71. Major Dave Peters was an SR-71 pilot, check ride number 333 in 1977 according to the Paul Crickmore book mentioned by Jon (look it up). A few years ago Dave Peters was invited by Jay Miller to speak at our monthly aviation meeting about his SR-71 experiences. Dave gave an honest, factual account of his time with the SR-71. During the Q&A session at the end of his talk someone asked the inevitable question of "how high and how fast". Mr. Peters replied, of course, that those figures were still considered classified, but he would answer the question by relating what he had experienced in the SR-71. My recollection of his story follows and is written in first person - not because these were his "exact" words, but because it's just plain easier to write that way: At speed, the SR-71 has a very large turning radius, so we had to be extremely accurate about when and where and at what speed we started our turns in order to remain on a precise ground track and not violate (Soviet) airspace. Many of our missions took us over the North Pole, where the air temperature at altitude is colder than at lower geographical latitudes. The top speed of the SR-71 is determined by the compressor inlet temperature, so we have to keep a very close eye on the CIT. Since the engines develop more thrust in colder air, and the lower ambient temperatures allowed us to reach higher speeds before reaching CIT limits, we were surprised when we found ourselves climbing through 85,000 ft at M3.8, struggling to slow down in order to remain on track. The key here is the implication that a speed of M3.8 cannot normally be achieved without exceeding CIT limits. This was only possible because of the unusually cold air temperatures they encountered on this flight. Mr. Peters did not reveal any classified information by telling this story, but he got his point across... Dave Peters was speaking before a large audience of experienced aviation professionals, many of whom knew him personally. His comments that night can be verified by anyone who was in attendance, including Jay Miller. In fact, I believe the entire presentation was video-taped by someone in attendance. Since I am retelling this from memory, there is that possibility that I may be unclear in my recollections. If I have misrepresented anything Mr. Dave Peters said that night, I invite any and all comments and corrections. Su Wei-Jen, the only mystery in your story is the name to the person (or persons) lying to you. Either identify your sources or admit to their lack of credibility. <> - ------------------------------------- Greg Fieser 1/13/97 gregd@cambertx.com 2:26:19 PM (aka habu@why.net) - ------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Bruce R Cogan Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 15:05:10 -0700 Subject: D21 at Air Force Museum The D-21 was in the annex of the Air Force Museum when I was there in late December. You have to drive to the annex as the tour buses have been stopped. The Information Booth in the Museum will give you directions and a pass. Be sure to see Tacit Blue while there. Bruce ------------------------------ From: Kerry Ferrand Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:36:31 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: USAF spaceplane..again Latest online version of AW7St has a little article about the latest USAF call for military spaceplane ideas: http://www.awgnet.com/aviation/avi_news.htm ..funnily enough their projected roles sound exactly like the same ones they've been quoting once or twice a decade for about the last 40 years: "A follow-on operational spaceplane could perform a variety of orbital and suborbital military missions, such as placing small satellites in low-Earth orbit, conducting surveillance, disabling adversary space vehicles, releasing weapons (within the atmosphere) against terrestrial targets, serving as a time-critical communications relay platform or delivering cargo." oh well...any chance they'll get some actual hardware this time around? Back to the future... K ------------------------------ From: "James J. Bjaloncik" Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 20:45:16 -0500 Subject: Location of D-21 at WPAFB To Su-Wei-Jen and other interested parties: As of last Spring, when I visited the Air Museum at Wright-Pat, I found that the D-21 was located in front of the A-12 in what is billed "The Annex" on the base. In order to get there, you must get a parking pass from the gentleman at the main door inside the Museum. He will also provide you with a map on getting over to that part of the base. They were beginning to build a second building at the Museum and, quite possibly, the Annex planes might be relocated there. Had a real thril being able to walk up and touch the D-21 and A-12, got some grat photos to boot. Jim ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 17:47:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: F-16 Versions Greg, Your F-16 variant list could be considered complete, but there are two minor variants missing. The Israeli F-16Ds have a different spine shape, for electronics. This is probably for Wild Weasel missions. This same spine shape reappears on the NF-16D VISTA. Additionally, the Norwegian F-16As introduced a lenghtened vertical tail base fairing, used to contain a drag chute. This later reappeared as an electronics container on Belgian and other F-16s. Mary, When I worked at Sikorsky, I lived in Shelton Connecticut. Just upstream, on the Housatonic River was Naugatuck, home of Uniroyal Rubber. Guess what Naugahyde is named after? (Living downstream never gave me much confidence in the drinking water....) - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Albert H Dobyns Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 22:55:47 -0600 Subject: Re: SR-71 Mystery... again Greg Fieser wrote: > > Su Wei-Jen wrote: > > > 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... > ....snip.... > > Major Dave Peters was an SR-71 pilot, check ride number 333 in 1977 > according to the Paul Crickmore book mentioned by Jon (look it up). > A few years ago Dave Peters was invited by Jay Miller to speak at our > monthly aviation meeting about his SR-71 experiences. Dave gave an > honest, factual account of his time with the SR-71. During the Q&A > session at the end of his talk someone asked the inevitable question > of "how high and how fast". Mr. Peters replied, of course, that > those figures were still considered classified, but he would answer > the question by relating what he had experienced in the SR-71. My > recollection of his story follows and is written in first person - > not because these were his "exact" words, but because it's just plain > easier to write that way: > > At speed, the SR-71 has a very large turning radius, so we > had to be extremely accurate about when and where and at what > speed we started our turns in order to remain on a precise > ground track and not violate (Soviet) airspace. Many of our > missions took us over the North Pole, where the air temperature > at altitude is colder than at lower geographical latitudes. > The top speed of the SR-71 is determined by the compressor inlet > temperature, so we have to keep a very close eye on the CIT. > Since the engines develop more thrust in colder air, and the > lower ambient temperatures allowed us to reach higher speeds > before reaching CIT limits, we were surprised when we found > ourselves climbing through 85,000 ft at M3.8, struggling to > slow down in order to remain on track. > > The key here is the implication that a speed of M3.8 cannot normally > be achieved without exceeding CIT limits. This was only possible > because of the unusually cold air temperatures they encountered on > this flight. Mr. Peters did not reveal any classified information > by telling this story, but he got his point across... > That is one of the best posts I've read that contained comments from ex-SR pilots!!! With all this cold air we have been having lately, it's too bad they can't re-fly the L.A. to D.C. trip that was done in 1990 or was it 1991!!! In a round-about way it reminds me of Viktor Belenko's comment that the MiG-25 engines would run itself above its design limits--the result being a pair of ruined engines. Thanks for sharing your meeting's experience with us! Al ------------------------------ From: "L.Lesiak" Date: Mon, 13 Jan 97 22:28:08 MDT Subject: Avro Arrow - CF105 There is a two part movie produced by Dan Ackroyd being shown on CBC TV about the building of the Avro Arrow in the '50's. Only six were built because the Canadian government cancelled the project. It was an advanced twin-engine interceptor that was to be used by the RCAF to catch sov bombers as they came over the northern part of the continent. The max speed attained in the test flights was Mach 1.96. After the project was cancelled the six that were built were ordered destroyed. I recently read a rumour for the first time that one may have been spirited off somewhere. If one did go elsewhere, I suspect it would be to the US of A, since the US participated in the CF105 project to the extent of allowing Avro designers to use an american wind tunnel facility, and supplying engines for the first couple of aircraft. Have any of our US colleagues heard of this rumour. Cheers, Lech Lesiak Calgary, Alberta 'There's no problem too big to run away from' - Charlie Brown, circa 1974 ------------------------------ From: tomas schreiber - ringel Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 10:41:41 +0000 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #6 Tom Robison wrote: >>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?<< I have the book here and I like it. It contains mainly precisie descriptions of approaches thet have been taken towards hypersonic flight. Basesd on these facts and some public observations he makes assumptions how Aurora could look. As a matter of fact, a short time after Sweetmans book was published, the Nasa published a study how Aurora could be built, and both proposals look extremely similar. Also in his book Sweeteman gives a detailed report of official statements about Aurora, analysing them for points where they can not be true, where they are inconsistant. I like the way Sweetman writes: taking facts and observations as a basis to draw conclusions and to make assumptions. So, should you buy it? I think yes. tomas schreiber - ringel ------------------------------ From: John Stone Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 07:39:31 -0500 Subject: Re: Location of D-21 at WPAFB Hello all, James J. Bjaloncik wrote: To Su-Wei-Jen and other interested parties: >As of last Spring, when I visited the Air Museum at Wright-Pat, I found >that the D-21 was located in front of the A-12 in what is billed "The >Annex" on the base. In order to get there, you must get a parking pass >from the gentleman at the main door inside the Museum. He will also >provide you with a map on getting over to that part of the base. They >were beginning to build a second building at the Museum and, quite >possibly, the Annex planes might be relocated there. Had a real thril >being able to walk up and touch the D-21 and A-12, got some grat photos >to boot. The aircraft in the Annex is a YF-12A #6935, in fact the only remaining YF in existance. I hoping to get up to the AF Museum this spring to see the D-21. Thanks for the report! 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: dosgood@proxima.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dean Osgood) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 08:27:12 +0027 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #6 >From: freeman@netcom.com (Jay Reynolds Freeman) >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)... Oh my, I did not know that they had spread so far from their origional habitat in the Formica Forest of New Jersey. dosgood@proxima.gsfc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ From: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 08:53:22 -0800 Subject: Re: F-16 Versions David Lednicer wrote: > Your F-16 variant list could be considered complete, but there are > two minor variants missing. The Israeli F-16Ds have a different spine > shape, for electronics. This is probably for Wild Weasel missions. This > same spine shape reappears on the NF-16D VISTA. Additionally, the > Norwegian F-16As introduced a lenghtened vertical tail base fairing, used > to contain a drag chute. This later reappeared as an electronics > container on Belgian and other F-16s. These are indeed differences, but they are more analogous to what I would call "bolt-on parts". There is more of a structural difference in a single seat and a two seat aircraft than there is between a USAF F-16D and an Israeli Peace Marble IV F-16D. In fact the VISTA airframe is the same as the Israeli PM IV F-16D. I guess it's really just a matter of semantics, "variants" vs. "versions". Other "variants" would include: (also probably not complete) YF-16 CCV - Control Configured Vehicle, with canards under the intake AFTI F-16 - smaller spine than PM IV, also originally had canards F-16/79 - a J-79 engine with a modified inlet, since converted to PW F-100-220, still a company demonstrator (75-752) F-16/101 - a GE F101 engine installed (75-745) F-16ES - aerodynamic shapes fitted, similar to F-15 FAST packs Also, those C/D models equipped with the GE F-110 engines have the MCID (Modular Common Inlet Duct, I think) "bigmouth" inlet. It's hard to tell the inlets apart unless you have the two right next to each other. I don't know if you would call this a variant, but there was an airframe called "Salty Falcon". The aircraft "crashed" and sank in the Gulf of Mexico after the pilot ejected. The airplane was susequently recovered and used for test programs by Texas Instruments, General Dynamics, and Lockheed. The aircraft arrived at TI in Dallas in 1984. (thanks to Joe Stout of Code One magazine for this one!) Greg Fieser ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 10:47:07 -0800 Subject: Re: D21 at Air Force Museum Hey guys, don't forget the MD-21 at the Seattle Museum of Flight! Larry ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 09:10:13 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re: Pulse Detonation Engine info and Wings Marathon.. On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Steve 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? If I really knew how good it was, I'd have to kill you. I personally think that it is a good book, and a good piece of investigative journalism. He picks apart cleverly what information has been revealed, and the denials. It is also a good history of black and white high speed flight in general. It includes bits on other national programmes as well. The co-ordination of text and images is not perfect - something will be referred to in the text and illustrated several pages away sometimes. Also, there are a couple of technical errors that I spotted. Offhand, I think he makes mistakes over the number of X-15 flights and the maximum speed it attained. That aside, the technical level seems to be very high (for essentially popular writing) and very convincing. On the whole, a good thorough and shrewd book. A bargain too. Gripe: it could be much thicker and be a general history of high-supersonics/hypersonics - - as it is, it looks a bit like a very heavily expanded magazine article. Convincing, yes, accurate - who knows? Worth buying tho,' without a doubt. Don't buy it in isolation - I also have to plug, again, Dennis Jenkins' "Space Shuttle: The History of Developing the National Space Transportation System - The Beginning Through STS-75." Superb. - --Brett ------------------------------ From: Side Show Marc Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 13:42:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: More Nauga. I got bitten by a Nauga once. My head swelled up like a basketball. Nauga bites can be very painful. ___________ Marc Studer ___________________________________________ "Life is a fair approximation of reality." - Jacques Portman "Two plus two equals Duh." - Jacques Portman ______________________________________ mstuder@spu.edu ___________ On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Dean Osgood wrote: > >From: freeman@netcom.com (Jay Reynolds Freeman) > >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)... > Oh my, I did not know that they had spread so far from their origional > habitat in the Formica Forest of New Jersey. > dosgood@proxima.gsfc.nasa.gov > > > ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V6 #7 ******************************* 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