From: owner-skunk-works-digest@ (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V6 #50 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@ Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@ Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Tuesday, May 13 1997 Volume 06 : Number 050 In this issue: MiGs in the US Bill Sweetman in Long Island Re: Dark Eagles review Re: Dark Eagles review Re: LeVier "finger" to Kelly then Kelly says "You too"(Buddy)= U-2 True or False? The New Area 51 U-2, designation thereof Andrews AFB Air Show Back from the void... Re: Secret Wind Tunnel at Calif Inst Tech? All those U-2 questions... F-22 info 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 12:42:19 -0400 From: Hank_Lapa@signalcorp.com Subject: MiGs in the US Re: a MiG-23 parked on the ramp a couple of years ago...could it be the Cuban example that defected to NAS Key West about that time? What was disposition of that plane? Re: squadron of Soviet fighters, perhaps a matter of "*could* someone comment?" vs "*should* someone comment?" (Answers probably "yes" and "no" respectively, if I were guessing.) Some very distant, heat-wavy images were on Dan Rather news (I think) years ago, purported to be "MiGs," but not clear enough to be convincing of anything but "airplanes." Infotainment, some might say. Reunification of Germany and opening of other Eastern bloc countries have, of course, allowed the open exporting of various combat equipment to the West, for a variety of uses. Hank ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 11:24:49 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lednicer Subject: Bill Sweetman in Long Island > AIAA Long Island Section have a dinner meeting in Thursday, May > 22, 1997. The speaker is Bill Sweetman and he is going to talk about: > "TALES FROM THE CRYPT: Everything You Wanted To Know But Wheren't > Cleared To Ask". Sweetman gave the same talk to the Seattle AIAA chapter a couple of years ago. Some guys from the Boeing Black Hole sat in the back and snickered through the entire talk. During the Q&A session, one asked "What is Boeing doing?" and Sweetman's answer drew outright laughter. My feeling is Sweetman does a lot of speculating. However, he did have some good photos of the Groom flight line, taken with a big telescope. All that you could see was a HH-60 and lots of hangars. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 12:41:02 -0700 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: Dark Eagles review Tom Robison writes: >Someone mentioned Curtis Peeble's *Dark Eagles*, so I thought I would >re-post this review that went around a several months ago... >>Here's the review of Dark Eagles by Bill Sweetman: >>----------------- >>Posted by John Pike on the following Newsgroups: >>alt.conspiracy.area51, sci.space.policy, rec.aviation.military, under the >>Subject: Re: New book on black aircraft, on 11 Nov 1995, 13:06:57 GMT: >> >>Bill Sweetman has written the following and faxed it out to a bunch of >> ... > >His words, folks, not mine... > So you don't want to take a stab at it huh Tom! That's OK. Since it's kind of slow right now ... , I have a few things to say. One, I enjoyed Sweetman's rebuttal. This is an example of Sweetman at his best. I have something to say however about his deduction that Phil Klass is Peebles's "private source". Two, even though I disagree with and find Peebles's books "Dark Eagles" and his earlier book "Dark Skies" hard to read, because they're written with a philosophy of unyielding disbelief, I however do agree that we must challenge claims and be good critical thinkers. Our minds must be open to both sides of the argument! On a positive side for "Dark Eagles", I also recall that this book was actually more right than anybody else about what we knew at the time as SHAMU, and eventually was later announced as TACIT BLUE. In fact, I recall a very close drawing in Peebles book "Dark Eagles" of SHAMU or TACIT BLUE, long before TACIT BLUE was announced! Many of us laughed at that drawing of SHAMU in "Dark Skies" but it really wasn't far from the real TACIT BLUE! I recall other black aircraft authors expecting a subscale flying wing. Most were eventually quite surprised at TACIT BLUE's unveiling, that the stealth technology demonstrator for the B-2 was not a flying wing design at all! Now back to Sweetman's rebuttal! From Sweetman's rebuttal: >Of course, Peebles' own sources are pure gold, as typified by the "private >source" cited in the footnotes, who told Peebles that "the whole Aurora >story has been pushed by a tight circle of Black airplane buffs, aerospace >writers, and believers in various far-out UFO conspiracy theories". This >statement is in itself a conspiracy theory, implying that some secret >cabal dictates the content of both Popular Science and Aviation Week. >Logic again: "Bill Clinton belongs to the Trilateral Commission. So does >George Bush. Therefore, the Trilateral Commission controls the USA." > >We should also look at Peebles' source. Some of the comments that Peebles >attributes to this "private source" are almost word-for-word echoes of >from an anonymous letter received by Popular Science after the publication >of my March 1993 Aurora story. I heard almost identical comments from Phil >Klass, AvWeek contributing editor and UFO debunker, in a face-to-face >meeting in October 1993. I don't think Phil Klass is an anonymous letter >writer (heck, he's made so many enemies that one or two more wouldn't >matter) but it seems that he is probably Peebles' "private source". > Phil Klass may indeed have been one of Peebles sources, but I know for a fact that he is not the SOLE source. In fact, some of the attacks on black aircraft enthusiasts in "Dark Eagles" seemed very familiar to me. I contacted the person whom I expected was the source and he admitted to me over the phone that he was in fact Peebles's source. This man is a black aircraft researcher himself and I have talked at length with him because we share similar research subject interests. I can only guess that he didn't allow his name to be used because he was actually protecting someone's job - which is why I won't mention his name here either. The point is that I do not believe that Phil Klass is the "private source". Phil may have been a source, but I do not believe he was the major source. No, the "private source" is another black aircraft enthusiast who disagrees with some of the ways in which black aircraft research is done, and in the beliefs of some black aircraft enthusiasts. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 15:10:59 -0500 From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: Dark Eagles review Larry wrote: >So you don't want to take a stab at it huh Tom! That's OK. I haven't read the book, so I can't offer any opinions as to Sweetman's opinions. I've been saving Sweetman's rebuttal until I get around to reading the book. >I have something to say however about his deduction that Phil Klass is >Peebles's "private source". >big snip< >I can only guess that he didn't allow his name to be used >because he was actually protecting someone's job - which is why I won't >mention his name here either. The point is that I do not believe that Phil >Klass is the "private source". Phil may have been a source, but I do not >believe he was the major source. No, the "private source" is another black >aircraft enthusiast who disagrees with some of the ways in which black >>aircraft research is done, and in the beliefs of some black aircraft >>enthusiasts. Another "Deep Throat"? Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne IN Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone, and do not reflect the views or opinions of whoever might own me at the moment. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 15:29:31 -0500 From: Albert H Dobyns Subject: Re: LeVier "finger" to Kelly then Kelly says "You too"(Buddy)= U-2 True or False? santiagoj@delphi.com wrote: > > Since someone has mentioned the Curtis Peebles book Dark Eagles(Great read BTW- > especially about the under reported American MiGs) I am wondering about his anecdote > concerning the "naming" of the U-2 on p.29 in the next to the last paragraph. Basically > the story was after one of the early U-2 flights.The flight was particulary rough, so > test pilot Tony LeVier gave his boss a one finger salute in recognition of his boss > nearly "killing" him. Kelly Johnson returned the same finger and replied "You too." This > was heard by the ground crew and the rest they say is history. Unless this is another > myth. This was the first time I ever read that origin of the name, so I find it hard to > believe. Since I finnishing my U-2 term paper for the Poli Sci class I have read so much > about the U-2 I can probably channel Frank Powers, Chris Pocock, and Jay Miller. > Right now my brain is tapioca from finals, but I still don't recall reading it > anywhere else. And it wasn't on the PBS documentary about the U-2 and Overflight last > week. > Is this story truth, myth, or bad research? > Thanks, > J.E. If no one else has included this story in their books (Jay Miller, etc.), I am inclined to believe it is a myth or that it may be true but that it had nothing to do with the designation U-2. I think I read a portion of a book by Peebles, might have been the same one, that Gary Power's unlucky flight over Russia in a U-2 was setup to fail. The flight had been delayed due to weather or something, and according to the author a liquid hydrogen tank on the plane wasn't topped off. Supposedly this hydrogen was used to help prevent flame-outs at high altitude. I have never seen any reference to the use of hydrogen in either liquid or gaseous form being used in U-2s. That doesn't mean it wasn't done, just that none of the books I've read make any reference to it at all. I think one of the other points he states is that Gary Powers carried some identification papers. This was stated as being contrary to policy--- no pilots were allowed to carry any form of personal identification. Maybe this is or was true at one time. Why would Powers carry any id if it was against the policy in effect at that time? I don't know. There is a section of the book that goes into more detail than I can remember, but it all sounded a bit fishy to me. Maybe I'm too skeptical. I must admit I never read the entire book. Al ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 14:44:34 -0700 From: patrick@e-z.net Subject: The New Area 51 I would like to comment on this article in the June 97 issue of Popular Mechanics. I find the article riddled with outrageous assumptions and one glaring error. The writer has taken great poetic liscense in his description of the landmarks on Hiway 375 causing me to wonder if he was even there. The Black Mailbox marked a road to a ranch house. It is several miles north of the very obvious road that heads into Groom. People who traveled this road were not arrested till they crossed the line some 12 miles distant. And this road is now totally in the area annexed recently. Therefore the author was in no danger of arrest simply transiting Hiway 375. This entrance is like a backgate exiting onto an alley if you will. Any assumption of Grooms usage from this vantage at a single point in time is absurd. This is an example of the logic used. But the idea of a separate test are is certainly a possibility. I do have difficulty in believing the government can build a vehicle (a space plane) in the next few years that will be able to go from the ground to any spot over the globe in 40 minutes at a cost of 1 to 2 million dollars. My calculations indicate an average speed of the flight would have to be done at 18,500 miles per hour. Not a very inexpensive feat. But to have discovered the old Green River site as a potential launch site is most interesting. Green River has indeed launched ballistic missiles that have landed at White Sands Missile Range and vice versa. But to claim this sub orbital program is going to launch a vehicle to the west towards Michael means it will have to overcome the rotational velocity of the earth in a very short period of time. And this means--Erf Erf!! More Power!! I did like the part where they were threatened with a shoot down if an overfly of Dugway Proving Grounds occured. They don't even do that at Groom. I mean back when it was open. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 20:00:00 -0400 (EDT) From: "Joseph F. Donoghue" Subject: U-2, designation thereof At the 1987 Roadrunners Reunion, BGen Leo Geary, USAF (ret) stated that an officer on his staff came to him in late 1955 and said: "This bird has been flying around for a while now and we keep calling it "the Angel" but it ain't no angel. We've got to give it a proper designa- tion." They went to the Air Force office in the Pentagon which was responsible for assigning designations and secured the next available number in the "U for Utility" series. This series was picked because it gave no hint of the true mission of the aircraft, the U-1 having been awarded to the DeHaviland Otter, a slow transport that I recall had originally been purchased for Navy antarctic use. Geary, in those days, headed the Air Force side of the U-2 program. I think Geary mentioned the name of the officer I quoted above as well as the colonel in charge of giving out numbers but I didn't write them down. Joe Donoghue ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 20:26:44 -0400 From: "Timothy F. Poole, Jr." Subject: Andrews AFB Air Show Hello all. I will be attending this weekend's Air Show at Andrews AFB. Typical appearances by a U2, F117, etc. will be made. I haven't seen an SR-71 at this show since maybe 1987. I will be taking a plethora of photographs. If any of you have any special requests, or know of anything particular I should keep an eye out for, just let me know! Timothy Poole We Do Computers 2, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 21:47:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Back from the void... Hi all, I haven't written anything to the Skunk Works list since my April Fools post, (six weeks ago) and there have been many topics and questions posted to the list since then, which were never fully answered or which I feel obligated to correct. :) First a note to everyone who is waiting for personal mail from me -- I will get to those right after all my Skunk Works posts are completed! - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 21:47:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Secret Wind Tunnel at Calif Inst Tech? On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 jaz5@ix.netcom.com wrote: >Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had a one paragraph piece about a secret >wind tunnel being retired at California Institute of Technology in >Pasadena. It had been in use for 68 years. >Anyone have any info on this? >Wednesday, April 9, page CA6 PASADENA, April 11 (UPI) -- After 68 years of service, the historic 10-foot wind tunnel at California Institute of Technology in Pasadena will pass into the aviation-history books at the end of the month. Conceived in the 1920s by the father of aeronautics, Theodore von Karman, the tunnel has served as testing ground for many a warplane that helped the Allies win World War II. These included the P-51 Mustang, the B-24 Liberator, the B-17 Flying Fortress, the B-29 Superfortress, the twin-fusilage P-38 Lightning, the B-52 Mitchell and the night fighter P- 61 Black Widow. The end comes April 30 for the tunnel that had been so vital to the war effort, it was protected by armed guards and maintained by the best and brightest of scientists and engineers working around the clock. Just before the war began, famed aviator Charles A. Lindbergh officially inspected the tunnel. Manager Gerald Landry says, ``This has been an internationally known facility for many decades. When a group of astronauts and scientists from Russia came to the United States in 1990, this was the third thing on the list of what to see in this country.'' After it's dismantled, the old tunnel, now housed in a four-story building, will be replaced by a smaller, more modern two-story unit. Though in tip-top physical condition, the original is being retired to make room for more classrooms, laboratories and offices -- and to modernize the facility. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 21:49:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: All those U-2 questions... J.E. asked a lot of questions, some of which were already answered, others were not. Here are some additional answers: >Subject: Did Stealth aircraft penetrate Soviet airspace? >In the book it says "In operational tests, this effective stealth aircraft >(F-117A) has reportedly flown within 20 miles of actual Soviet-manned radar >stations without being detected." >Has anyone else heard, seen or read such a thing before(now or then)? If >so, where at? Was it a F-117? XST? Other Stealth Technology Aircrat? Is this >a myth? Was it Soviet or Soviet Bloc airspace? They did not penetrate Soviet airspace, but many aircraft, not only stealthy ones, are evaluated (and pilots train) against "actual Soviet, manned radar stations", especially in Nevada and New Mexico ranges. Those radars are of FSU origin, but are of course manned by US military and contractor personal, and are based in the CONUS. The equipment comes from various sources, including the Middle East, Latin America and Africa. >Subject: Why was UAV cancelled for TR-1? >Why was the Boeing B-Gull Recon UAV cancelled and replaced by TR-1? >Was it the USAF hang up about keeping pilots in the seats? The Boeing "B-Gull" and its competitor in the "COMPASS COPE" program, the Teledyne Ryan "R-Tern", were basically technology demonstrators, which were supposed to show semi-autonomous, unmanned, HALE (High-Altitude, Long- Endurance) flights for surveillance missions, but the technology was apparently not mature enough in the early 1970s. Boeing lost one of their two YQM-94A 'Cope-B' and Ryan lost one of their Model 235, YQM-98A 'Cope-R' vehicles. For some reason, Boeing was selected for the follow-on HALE demonstrator, a decision TRA protested. The TR-1/U-2R seemed more cost efficient, and technologically less risky than an RPV, and Ben Rich's proposal to restart the U-2R line was approved. Actually, an unmanned U-2 version was studied, but not built, during the COMPASS COPE test program (1972-1976), too. >Subject: Boost-glide and the U-2 >Is boost-glide still used on all U2 Er2 missions? As already answered, something like "boost-glide" was never used by any U-2/TR-1/ER-2 variant. The term "boost-glide" actually applies to hyper speed vehicles, like some W.W.II Saenger projects or re-entry vehicles, which use the upper atmosphere to skip along on orbit-like trajectories. >Subject: Project Aquatone? Who named it that? Why? >What is the origin of the name of Lockheed's project U-2? Who named it >Project Aquatone. And why Aquatone? The code name 'Aquatone' was a CIA code name, applied to the U-2 project by someone in the CIA, maybe even Richard Bissell himself. I don't recall to have ever seen any explanation or heard any description of the exact process of code name assignment in the CIA. I suppose the case officer(s) make something up, (which might have to be approved, and probably has to follow some basic rules), and basta. >Subject: X-16 and Bald Eagle Project Info wanted- where at? >Where can I get details on the USAF?/CIA Bald Eagel Project? >I would also like some X-16 illustrations and projected specs too. The best source for the X-16 is probably: * Jay Miller's book "The X-Planes", followed by * Jay Miller's book "Lockheed U-2" (AeroGraph 3). The later one also has some information about project Bald Eagle, while * Robert C. Mikesh's book "Martin B-57 Canberra", has additional info on Bald Eagle and other RB-57s. >Subject: Whatsa U-2S and a U-2T? What is different about these models? >I can't find anything about these models of U-2 S,T. >Can someone give me any kind of answer? quick and dirty? >Blow me away with your knowledge if you want. >I don't have access to the "Aircraft Upgrades" edition of Jane's. >My info stops at the R-models and ex-TR models. The closeset clue I >get is about the re-engine program. >Simply what is a U-2S and what is a U-2T? >I know what the U-2U will/might be- a heavy payload packing UAV. The differences between old U-2Rs, new U-2Rs, TR-1As, ER-2s and aircraft which were modified or re-designated from one of those designations to another, were basically minor structural and internal wiring differences, which were (apparently) all extinguished in the latest U-2S version. The U-2R(T), U-2RT, U-2S(T), and U-2ST designations of the two-seat trainer versions were finally replaced by standard TU-2R and TU-2S designations. * U-2R = Re-designed, bigger, and re-engined version of the original U-2/U-2A/WU-2A/U-2B/U-2C/U-2D/U-2E/U-2F/U-2G/U-2H designs; 19 airframes built as such; also, all remaining TR-1A were re-designated as U-2R in 10/1991; all remaining U-2Rs will be modified as U-2S; * U-2R(T) = (also "U-2RT") two-seat trainer version of the U-2R; 1 airframe built as U-2R(T), and 3 re-designated former TR-1Bs; the remaining U-2R(T)s were either modified as U-2S(T)s or first re-designated as TU-2Rs, before becoming TU-2Ss; * TU-2R = final designation of U-2R(T) two-seaters; all remaining TU-2Rs will be modified to TU-2Ss; * U-2S = re-engined and standardized version of the U-2R design; the modification includes a new F118-GE-101 engine, re-wiring of airframes for EO/SAR/ELINT/SIGINT/SATLINK capability; all remaining U-2Rs will be modified to become U-2Ss; * U-2S(T) = (also "U-2ST") two-seat trainer version of the U-2S; all re-designated as TU-2S; * TU-2S = final designation of U-2S(T) two-seaters; all remaining TU-2Rs will be modified to TU-2Ss; in addition to the 4 aircraft originally built as two-seat trainers (1 U-2R(T) and 3 TR-1Bs), 1 additional single-seat TR-1A was modified as TU-2S two-seater after being stored because of damage sustained in a ground collision; * U-2T = designation not used (as far as I know); * U-2U = proposed "Unmanned" UAV version of U-2S; * TR-1A = slightly modified 'tactical version' of the U-2R; 24 airframes built as such; all remaining TR-1As were re-designated as U-2R in 10/1991; * TR-1B - two-seat trainer version of the TR-1A; 3 airframes built; all re-designated as U-2R(T) in 10/1991; * ER-2 = not a real military designation; "ER" standing for "Earth Resource" aircraft; 2 airframes built for NASA ARC, and 1 TR-1A modified after a ground collision and on loan to NASA ARC; all ER-2s will be re-engined with F118-GE-101 engines, but probably will not be re-designated; >Subject: LeVier "finger" to Kelly then Kelly says "You too" (Buddy) = U-2 > True or False? >Since someone has mentioned the Curtis Peebles book Dark Eagles (Great >read BTW- especially about the under reported American MiGs) I am >wondering about his anecdote concerning the "naming" of the U-2 on p.29 in >the next to the last paragraph. Basically the story was after one of the >early U-2 flights.The flight was particulary rough, so test pilot Tony >LeVier gave his boss a one finger salute in recognition of his boss nearly >"killing" him. Kelly Johnson returned the same finger and replied "You >too." This was heard by the ground crew and the rest they say is history. >Unless this is another myth. This was the first time I ever read that >origin of the name, so I find it hard to believe. I read somewhere a similar story, but I can't remember where -- I don't have any of Peebles' books, though. In this story, the incident leading up to "the finger" was the lading-maneuver after the first flight. Kelly Johnson insisted that Tony LeVier should land the U-2 prototype on the front wheel, while Tony wanted to make a two-point landing. After several tries, in which he nearly lost control, Tony decided to make a two-point landing, and the landing went smoothly. After Kelly asked why he didn't touch down with the front wheel first, as he was told, Tony showed him the finger. Kelly Johnson of course answered back "You too", which later supposedly evolved into the U-2 designation. Even if this anecdote would be true (which I very much doubt), neither Kelly Johnson, Lockheed nor the CIA should have had much to say regarding the USAF designation of the aircraft (as "U-2"). The original prototype was usually referred to as "Angel 1" or "Article 341", and did not wear USAF markings, serials nor designations. Judging from other "black" projects, official and correct USAF (or US military) designations are the rare exception in this kind of environment: A-12, Y/F-12A/B/C, MD-21, SR-71A/B/C, TR-1A/B, ER-2, U-2R/S(T), F-117A, RC-7B (E/O-5A/B/C), to name just a few manned, "black" aircraft with non-standard designations -- unmanned systems are even worse -- so actually everything seems possible. And based on Jay Miller's books, "the Air Force, at Johnson's recommendation, assigned the innocuous U-2 designator to the aircraft" during the "initial flight test period." - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 21:50:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: F-22 info Richard W. Anderson wrote: >In the pictures I remember seeing, both of the YF-22s carried civil >registration numbers, so has the serial number (84-022 I think) on the >one displayed at Nellis been applied retroactively or did someone just >get carried away when they gave the plane its new paint job? >In spite of the P&W emblems on the intakes, wasn't the YF-22 at Nellis >actually the aircraft that carried the GE engines during flight test? >(Or did someone actually reconstruct the one that crashed?) The serial "84-0022" belongs to a McDonnell Douglas F-15C-38-MC Eagle. The YF-22A at Nellis AFB, shipped in from Edwards AFB, should have displayed the serial "87-701", with which it flew after the ATF competition was over. The aircraft was written off after the hard (crash) landing at Edwards, but the airframe looked pretty intact after the mishap. The following is my F-22 fact sheet. I don't really know about the serials, though. There are many photos of a YF-22A with the serial "87-0701" on the rudders (apparently the second airframe, c/n 3998, ex "N22YX", with YF119-PW-100 engines, which resumed flight testing with the USAF after the fly-off, and which was later severely damaged during a crash landing at Edwards AFB, CA). On the other hand Jay Miller writes in his Skunk Works book (both editions), that the first YF-22A did not receive a USAF serial, and the second aircraft received the serial "87-0700". He also gives the c/n as "1001" and "1002". Because of those inconsistencies, I assume in the following list that both aircraft received USAF serials, as did the two YF-23As. I guess there are some newer, dedicated F-22 and ATF books out, but I don't have any of those. - -- Andreas PS: I would love to get a list of all the participating aircraft at Nellis, because I couldn't make it to any of the air shows nor Roving Sands, and am somewhat serial number deprived. :} F-22 file: ========== Manufacturer: Lockheed Martin / Boeing (originally: Lockheed / Boeing / General Dynamics) Designation : F-22 Popular Name: Raptor Model Name : Lockheed Model 1132 Code Name : 'Senior Sky' (USAF) Project Name: ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter) Other Names : Lightning II, Rapier, Superstar FAA Code : 5269700 (Lockheed YF-22A) User : USAF No (c/n) Serial Type, Version, Names, Remarks =============================================================================== 1 (3997) 87-0700 YF-22A; 1st FSD prototype aircraft; built at 'Skunk Works'; equipped with 2 YF120-GE-100 engines; registered 'N22YF' to "Lockheed Corp., Burbank, CA" 01/17/1990; roll-out: 08/29/1990; 1st flight: 09/29/1990; later equipped with anti-spin chute canister; used for armaments program; now static mock-up without engines and used at Marietta, GA, for EMD work; 2 (3998) 87-0701 YF-22A; 2nd FSD prototype aircraft; built at 'Skunk Works'; equipped with 2 YF119-PW-100 engines; registered 'N22YX' to "Lockheed Corp., Burbank, CA" 01/17/1990; 1st flight: 10/30/1990; resumed flight testing 10/30/1991; severely damaged and written-off after crash landing 04/25/1992 at Edwards AFB, CA, and stored there; 1 (3999) (?) F-22A; static test airframe; 2 (4000) (?) F-22A; static test airframe; 3 (4001) 9.-.... F-22A; 1st EMD pre-series aircraft; named 'Spirit of America' (painted on nose); also marked 'Raptor 01' (painted on tail); roll-out 04/09/1997 at Lockheed Martin's Marietta plant; 1st flight (scheduled for): 05/27-29/1997 from Dobbins AFRB by Lockheed Martin chief test pilot (at Marietta) Paul Metz; 4 (4002) 9.-.... F-22A; 2nd EMD pre-series aircraft; 5 (4003) 9.-.... F-22A; 3rd EMD pre-series aircraft; 6 (4004) 9.-.... F-22A; 4th EMD pre-series aircraft; 7 (4005) 9.-.... F-22A; 5th EMD pre-series aircraft; 8 (4006) 9.-.... F-22A; 6th EMD pre-series aircraft; 9 (4007) 9.-.... F-22A; 7th EMD pre-series aircraft; 10 -- --- F-22A; 8th EMD pre-series aircraft; cancelled; 11 -- --- F-22A; 9th EMD pre-series aircraft; cancelled; 1 -- --- F-22B; 1st two-seater EMD pre-series aircraft; cancelled; 2 -- --- F-22B; 2nd two-seater EMD pre-series aircraft; cancelled; Summary: ======== YF-22A | 2 | (FSD aircraft) F-22A | 11 | (EMD aircraft, including 2 static airframes, 2 cancelled) | 70 | (1st 5 Lots of production aircraft; only planned) F-22B | 2 | (EMD aircraft, cancelled) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- F-22 | 85 | (4 cancelled, 70 only planned, 83 unknown serials) Remarks: ======== * FSD contract: - 2 YF-22A prototypes; * EMD contract: $9.55 billion, signed 08/03/1991; - 2 F-22A static airframes; - 9 F-22A pre-series aircraft (2 cancelled); - 2 F-22B two-seater pre-series aircraft (both cancelled); * LRIP program: (planned for 1998); - Lot 1: 2 F-22A (deliveries scheduled to begin in 02/2002) - Lot 2: 6 F-22A (deliveries scheduled to begin in 11/2002) - Lot 3: 12 F-22A (deliveries scheduled to begin in 10/2003) - Lot 4: 20 F-22A (deliveries scheduled to begin in 05/2004) - Lot 5: 30 F-22A (deliveries scheduled to begin in 11/2005) * Planned Production figures: - 750-760 (ATF for USAF, originally in 1985 RFP); - 648 (F-22 for USAF, after budget cuts in 1990/91); - 600 (NATF for USN, but those plans have been scrubbed); - 442 (386 F-22A and 56 F-22B, in 1995); - (but later, all F-22Bs were cancelled, and there are no plans to ever build any two-seaters); - 438 (F-22A for USAF, for $67 (or $70-71) billion between 1999 and 2013 -- but may cost another $16 billion); - 339 (F-22A for USAF, new reduced numbers after QDR); And the F-23 file: ================== Manufacturer: Northrop / McDonnell Douglas Designation : F-23 Popular Name: Model Name : ? Code Name : 'Senior Sky' (USAF) Project Name: ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter) Other Names : "Black Widow II" FAA Code : 6459008 (Northrop YF-23A) User : USAF / NASA No (c/n) Serial Type, Version, Names, Remarks =============================================================================== 1 (1001) 87-0800 YF-23A; FSD prototype with 2 YF119-PW-100 engines; registered 'N231YF' to "Northrop" on 04/05/1989; roll-out: 06/22/1990; 1st flight: 08/27/1990; transfered to NASA DFRC for (destructive) static tests; instead transfered to and displayed at Edwards AFB Museum, Edwards AFB, CA, on 07/30/1996; (probably owned by USAF Museum); 2 (1002) 87-0801 YF-23A; FSD prototype with 2 YF120-GE-100 engines; registered 'N232YF' to "Northrop" on 04/05/1989; 1st flight: 10/26/1990; transfered to NASA DFRC for (destructive) static tests; instead transfered to and displayed at Western Museum of Flight, Hawthorne, CA; (probably owned by USAF Museum); Summary: ======== YF-23A | 2 | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- F-23 | 2 | Remarks: ======== The rumored 'AX-17'/'A-17'/'ASTRA' is supposed to be based on the YF-23A. Abbreviations: ============== AFB = Air Force Base AFRB = Air Force Reserve Base ASTRA = "Advanced Stealth Tactical Reconnaissance Aircraft" ATF = Advanced Tactical Fighter c/n = construction number (aka: msn = manufacturer serial number) DFRC = Dryden Flight Research Center EMD = Evaluation and Manufacturing Development phase FSD = Full-Scale Development phase LRIP = Low Rate Initial Production phase NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration NATF = Naval(ized) Advanced Tactical Fighter QDR = Quadrennial Defense Review RFP = Request For Proposals USAF = United States Air Force USN = United States Navy - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #50 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@netwrx1.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@netwrx1.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@netwrx1.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