From: owner-skunk-works-digest@ (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V6 #53 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@ Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@ Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Saturday, May 24 1997 Volume 06 : Number 053 In this issue: USAF Serial Numbers Re: ER-2 Andrews AFB Air Show results. Re: Nellis YF-22A Andrews AFB Show results. Re: Andrews AFB Air Show results. Re[2]: Andrews AFB Air Show results. Roger Chaffee -- a U-2 pilot? Re: USAF Serial Numbers Re: Nellis YF-22A Andrews AFB Show. Re: Blackbird serials Re: Blackbird serials Re: Chaffee a U-2 pilot...... Chaffee = U-2 Pilot Re: Blackbird serials Re: Blackbird serials 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: Thu, 22 May 1997 08:56:09 -0500 (EST) From: ROTRAMELJE%AM4@mr.nawcad.navy.mil Subject: USAF Serial Numbers USAF and US Army serial numbers are issued as one list in consecutive order during any given year. The reason the SR-71 numbers are so large is because during FY 64 there were several large missile orders. These included 64-1/-448 for LGM-30B Minutemen, 64-1126/-7014 for 5,889 and 64-7017/-11979 for 4,963 AGM-12B Bullpup As, 64-11980/-13105 for 1,126 AGM-12D Bullpup Bs, 64-15543/-17542 for 2,000 more AGM-12Bs, 180 BQM-34A Firebees, and over 600 AGM-45A Shrikes (most of which were canceled). Other large orders that year included nearly 700 UH-1s, 215 TH-55As, 210 OH-23s, 140 T-38As, 115 OH-13s and 472 F-4s of various types. The total list for the year was 18269 (not including 64-900200, a Schweitzer TG-2A. The really confusing year for F-4s was 1966, when the serial blocks included F-4D-31-MCs 66-7685/-7774 and 66-8685/-8698 followed by F-4D-32-MCs 66-8699/-8774. There is a case when it actually helped to have the tail numbers appear as 67-xxx or 68-xxx rather than 66-xxx. In later years, the AF got a little smarter when such overlaps occurred, often showing the last four digits rather than the last three. Jim Rotramel ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 09:35:28 -0400 From: John Stone Subject: Re: ER-2 Andreas wrote:.... >I don't know if the second ER-2S would be the former TR-1A (Article 069, >USAF '80-1069', NASA '708') or the second original ER-2 (Article 097, USAF >'80-1097', NASA '709'), which was in July 1995 modified to carry the NASA >'Starlink' satellite link in a dorsal pod, which is very similar to the >USAF 'Senior Span' satellite link pod. Maybe the Starlink aircraft will be >modified later? As I understand it the Air Force is getting the #1069 back, they're hurting for airframes. Actually it should be gone by now! And #1097 should be back by now too..... 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 10:22:15 -0400 From: "Timothy F. Poole, Jr." Subject: Andrews AFB Air Show results. This past weekend's show at Andrews AFB was a good one! Being the 50th Anniversary of the USAF, they really went all out. There were aerial demonstrations of a B-2, B1-B, C-17, T-33, F-104, a dogfight (later cancelled) between a MiG-15 and an F-86, and of course the Thunderbirds. On a more list related topic: There was NOT an appearance by the U-2 this year! This kind of struck me as odd. However, there was an appearance by an SR-71. This may explain the contrail sighting by Wayne Busse. Serial No. is AF 61971. Base designation is BB (is that Beale?). Even more interesting is the fact that it appeared that the numbers 61 were painted over the numbers 17. Does that make any sense to any of you? Also, how come the tires on the main gear on the SR-71 are a silver color while the tires on the nose gear are not? Here's something I hadn't seen before: There were guys (civilians)there in Lockheed-Martin Skunk Works coveralls answering questions for the crowd. Mary - can you shed some light on this? The pilot was available but was busy answering questions for the news camera. A picture of them will be posted. (See below for web site address.) There was also an F-117. Serial No. 82800. Base designation is HO (Holloman?) Funny thing about the F-117 is that it started to S-P-R-I-N-K-L-E rain around 1100 and you should have seen the mad rush to get it back inside its hangar! What was that about? Also, I noticed that the air intakes on this particular F-117 has a reddish tinge that I don't recall seeing before. Also, the starboard side intake had a kind of yellowish discoloration down through the middle of it. What may have caused that? I did get some good photos of it all and I will have then up on my site hopefully by the end of the day. I will have pictures of that discoloration as well, so if any of you can, please visit the site to try and answer that question for me. The pics should be at http://www.wdc2.com/airshow Thanks for your help! Timothy Poole We Do Computers 2, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 08:45:01 -0700 From: "Michael J. Poirier" Subject: Re: Nellis YF-22A Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > > The new AirForces Monthly (AFM), No. 111, June 1997, has a photo of the > aircraft on display at Nellis AFB, sporting not only the black-and-yellow > checkered tail band, 'WA' tail code, and USAF FY-serial '86-022' on its > tail fins, but also a Pratt&Whitney (PW) logo on the port air-intake. > > The USAF FY-serial '86-0022' belongs of course to another Lockheed aircraft > from Marietta -- a C-5B, c/n 500-0108 -- the 108th C-5 and 27th C-5B built. > > I don't know if this was really the first prototype, which actually had the > General Electric (GE) engines installed, and which was used by Lockheed > Martin in Marietta, GA, for Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) > work, and which apparently didn't receive an official USAF serial, or if it > was actually the second prototype, which had PW engines, and which was used > as a pole model for RCS (Radar Cross Section) tests, after it crashed at > Edwards AFB, while carrying (the wrong?) USAF serial '87-0701' on its tail > (instead of the correct serial '87-0700'). While attending the GAT air show last month, I spoke to some Air Force personnel stationed at Nellis. They said the YF-22 on display did not have any engines and was a prototype that was not meant to fly. Hope this helps with one small clue. As far as the serial number, if it doesn't fly, is it an airplane?? Does the tailcode then have any meaning? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 13:07:38 -0400 From: "Timothy F. Poole, Jr." Subject: Andrews AFB Show results. This past weekend's show at Andrews AFB was a good one! Being the 50th Anniversary of the USAF, they really went all out. There were aerial demonstrations of a B-2, B1-B, C-17, T-33, F-104, a dogfight (later cancelled) between a MiG-15 and an F-86, and of course the Thunderbirds. On a more list related topic: There was NOT an appearance by the U-2 this year! This kind of struck me as odd. However, there was an appearance by an SR-71. This may explain the contrail sighting by Wayne Busse. Serial No. is AF 61971. Base designation is BB (is that Beale?). Even more interesting is the fact that it appeared that the numbers 61 were painted over the numbers 17. Does that make any sense to any of you? Also, how come the tires on the main gear on the SR-71 are a silver color while the tires on the nose gear are not? Here's something I hadn't seen before: There were guys (civilians)there in Lockheed-Martin Skunk Works coveralls answering questions for the crowd. Mary - can you shed some light on this? The pilot was available but was busy answering questions for the news camera. A picture of them will be posted. (See below for web site address.) There was also an F-117. Serial No. 82800. Base designation is HO (Holloman?) Funny thing about the F-117 is that it started to S-P-R-I-N-K-L-E rain around 1100 and you should have seen the mad rush to get it back inside its hangar! What was that about? Also, I noticed that the air intakes on this particular F-117 has a reddish tinge that I don't recall seeing before. Also, the starboard side intake had a kind of yellowish discoloration down through the middle of it. What may have caused that? I did get some good photos of it all and I will have then up on my site hopefully by the end of the day. I will have pictures of that discoloration as well, so if any of you can, please visit the site to try and answer that question for me. The pics should be at http://www.wdc2.com/airshow Thanks for your help! Timothy Poole We Do Computers 2, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 12:00:41 -0700 From: patrick@e-z.net Subject: Re: Andrews AFB Air Show results. Timothy F. Poole, Jr. wrote: > There was also an F-117. Serial No. 82800. Base designation is HO > (Holloman?) > Funny thing about the F-117 is that it started to S-P-R-I-N-K-L-E rain > around 1100 and you should have seen the mad rush to get it back inside its > hangar! What was that about? Also, I noticed that the air intakes on this > particular F-117 has a reddish tinge that I don't recall seeing before. There are a few myths about the F-117. The RAM is not an all weather surface. In fact they hate to fly the plane in any kind of wet weather, god forbid if a hailstorm was in the area. Flights out of Holloman are cancelled if rainstorms are nearby. Single T-38's are even sent out to actually observe the weather over the bombing ranges before allowing normal flying to begin. There are several planes assigned to Airshow duty each summer. These planes are meant to look good for the publics viewing. And when they come back from the paint shop they are a beautiful sight. But the RAM is fragile and a very labor intensive maintenance item on this plane. Operational aircraft flown regularly begin losing their luster immediately. The RAM fades to dark gray. Sections become ripped or torn or even tear off in flight. Other sections are removed for access to the planes interior and are not replaced or the repairs are temporary. Even repaired sections are not color matched. They can look quite shoddy before they go back in to see the people from MARS (Material Application and Repair Specialist). As far as the orange tint on the grilles covering the air intakes, I believe that is the normal weathered color. Thanks for the good report Tim. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 16:36:06 -0400 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com (GREG WEIGOLD) Subject: Re[2]: Andrews AFB Air Show results. Patrick, Are you sure the orange color isn't from the people from MARS ?? Sorry, Couldn't resist. Greg Weigold gregweigold@pmsc.com ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Andrews AFB Air Show results. Author: patrick@e-z.net at INTERNET Date: 5/22/97 12:00 PM Timothy F. Poole, Jr. wrote: > There was also an F-117. Serial No. 82800. Base designation is HO > (Holloman?) > Funny thing about the F-117 is that it started to S-P-R-I-N-K-L-E rain > around 1100 and you should have seen the mad rush to get it back inside its > hangar! What was that about? Also, I noticed that the air intakes on this > particular F-117 has a reddish tinge that I don't recall seeing before. There are a few myths about the F-117. The RAM is not an all weather surface. In fact they hate to fly the plane in any kind of wet weather, god forbid if a hailstorm was in the area. Flights out of Holloman are cancelled if rainstorms are nearby. Single T-38's are even sent out to actually observe the weather over the bombing ranges before allowing normal flying to begin. There are several planes assigned to Airshow duty each summer. These planes are meant to look good for the publics viewing. And when they come back from the paint shop they are a beautiful sight. But the RAM is fragile and a very labor intensive maintenance item on this plane. Operational aircraft flown regularly begin losing their luster immediately. The RAM fades to dark gray. Sections become ripped or torn or even tear off in flight. Other sections are removed for access to the planes interior and are not replaced or the repairs are temporary. Even repaired sections are not color matched. They can look quite shoddy before they go back in to see the people from MARS (Material Application and Repair Specialist). As far as the orange tint on the grilles covering the air intakes, I believe that is the normal weathered color. Thanks for the good report Tim. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 18:24:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Roger Chaffee -- a U-2 pilot? The following are excerpts from a Reuter article: >CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (Reuter) - Officials at the Astronaut Hall of Fame >said Wednesday they would admit Apollo 1 astronaut Roger Chaffee, settling >a dispute that threatened to tear apart the tight-knit U.S. astronaut >community. [...] >Chaffee, Gus Grissom and Ed White died on a launch pad in January 1967 >when fire swept through their sealed and pressurized spacecraft during a >countdown rehearsal before Chaffee was to have made his first space flight. [...] >The board changed its policy after Hall of Fame astronaut Gene Cernan, the >last man to walk on the moon, pressed for a compromise under which Chaffee, >an Air Force pilot who flew U-2s over Soviet missile bases during the Cuban >Missile Crisis, will be admitted to the hall for his ``significant >contribution to the space program.'' The fact that Chaffee was a U-2 pilot, and actually flew operational missions over Cuba, was new to me. His name does not appear in the list of U-2 pilots in Chris Pocock's book 'Dragon Lady'. Is the above a true statement? I tried to find some info on Chaffee on the NASA web servers, but couldn't find a biography. Any Comments? Chris? - -- 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: Thu, 22 May 1997 18:31:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: USAF Serial Numbers Thanks to Jim Rotramel for the list of some of 1964s missile purchases (I miss a lot of serial blocks assigned to missiles, and would love to get more!). I do believe the regular 1964 serials went up to 64-18270, though, the last 9 (64-18262 - 64-18270) being assigned to the 9 multi-national Hawker-Siddley XV-6A-HS Kestrels, of which the last three (64-18268 - 64-18270) were actually cancelled (not delivered). Albert H Dobyns wrote: >BUT I have copies of various SR-71 maintenance summaries and palnes are >always identified as 6179xx. There is no '4' between the '6' and '1'!! I don't know what these "SR-71 maintenance summaries" are, but I have seen, for example, several T-38A maintenance records, on which the serial number was printed incorrectly, showing instead a 'garbled' tail number. Actually, in the last five or so years, I have seen many aircraft without any serials or at least without the usual data-block under/behind the cockpit. I don't know if this is done on purpose or because of ignorance. I do have quite a bit literature about SR-71s, but apparently nothing old enough to show any SR-71s listed as "6179xx" or, for that matter, any other than "64-179xx" serials for SR-71s. Even the A-12s and YF-12s serials were usually listed correctly as "60-69xx". Those serials all fit in pretty good between others, like C-130Es and TH-55As. Non ACC (Air Combat Command) aircraft (usually) don't display a tail code, but show their tail number in a different way. The century-part of the fiscal year is omitted, as well as as the dash '-' between the fiscal year and the serial, and serial numbers below 1000 are usually prefixed with up to three Zeros '0'. Fiscal Year serials which are more than 10 years old are often prefixed with '0-', but that scheme is not always followed -- besides US Army aircraft, which usually comply. SR-71s never complied to any of those standards. US Army serials are another story, though, because starting in 1971, the serials run consequtive from 20000, and are not reset each fiscal year. That means it is virtually impossible to find out the Fiscal Year without looking at the data block. Before 1967, USAF and US Army serials were intermingled, while from 1967 to 1970, US Army serials always started at 15000 in each year. Of course, many US Army aircraft are also ordered with lower 'USAF' serials, like the Sikorsky YRAH-66A Comanche prototype '94-0327'. And there are always more exceptions, like transfers from the USAF/US Army to the USN/USMC or vice versa. The USN usually just shortens or amends the former USAF or US Army serial to 6 digits, and uses the resulting number as their new serial (BuAerNo-style), while the USAF often just kept the last four digits of the BuNo on the tail (like A-1s during Vietnam). Sometimes, transfered aircraft receive new serials from the new service, though. In a nutshell -- there are so many exceptions from quite a few different rules, that the SR-71s appear actually quite normal. :) - -- 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: Thu, 22 May 1997 18:36:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Nellis YF-22A Michael J. Poirier wrote: >While attending the GAT air show last month, I spoke to some Air Force >personnel stationed at Nellis. They said the YF-22 on display did not >have any engines and was a prototype that was not meant to fly. Hope >this helps with one small clue. Peter Merlin confirmed that the aircraft was the first prototype from Marietta, GA. The second one was considerably modified for RCS pole testing. The aircraft was flown 43 times and logged 52.8 flight hours before it became an EMD test article. The engines of all 4 AFT prototypes were re-used for other purposes, some of them for powered JAST/JSF-model testing. >As far as the serial number, if it doesn't fly, is it an airplane?? Does >the tailcode then have any meaning? Static airframes, designed from the outset not to fly, are often ordered with regular serial numbers, while many old airframes end their lives as (not-flightworthy) ground instructional trainers, with their designation prefixed with an "G" (like GA-10A or GF-16B). Those aircraft sometimes get new (or keep their old) tail markings. I would consider them aircraft. Another point would be mockups, like the powered sub-scale JAST/JSF models, built by Lockheed Martin, Boeing and MDC/Northrop Grumman. They are not real aircraft, and usually don't get serials -- but are often painted with mock markings. Perhaps these might not be considered aircraft, but... I am usually not so stringent. Now, are planned and cancelled aircraft, which only existed on paper, but which often received serial numbers, considered real aircraft? Maybe. :) - -- 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: Thu, 22 May 1997 20:49:50 -0400 From: "Timothy F. Poole, Jr." Subject: Andrews AFB Show. Sorry for the repost. The site with the pictures is up. The URL is http://www.wdc2.com/airshow I have pictures of the B2, SR-71 (serial #, front view, guys in coveralls, the logo on the coveralls), the F-117, the T-33, the P-51, the F-104, and the Thunderbirds. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 20:56:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: Blackbird serials The SR-71 serial numbers are nearly as annoying as the F-117 serials. All I can offer is that on all official documents I have seen, the number format uses "61" as the prefix. On a report dated 2 FEB 66, the serial number of the third SR-71 is given as "SN 61-7952." Later, it mentions that "SR-71, 61-7952, was airborne from Edwards..." Technical manuals dated 15 SEP 87 refer to "AF Serial No. 61-7950 thru 61-7962" and "AF Serial No. 61-7963 and subsequent." Apparently this system was used from the very beginning of the SENIOR CROWN program, and presumably still is. Peter W. Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 22:45:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Blackbird serials The problem with serial numbers in the "61-79xx" range for SR-71s is, that they are entirely possible. I don't know of any other aircraft (or missile) which would have any of those serials. The last sequential serial for 1961, that I have in my database is an H-23F ('61-3234'), and some higher numbers for 4 HH-34Ds ('61-4488' - '61-4491'). The numbers between may be occupied by missiles, though. I have two other 1961 serials, but I am not sure if they are correct: an HH-34D ('61-4529') and a UH-1A ('61-7170'). I belive the reference to those '61-79xx' serials in official papers is some sort of self-fulfilling curse, caused by: * the general secrecy surrounding the program; * the tail numbers on the aircraft -- which would suggest 1961 FY serials; * those serial numbers are not used by any other aircraft; * and the fact that nobody (but people like us) really cares, if those numbers are right or not. :) One other piece of evidence which gives additional credence to the 1964 FY-serials -- besides the relatively tight fit between C-130E '64-17949' and TH-55A '64-18001' -- is the time frame. The date of the contract/go-ahead from the USAF for the R-12 (SR-71), was March 19, 1963, with mock-up reviews on June 13/14, 1963 and December 11, 1963. There was no reason to back-date the serials of the production aircraft for 3 years -- instead the serials were most likely just added to the then current 1964 Fiscal Year. - -- 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: Fri, 23 May 1997 07:54:00 -0400 From: John Stone Subject: Re: Chaffee a U-2 pilot...... Andreas wrote: >The fact that Chaffee was a U-2 pilot, and actually flew operational missions >over Cuba, was new to me. His name does not appear in the list of U-2 pilots >in Chris Pocock's book 'Dragon Lady'. Is the above a true statement? > >I tried to find some info on Chaffee on the NASA web servers, but couldn't >find a biography. Any Comments? Chris? I also saw this but cannot find his name listed anywhere, hopefully Chris can shed some light on this! I'll also check some other early U-2 pilot sources. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 11:33:08 -0400 From: jck@scd.etn.com (Jason Koval) Subject: Chaffee = U-2 Pilot There is at least one place where Chaffee is discussed as a U-2 pilot that I am aware of...the video documentary on the US Space Program called "Moonshot" with Barry Corbin narrating as Deke Slayton. There is a short sequence discussing the Apollo 1 fire where Chaffee is discussed as a U-2 pilot who actually had flown over Cuba getting pix of the missiles there during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I certainly do not know if Chaffee was one of the pilots flying over Cuba, but this documentary made it sound like he was. Jason Koval ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 10:37:39 -0700 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: Blackbird serials Peter W. Merlin writes: >The SR-71 serial numbers are nearly as annoying as the F-117 serials ... >official documents I have seen, the number format uses "61" as the prefix. >... Andreas writes: >The date of the contract/go-ahead for the R-12 (SR-71), was March 19, 1963 >...mock-up reviews on June 13/14, 1963 and December 11, 1963. [First flight of 17950 on 22 Dec 64 -- Larry] >besides the relatively tight fit between C-130E '64-17949' and TH-55A >'64-18001' This is very interesting guys! At this point, I think we should ask someone official. Maybe they've made a mistake more than once (perhaps the leading '1' in '179XX' has been misinterpreted) or maybe they know something we don't know. If contract go-ahead was 3/19/63, why wouldn't it have a '63' serial. Anyway, this reminds me of the serial number puzzle around SMOF's D-21. It has been called by some Lockheed officials D-21 '510'. I don't know what Miller's 50th Anniv. Book calls it, but when I crawled all over that sucker and helped restore it, and removed pieces and stripped paint etc, that bird has '524' (handwritten) all over it, on most major pieces. I think part of the problem stems from a desire to have a bird that actually flew on M-21 '940' back then, but when the real '510' was found in the boneyard, she was in very bad shape with major pieces missing. On the other hand, '524' was very much intact with ramjet engine and all ... . The problems that historians have to deal with! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 14:17:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Blackbird serials Larry wrote: >If contract go-ahead was 3/19/63, why wouldn't it have a '63' serial. The (re-)design go-ahead for the USAF version was not necessarily at the same time that the (production) aircraft were actually ordered, which could have been much later. Anyway, the 1964 Fiscal Year started July 1, 1963 and ran till June 30, 1964. Any purchase order during this timeframe, or even orders before that date, which would have used FY 1964 money, should have resulted in the (probably later) assignment of 1964 FY-serials. The FY-part of the serial number is supposed to show from which FY the money for the aircraft came from. Since the 1980s, serials are sometimes assigned several years ahead, if the money is supposed to come from those future budgets. Those budgets can change of course, and aircraft are sometimes cancelled before production starts. On the other hand, serials are sometimes changed or re-assigned. For example the 2 VC-25As which were ordered as '86-8800' and '86-8900', were re-numbered '82-8000' and '92-9000', to create tail numbers and call signs in the form of '28000' and '29000', in line with the call signs of the former (V)C-137Cs '62-6000' and '72-7000' or '26000' and '27000' respectively. Other serials are assigned to match former civil registrations, like C-22Bs '83-4610', '83-4612', '83-4615' and '83-4616', which were ex-PanAm Airlines Boeing 727-100s (originally National Airlines Boeing 727-35), registered 'N4610', 'N4612', 'N4615' and 'N4616', respectively. The serials '83-4611', '83-4613' and '83-4614' never existed, maybe not even on paper as cancelled ones. Other FY-serials were obviously assigned to correspond with the msn or c/n (manufacturer serial number or construction number) of the aircraft, as in the case of the second batch of U-2Rs/TR-1s (Article '063' - '099', with FY-serials '80-1063' - '80-1099'), or the F-117As (Article '780' - '843'), which allegedly even have out-of order FY-serials assigned. - -- Andreas PS: Thanks also for the additional info on the D-21 at SMOF! - --- --- 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 #53 ******************************** 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