From: owner-skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V6 #58 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Thursday, June 19 1997 Volume 06 : Number 058 In this issue: Re: RoCAF U-2 site and BAR article EMD # 1 F-22A: Numbers Re: First X-38 Atmospheric Vehicle to Begin Flight Tests in July Re: First X-38 Atmospheric Vehicle to Begin Flight Tests in July Re: First X-38 Atmospheric Vehicle to Begin Flight Tests in July Re: First X-38 Atmospheric Vehicle to Begin Flight Tests in July Suscribe ASTRA spotting? Anyone care to comment? Re: ASTRA spotting? Anyone care to comment? Thoughts on Editors (If anyone cares) mail list Jeff Ethell SR-71 shock waves KC-135 Book US Availability missing skunks? MAVs Test F-22A EMD #1 Engine Runs Boscombe Downs Re: SR-71 shock waves Weird thing hanging under Blackbird 's wing re: Weird thing hanging under Blackbird 's wing Re: SR-71 shock waves RE: pointy thing under the wings. RE: pointy thing under the wings. Boeing Beta / Buzzard? "A-17" or F-22? 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, 05 Jun 1997 09:39:34 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: RoCAF U-2 site and BAR article At 03:12 PM 4/06/97 -0500, you wrote: >Finally, my hat's off to anyone who's published an article only to >discover that an editor somewhere has changed the text or captions, thus >making the author look foolish. I think it's a requirement for anyone who >publishes to have at least one major piece go from glory to goat because >of an editor. Oops! That represents my opinion! Sorry, folks. :) > >Robert Hopkins I just remember a quote from Mark Twain that fits perfectly: "No editor ever liked the taste of a story without pissing in it first." - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 97 18:23:43 PDT From: Schulk Schulke Subject: EMD # 1 F-22A: Numbers To interested readers of the skunk-works-digest: I just rambled over to the EMD F-22A (about 50 feet from my office) and copied down the following for the #1 EMD aircraft: On the tail(s), under the big "Raptor 01", it says "91-001." On the fuselage, just behind the cockpit, it says: "91-4001." This information is current at 7:30 EDT, 4Jun97. Schulk - ----------------------------------------- F-22 Name: Schulk Schulke \ / Ramblin' Wrek fm GaTech & Zoomie Engineer _____-/\-_____ E-mail: hulk@gelac.mar.lmco.com \_\/_/ - ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:42:29 -0700 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: First X-38 Atmospheric Vehicle to Begin Flight Tests in July >The design uses a >lifting body concept originally developed by the Air Force's X-24A project >in the mid-1970s. Following the jettison of a deorbit engine module, the >X-38 would glide from orbit unpowered like the Space Shuttle and then use >a steerable parafoil parachute for its final descent to landing. Hmmm. I've always wondered why they're doing the parafoil thing instead of the X-24A landing approach. Maybe it's because they can't count on a pilot being on board? The parafoil thing sounds like less of a white knuckle experience (although I think I would personally like HOT landings) but I really don't know if that is accurate. Does anyone know? Thanks in advance. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:53:34 -0700 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: First X-38 Atmospheric Vehicle to Begin Flight Tests in July >Hmmm. I've always wondered why they're doing the parafoil thing instead >of the X-24A landing approach. Maybe it's because they can't count on >a pilot being on board? Perhaps also availability of landing sites as well, but I'm not sure. Anyone know? Thanks again, Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 18:31:17 -0700 (PDT) From: "M. Studer" Subject: Re: First X-38 Atmospheric Vehicle to Begin Flight Tests in July Hey All, Didn't they think about using the parafoil on the Gemini spacecraft before deciding that a lot less can go wrong with a parachute + water landing approach? I know when I was a kid I saw concept drawings of such a set-up. .___________________________________________________________________ On Wed, 4 Jun 1997 larry@ichips.intel.com wrote: > > >The design uses a > >lifting body concept originally developed by the Air Force's X-24A project > >in the mid-1970s. Following the jettison of a deorbit engine module, the > >X-38 would glide from orbit unpowered like the Space Shuttle and then use > >a steerable parafoil parachute for its final descent to landing. > > Hmmm. I've always wondered why they're doing the parafoil thing instead > of the X-24A landing approach. Maybe it's because they can't count on > a pilot being on board? The parafoil thing sounds like less of a white > knuckle experience (although I think I would personally like HOT landings) > but I really don't know if that is accurate. Does anyone know? > > Thanks in advance. > > Larry > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 13:34:37 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: First X-38 Atmospheric Vehicle to Begin Flight Tests in July At 05:42 PM 4/06/97 -0700, you wrote: >Hmmm. I've always wondered why they're doing the parafoil thing instead >of the X-24A landing approach. Maybe it's because they can't count on >a pilot being on board? The parafoil thing sounds like less of a white >knuckle experience (although I think I would personally like HOT landings) >but I really don't know if that is accurate. Does anyone know? > >Thanks in advance. > >Larry AFAIK, the intention was to make the thing as automated as possible, with as wide a range of landing sites as possible - therefore the slower the better. Time in free orbit, detached from the station was the major criterion: a ballistic capsule would have to spend more time in orbit before a re-entry window opened up for it to make a splashdown, while a lifting body could land at a wide variety of airfields. The difference was several hours - apparently not much, but it made a crucial difference as to the cost and complexity and endurance of life-support and cooling systems. Also, as the vehicle is intended to be a lifeboat, there would be a possibility that no-one qualified to make a manual landing would be conscious or alive, hence low-speed, automated landings. - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 15:01:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Bman306@aol.com Subject: Suscribe suscribe skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 20:01:35 -0700 From: phraesius@rfhsm.ac.uk (gilbert blythe) Subject: ASTRA spotting? Anyone care to comment? Evening all I was catching up on the Nellis Airshow photographs last night and I suddenly remembered the following post I received a while back. My feeling was that it might have been a misidentification of an ASTRA derivative perhaps, but as I'm far less informed than others here, I thought I'd post it and ask for any comments. The sighting is from Wycliffe Wells in Australia and dates from June 1995. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Overlooking Wycliffe Wells* After several weeks of poking around, my sons and I spotted a totally silent craft with flashing lights passing directly overhead at perhaps 800 m - it is hard to estimate - just on 4 a.m. in the morning. I had seen these silent craft with flashing lights in the distance before. I got a good look at the craft and later identified it as a YF-23A, one of America's leading secret aircraft. It was flying in such a way as to roll slowly side to side in the sky at up to a 45 degree angle, quite different from any aircraft I had ever seen. So as it headed towards the south it was like this seen from behind about a minute apart each position: / - \ - / - I understand that this is a characteristic of a device called an SSR or side scanning radar, although in the dark I did not see the long slit that was undoubtedly in the underbelly of the plane. It was hunting! The silence of these U.S.-made spacecraft amazed me - for they are far more than aeroplanes! Much earlier a light aircraft on a routine run passed by in the far distance and the drone could be heard for ages in the still desert air. The ATF made no noise at all that I could detect. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So can anyone identify an aircraft capable of low-level silent running, that was flying in June '95 and could be mistaken at 4 am for a YF-23? Comments and suggestions greatly appreciated. Gil Blythe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 15:50:54 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: ASTRA spotting? Anyone care to comment? >I got a good look at the craft and later identified it as a YF-23A, one of >America's leading secret aircraft...I understand that this is a characteristic >of a device called an SSR or side scanning radar, although in the dark I did >not see the long slit that was undoubtedly in the underbelly of the plane. It >was hunting! ...The silence of these U.S.-made spacecraft amazed me - for they >are far more than aeroplanes! ...The ATF made no noise at all that I could detect. For a supposedly definite identification, this report is full of factual errors and contradictions. Too great a "noise" ratio for it to be of any use, as it has been heavily filtered through the witness' preconceptions. - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jun 97 05:57:44 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Thoughts on Editors (If anyone cares) Still haven't seen my article, hope it helps the program. Regardless of how the captions turned out, I think the editor deserves credit for going out on a limb and publishing it. A lot of av mags try and avoid controversy for fear of alienating someone who might have useful stuff in the future. That's one of the reasons you often read about the "rest of the story" about what's going on in the US in European magazines, and vice versa. I'll be electronically deaf and mute (I didn't want to say dumb because someone will point out I haven't needed a computer in th past to be that!) Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 16:25:17 -0700 From: RICHARDMORRISON Subject: mail list please include me to your mail list richard morrison ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 11:41:19 -0500 From: Tom Robison Subject: Jeff Ethell JEFF ETHELL DIES IN P-38 CRASH Noted aviation author and veteran pilot Jeffrey Ethell died Friday when the twin-engine Lockheed P-38 Lightning fighter he was piloting crashed in the Oregon woods south of the Tillamook Airport. Ethell, 49, whose biography lists 59 books and more than 1,000 magazine articles, had been attending an informal meeting of World War II P-38 pilots. Tom Atwood, associate publisher of "Flight," labeled Ethell's passing "a grievous blow to the flowering of aviation history in current and future years," noting that he was one of the most accomplished aviators of our time. Jeffrey Ethell is survived by his wife and three children. Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 15:51:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: SR-71 shock waves Here is a couple of real Skunk Works questions. I believe this questions can be answer only for those peoples involve in the SR-71 or A-12 design. If you are able to answer this questions, you will receive the Nobel Price of Skunk Works List ;) All questions is for the SR-71: 1) How many shock waves and Mach waves are generated by the SR-71 before the spike air intakes? 2) What will be consider the deflection angle of the pitot tube in front of the SR-71? 3) What is the angle, the fully contracted and extended length of the spikes (with respect to the edge of the air intake)? 4) I heard that the shock waves going inside of the air intake generate around 80% of the thurst of the aircraft. It is that true? 5) Anyone know where I can get any real pics of SR-71 with shock waves (models in wind tunnel test)? 6) Which is the most accurate (in proportion) three views of the SR-71 for all books known? I will appreciate if you give me the references of your answer(s) whenever you can :) I think the aero peoples know what the heck I am trying to do. Thanks in advances... Just keeping the list busy :) May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net Nicklas' Law of Aircraft Identification: "If it's ugly, it's British; if it's weird, it's French; and if it's ugly and weird, it's Russian." Brian Nicklas ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 10:41:04 -0700 From: patrick Subject: KC-135 Book US Availability As an unabashed and ardent admirer of Dr. Bob I am reprinting this letter that he has sent to all those on his news list. As I have indicated before, the "More Than..." part of the book should prove to be most enlightening if the name Cobra Ball means anything to you. ================================================================== > >Hello! > >As I told you recently, the book _Boeing KC-135 More Than Just a Tanker_ is >on schedule for release in the UK at the 19 July RAF Fairford Open House. >Today I learned the price and availability here in the United States. > >Specialty Press Publishers (800) 895-4585 will distribute the book, and a >call to their 800 number this morning indicated they will release the book >in August. They were willing to take pre-delivery orders over the phone. >The price will be $42.95 plus shipping, tax, etc., somewhat less than the >estimated $49.95 originally anticipated. In a related matter, a special >limited-edition series of the book will be available in a hard-back format, >and of these 135 (where did I get THAT number) will be autographed by the >author and at least two of the most notable people involved in the KC-135 >program and operations. Details on these special editions will be >forthcoming. > >I am very excited about seeing the book next month, and after previewing >the final galleys I feel confident that you'll be pleased with the easily >readable text, the large photographs, and the exhaustive references. > >Best Regards, > >Robert "DrBob" Hopkins > > >=============================================================== (Dr. Bob did you get my address where I want my free copy sent?) patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:42:07 -0400 From: Ron and Louise Crawford Subject: missing skunks? Received a phone call from the UK yesterday asking if I could provide information on an unidentified USAF aircraft which went into the drink off the coast there. From his description this was a catastrophic crash, with an explosion at impact. Does anyone have any info on that? Reason I'm posting was that the caller, a police officer, said he had heard it was an "Aurora" and that the area within sight of the crash site had been cordoned off. Naturally I can't vouch for his aircraft recognition skills, or even the actual event. I did the obvious and scanned the newswires and web sites for any news of crashes, but the only such events cited concerned candidates for high posts. Those citations were more of a fun, frolic, and hope no one checks nature, although a newspaper editor to whom I spoke thought the story might work its way to the classified section shortly. Ron Crawford ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 17:19:35 -0400 From: Frank Markus Subject: MAVs I found the following in a list of items in the current Jane's News Briefs (which summarizes the contents of the current Jane's Defense Weekly.) It thought that it might be of interest to the list: Micro machine study for USA The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is to allocate $35 million for the design of tiny "micro air vehicles" (MAVs) through to the year 2000. Less than 15cm in height, width and length, MAVs could affordably fulfill [sic] a wide range of military missions. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 08:20:33 -0700 From: habu@why.net Subject: Test Fellow Skunkers, After several days of being unable to connect to my mail server, I was finally able to download my mail this morning. There were no posts from the list (unusual but not unheard of), and several posts to/from people that were obviously not intended for me. My provider has evidently hosed their mail server... Could someone please tell me how to access the archives? (private replies are fine) (assuming my provider delivers them to *me*!) (assuming this request even gets to the list!!!) Thanks, Greg Fieser (Ticked in Texas) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Jun 97 11:09:50 PDT From: Schulk Schulke Subject: F-22A EMD #1 Engine Runs Fellow Skunkers: F-22A EMD #1 ran both of its Pratt & Whitney F-119 engines at Flight Idle RPM today (only one at a time so far -- for almost half an hour, each). The F-119s are impressive noise-makers! I hope that the video tape of the initial orange ball of flame from each of the "pickled" engines (preserved with lightweight oil after their runs on a test stand) gets to the outside world, some day! Schulk - ----------------------------------------- F-22 Name: Schulk Schulke \ / Ramblin' Wrek fm GaTech & Zoomie Engineer _____-/\-_____ E-mail: hulk@gelac.mar.lmco.com \_\/_/ - ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 09:23:39 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Boscombe Downs The current issue of Air Forces Monthly has taken an interesting approach to their recent articles. They have turned it over to the readers for their current analysis. They have printed a half dozen responses from the full spectrum which ranges from debunkers to conspiracy theorists. Once again, there appear to be some very aware civilians in England who are very familiar with standard procedures and operations of military flying in their country. And they seem to have their share of the group who believes "all they tell us are lies and denials therefore it only proves all of our beliefs". It is the belief of several readers, based on the best evidence they can gather, that there is no secret airplane whatsoever involved in this "incident". It is merely a collection of unrelated events strung together to make it appear to be something which it isn't. It began when a helicopter practice device that simulates moving deck landings was placed near the end of the runway, maybe even up to 2 weeks previous to the "event". It may be an old Harrier rig to do the same. It has 2 vertical components and was covered with a tarp. What triggered it all was a Tornado working a nearby range towing a secret target device which hung up in the towed position. The plane requested a landing at Boscombe with the target still in tow. This caused the tower to alert the civilian authorities to close the roads on the approach to the runway. The reason being the target flies at a lower altitude than the towing aircraft. This precipitated all the enthusiasts to converge at the other end of the field. The Tornado landed and taxied from view. But attention now was being paid to the device under the tarpaulins. Their is some minor disagreement over the C5A landing. It appears that only 2 that year may have landed but not after the event. The civilian jet was there to pick up a "VIRP" (very important and rich person) who was on a golfing junket. The 737 was found to have traceable registration numbers and not anything mysterious. Even the Mangusta Helo was on a simple training flight from another base. The letters are quite interesting to read and some discuss AFM's theory that the Astre aircraft they are talking about in England is really an electronic recon version of the YF-23. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 03:52:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: SR-71 shock waves On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Wei-Jen Su wrote: > A-12 design. If you are able to answer this questions, you will receive > the Nobel Price of Skunk Works List ;) Well... looks like nobody even got nominate for the Nobel Price of Skunk Works List from my last week questions :( Reasons: Or I shoot too many questions, or nobody in the list know the answers, or the answers is still classified since some of the answers will lead to know the real maximun speed of SR-71 aerodynamically (not thermodynamically) was designed for. Well... here is a easy, controversial (maybe stupid) question: Does the SR-71 has a autodestruction devise that can be set from "ground base"?? Something similar to the movie DARLY (don't remember how to spell correctly) years ago... Notes that even for the USAF, it is really hard to intercept the Blackbird (even with the best fighter of her time, the F-15). Maybe it is possible with another SR-71... but it will not be arm on time in case of a "emergency". May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net Nicklas' Law of Aircraft Identification: "If it's ugly, it's British; if it's weird, it's French; and if it's ugly and weird, it's Russian." Brian Nicklas ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 09:51:44 -0300 From: fsalles@trip.com.br (Felipe Salles) Subject: Weird thing hanging under Blackbird 's wing I'm quickly catching up my skunky reading: after Ben Rich's book I started Curtiss Peebles' immediately. In one of them there's a picture of the first YF-12A with a large black colored 'pointy' pod under the left wing on a short pylon. It looks like an extra-fat toothpick :) What is (was) it? I found no reference whatsoever inside my books on this item... It looks weird specialy considering the trouble that Lockheed went through to deal with Blackbird's speed and temperature. Could it be an ECM pod? Thanks for your insights.. :) Felipe Salles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 97 8:57:47 nA From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: Weird thing hanging under Blackbird 's wing Felipe: Those were probably the cameras mounted to photograph missile seperation during the launch tests. Art Hanley Confess! Are these really his employer's positions? No! No! A Thousand times No! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 15:04:45 -0700 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: SR-71 shock waves > Well... looks like nobody even got nominate for the Nobel Price of >Skunk Works List from my last week questions :( ... >some of the answers will lead to know the real maximun speed of SR-71 >aerodynamically ... . We have discussed this Su Wei-Jen at least 3 times before in the past. Unfortunately I don't have my supporting data on the computer any longer, but the answer still works out to around Mach 3.2. I think we even discussed how to arrive at the same answer via CIT or Compressor Inlet Temperature. Any property bounded at cruise is a viable candidate. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 97 20:09:26 EDT From: JOHN SZALAY Subject: RE: pointy thing under the wings. > Subj: Weird thing hanging under Blackbird 's wing > > I'm quickly catching up my skunky reading: after Ben Rich's book I > started Curtiss Peebles' immediately. In one of them there's a picture > of the first YF-12A with a large black colored 'pointy' pod under the > left wing on a short pylon. > > It looks like an extra-fat toothpick :) What is (was) it? I found no > reference whatsoever inside my books on this item... > > It looks weird specialy considering the trouble that Lockheed went > through to deal with Blackbird's speed and temperature. > > Could it be an ECM pod? Nope Camera pod for filming missile launch first carried on "934" If you look close you will see another mounted under the other engine as well, you may also see another picture of another cylinder under main fuselage, this was the "Coldwall" nitrogen experiment. believe that one was flown on "935" with "937" as chase plane. Source: SR-71 Blackbird in action ( Squadron/signal publications) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 08:38:22 -0700 From: Erik Hoel Subject: RE: pointy thing under the wings. On Monday, June 16, 1997 5:09 PM, JOHN SZALAY [SMTP:jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com] wrote: > > Subj: Weird thing hanging under Blackbird 's wing > > > > I'm quickly catching up my skunky reading: after Ben Rich's book I > > started Curtiss Peebles' immediately. In one of them there's a picture > > of the first YF-12A with a large black colored 'pointy' pod under the > > left wing on a short pylon. > > > > It looks like an extra-fat toothpick :) What is (was) it? I found no > > reference whatsoever inside my books on this item... > > > > It looks weird specialy considering the trouble that Lockheed went > > through to deal with Blackbird's speed and temperature. > > > > Could it be an ECM pod? > > Nope Camera pod for filming missile launch first carried on "934" > If you look close you will see another mounted under the other engine as > well, you may also see another picture of another cylinder under main > fuselage, this was the "Coldwall" nitrogen experiment. believe that one > was flown on "935" with "937" as chase plane. > > Source: SR-71 Blackbird in action ( Squadron/signal publications) For a little more info on Coldwall, goto the following for a text description and a nice image of the plane in flight: http://www.dfrf.nasa.gov/History/Publications/SP-4303/ch9-5.html Erik - -- Erik Hoel _|_| Environmental Systems Research Institute ehoel@esri.com _|_| 380 New York Street 909-793-2853 tel Redlands, CA 92373-8100 909-307-3067 fax ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:43:57 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Boeing Beta / Buzzard? Dan, this might interest you. There is a good site here in New Zealand that is an archive of spacecraft images, at http://hungerford.chch.cri.nz/k/st.html As a recent addition to the misc. images page at http://hungerford..../k/stmisc.html, there are images of the Boeing Beta concept patent application. Its relevance to Buzzard is obvious. Worth a link, methinks. - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 10:05:29 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: "A-17" or F-22? This from the Aviation Week Paris Air Show special site. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Down, Up, Down, Up as Pentagon Shifts Plans for F-22 Purchases "The Pentagon taketh away, and the Pentagon giveth." That may well be the lesson of the year for Lockheed Martin and its F-22 fighter. Weeks after the U.S. Defense Department's Quadrennial Defense Review recommended slashing the F-22 purchase requirement from 442 to 348 aircraft, by eliminating one wing of air superiority fighters, the U.S. Air Force is preparing a plan to acquire not one, but two additional F-22 wings to replace F-117 and F-15E aircraft. The move would boost F-22 production to well over 500 aircraft. While the F-22's that the possibility of replacing the heavy payload F-15E has been backed at the higher levels of the USAF. The plan has the backing of Air Combat Command chief Gen. Richard Hawley, and Defense Secretary William Cohen has indicated that he "would look favorably" on the idea, said Lockheed Martin Aeronautical President Micky Blackwell. Modifications to the F-22 to perform the strike role would be minor, Blackwell said. Outer lines and structure would be unchanged. Sensors might be modified (Lockheed Martin is working on the design of a stealthy installation for an infrared sensor), but most of the changes would involve the fighter's software. "We have already wired the wing, and we have space for new sensors," said Blackwell. "It's not a can-opener job." Meanwhile, in Marietta, Georgia, Lockheed Martin is working around the clock to prepare the first F-22 for its first flight. Informally, the target date is June 27. The F-22 is undergoing maintenance in preparation for full-power engine runs, which will be followed by taxi trials. BAe statements that the F-22 is twice the price of the Eurofighter are "out of the question," said Blackwell. The F-22 price, he says, is "in the same order of magnitude" as its competitors, given that it is a larger aircraft. A joint USAF/industry team has completed a review of F-22's costs, an exercise ordered late last year after it became apparent that differences between U.S. government and industry estimates of inflation rates would cause the fighter to cost more than expected. The team has recommended a number of actions--including multi-year procurement, investments in more efficient production, and a switch to contractor maintenance of the avionics--which should make the aircraft cost less than Lockheed proposed in 1990, Blackwell said. By Bill Sweetman - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This would seem to make the "A-17" redundant in future production plans. Assuming that it ever existed even in prototype form. It may be possible that Northrop tried a one-off YF-23 derived demonstrator, but in light of this, and what other people have said on this list (sorry, I have a terrible memory for names), the evidence for there being a production programme for such an aircraft looks increasingly slim. Lockheed Martin would not be spending money if it thought that it was wasting its time. A note on the sensor suite of the strike variant of the F-22. IR was part of the original requirement, but was deleted due to cost constraints (as was thrust reversing). They did, however leave space in the design, I guess. If you look at images of the first aircraft (NOT the YF-22), you will notice a sort of humped effect where the front of the canopy meets the upper surface of the nose. I would guess that is where it goes - right where it is on the MiG-29 and Su-27 families. - --Brett ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #58 ******************************** 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