From: owner-skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V6 #62 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, July 10 1997 Volume 06 : Number 062 In this issue: suscribe skunk works More Pop Mech critique Re: More Pop Mech critique Re: More Pop Mech critique Senate Rejects Base Closings X-38 vs. HL-20 New Area 51 "joke" ? F-117A accident Orion - spy in the sky Re: LO F-16s in WAPJ 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, 08 Jul 1997 16:15:27 -0700 From: DSW Subject: suscribe skunk works ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 00:24:44 -0400 (EDT) From: ConsLaw@aol.com Subject: More Pop Mech critique Larry wrote: >I actually have respect for PM as they haven't gotten sucked into the >black aircraft craze as badly PS has, for example. They have proven that >they attempt to be critical thinkers instead of believing every black aiplane >claim that is made by one of the 'official' black airplane writers. I don't think this is exactly true. As I recall,about a year before the PS Aurora article by Sweetman (which preceded the Groom Lake article of March 1994), Popular Mechanics wrote an article about black world aircraft in general which had full color artists' renditions of a panoply of aircraft like the Pumpkin Seed, Tier-3 , and many others which have just died away. PM may have had less coverage of black aircraft recently, but both mags have written about speculative aircraft since before there were aircraft. Both reported on jet powered planes before World War II. BTW, Lockmart is about to become Lockmartnortgrum and nobody has anything to say about it? I don't have any special expertise, but it seems like consolidation is getting a little out of hand. Steve Hofer conslaw@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 22:02:13 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: More Pop Mech critique >BTW, Lockmart is about to become Lockmartnortgrum and nobody has anything to >say about it? I don't have any special expertise, but it seems like >consolidation is getting a little out of hand. > >Steve Hofer >conslaw@aol.com ==================================================================== At this point I wouldn't be totally opposed to the idea of the AF putting everything on the auction block and turning the keys over to the Boeing/LockMart Syndicate (Sorry "Ike", it had to happen sooner or later!) and telling them to guarantee nothing falls out of the sky on our head, you figure out the best way. We can eliminate the middleman and the boys in blue can concentrate on what they love best. Whacking that little white ball around on all their golf links. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 17:41:11 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: More Pop Mech critique At 12:24 AM 10/07/97 -0400, Steve wrote: >BTW, Lockmart is about to become Lockmartnortgrum and nobody has anything to >say about it? I don't have any special expertise, but it seems like >consolidation is getting a little out of hand. > I have no expertise whatsover, so I'll comment. It's certainly giving the Europeans the willies. There is talk of accelerating the corporatisation/whatever of Airbus - at present it is just a consortium. As for the other companies, at a national level (with the exception of France) it has gone about as far as it can go: Daimler Benz Aerospace (owned by the car maker) is an amalgam of MBB, and all of the other German companies, British Aerospace is what used to be Hawker, Siddely (spelling?), Supermarine, BAC, and so on - maybe they'll merge with Vickers eventually. Engine makers are moving towards co-operation: BMW is working with Rolls Royce (the engine-maker, which is a separate entity from the car manufacturer, which is owned by Vickers). There is currently a fuss over the status of Dassualt (sp?) in France, and that may possibly end up merging with Aerospatiale. What I would see as an impediment to further consolidation is nationalism - The EU is not a superstate, Tory Eurosceptics aside - and the perceived loss of national companies may slow this process where the state has a stake in some companies. There may be full mergers, say between British Aerospace and Daimler Benz Aerospace, or empire building, as is the case with European car manufacturers: VW, for example, has bought Skoda in the Czech Republic and SEAT in Spain and is adopting a common component policy and FIAT owns virtually everything Italian except Lamborghini, which was in the hands of Indonesians, the last I heard. However, the economies of car manufacture - model range, development and numbers - obviously do not apply for aircraft! As for multinational projects, the Jaguar and Concorde had their problems, Panavia is, I think (please correct me someone!) being absorbed into Eurofighter. The funding for that is famously contentious, with the Germans causing a lot of delays. The Future Large Aircraft ("Euro-Hercules") is a nightmare. The problem with European industry is that these co-operative projects are ad-hoc, single-model and co-ordinated politically, rather than being autonomous companies with the assurance of income from a range of models. As such, they are a lesson in how NOT to manage pan-European aerospace. There are co-op marketing deals for export markets - BAe doesn't see the Griffin as being in competition with anything it is involved in, and is throwing its marketing weight behind that for the Swedes where it can't sell Hawks or Tornadoes. Summary? Europe does not have a co-ordinated defence policy or force structure, which leads to several relatively small markets, while advanced aerospace is increasingly dependent upon the economies of scale to be viable. Also, European nations seem more likely to buy American as a second choice after indigenous suppliers instead of other European nations - the RAF, RN, Luftwaffe, the Italian Air Force and so on have bought American, but the RAF and Royal Navy won't fly French. These are the essential tensions in Europe. Prognosis? Expect mergers soon: DASA+BAe for starters perhaps, or BAe+Vickers. If Airbus becomes a proper company in its own right, it may end up being snapped up by one of the larger companies. There may be European buyouts or co-ops with ex-Soviet bureaus-turned-companies too... Lockheed Martin Northrop Grumman Nabisco Microsoft Apple Paul Newman's Own Uncle Tom Cobleigh and All-Sukhoi might be politically unacceptable in Russia, but a DASA-Tupelov or whatever might not be too ridiculous. Defence alliances and structures and policies may operate more in parallel and synergy, but I can't imagine the formation of a European Air Force as a customer any time soon. However, with the expansion of NATO into former Soviet Bloc areas, markets will expand - Czechs, Poles and Hungarians buying Eurofighters instead of MiG 29s and so on. As for types of aircraft, affordability has become an issue much sooner in Europe, with multirole aircraft being the preferred solution: Tornado variants fulfil roles that were once performed by aircraft as diverse as Lancasters and Spitfires! The USA seems to be about the last country to field a new heavy strategic bomber, and that may go the way of the battleship. UCAVs are being looked at as a Tornado replacement by the RAF, but I've read that there are legal problems with overflights of populated areas by vehicles without direct human control - Europe is much more densely populated than the USA, and this is a major issue (e.g., German Cold War jokes: A tactical nuclear weapon is one that lands on Germany. Q: How do you get a Starfighter? A: Buy a field and wait). Maritime patrol looks like being their initial province. Implications? Worrying, as it represents the spiraling costs of advanced aircraft and a de facto drift towards monopolies and captive markets. While competition would become even fiercer, the reduction in the total number of players would almost certainly mean that there must be a decline in general diversity: opponents can often become too closly matched and their products become essentially the same, with different trim options. Someone tell me what the difference between Boeing and Airbus airliners, or McDonalds and Burger King ... burgeroids ... is, for example. Libertarians worry about the power of states, but virtually anyone can vote for a President or Prime Minister with the same authority, while you have to be a major stockholder to have an influence on a corporation. Nixon was forced to resign, but Robert Maxwell wasn't. This then leads into debate over whether Transnationals become surrogate states, analogues of Italian Renaissance autocrats or whatever, and whether they can be influence by ordinary people or their employees. That though, is (a) off-charter, and (b) far outside my competence, so that I won't have anything more to say on the issue. All of the information here is the all-I-know-is-what-I-read-in-the-papers variety, and thus unreliable. I am commenting on European business from a small country in the South Pacific with about eighty million sheep and three and a half million people. Go figure, and see fit to correct. You can tell that there's a lot of other work that I should be doing. - --Brett (blah blah blah blah blah blah blah) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 14:44:40 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Senate Rejects Base Closings >>>> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 14:33:01 -0700=20 From: patrick =20 To: patrick@e-z.net=20 Subject: Senate Rejects Base Closings=20 http://www.abcnews.com/sections/us/ap_baseclosings709/index.html=20 <<How JD Gaff & Co. Built a Bridge to Australia=20 arial3333,6666,ccccA Top Priority of Clinton and Joint Chiefs Voted Down Overwhelmingly=20 Senate Rejects Base Closings=20 < =20 < arialE-mail ABCNEWS.com arial3333,3333,3333 Senators distrusted the promised savings and distrusted Clinton based on how he handled past base closures The Associated Press arial3333,6666,cccc<= /param>W A S H I N G T O N =97 The Senate overwhelmingly rejected one of President Clinton=92s top defense priorities Wednesday, voting down a measure to hold two more base closing rounds in 1999 and 2001. The 66-33 vote came against the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said the billions of dollars that would be saved by closing bases would go toward badly needed new weapon systems. But base closings have long been one of the most sensitive issues on Capitol Hill, where members jealously guard the home-state jobs the military installations provide. And Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., reminded his colleagues of that Wednesday, handing out a list as they were voting=97broken down by state=97of which military installations would be most vulnerable in future rounds. =93I just want to ask my colleagues, whether they be from California or Connecticut or Georgia or Minnesota or my own state or any other state, take a look at what=92s on this list. Think of what you=92ve already been through,=94 Lott said. =93Do you want that?=94=20 helvetica"3333,6666,cccc Cohen Makes Plea =20 It was not a hard question to answer for two-thirds of the Senate. Defense Secretary William Cohen, who recalled his own battles to save home-state bases from his days as a Maine senator, urged lawmakers to authorize more closings as a way to free up defense dollars for new weapons. =93The department (of defense) estimates two additional base closure rounds would result in savings of approximately $2.7 billion annually,=94 Cohen wrote in a letter to Senate leaders. =93These savings are critical to the department=92s modernization plans.=94 =20 helvetica"3333,6666,cccc A =9324-Star Letter=94 =20 In what Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., called a =9324-star letter,=94 the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote that while military manpower has declined by 36 percent since the end of the Cold War, the nation=92s domestic base structure has declined by only 26 percent. =93We strongly support further reductions in base structure proposed by the secretary of defense,=94 the chiefs wrote. Two key factors worked against the administration=92s position: distrust of the promised savings and distrust of Clinton based on how he handled past base closures. Lawmakers repeatedly raised questions about the savings the Pentagon promised from base closing rounds. =20 helvetica"3333,6666,cccc Different Politicians Use Different Math =20 Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., the Senate minority leader, said that in the last= three series of closures, the Pentagon predicted a net savings of $3= billion. The actual result, in part due to the costs of cleaning up the= closed bases environmentally, was a net cost of $143 million. Those figures drew a derisive reaction from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.,= who sponsored the base closing proposal along with Levin and other= lawmakers. He pointed to the =93Orwellian logic=94 of arguing that keeping= bases open could actually save money.=20 =94We=92re now debating whether closing a base will save money or not,= =94 McCain said. =93I=92m frankly astonished.=94=20 = helvetica"3333,6666,cccc Election Season Move Haunts Clinton= =20 The other factor working against Clinton was his own decision in 1995 to= try to reverse the impact of that year=92s base closure commission to close= two major warplane maintenance centers in Sacramento, Calif., and San= Antonio, Texas. After the commission ordered those bases closed, Clinton, concerned= about job losses in two important presidential election states, proposed a= plan to convert the maintenance jobs to the private sector under a program= called =93privatization in place.=94 Lawmakers from Utah, Oklahoma and Georgia, whose bases stood to gain as= a result of the California and Texas closures, were incensed. =93That=92s not privatization in place,=94 said Sen. Don Nickles,= R-Okla., =93That=92s electoral politics. It=92s a real shame that he= introduced electoral politics in the base closure process. The actual Senate vote was for a substitute offered in place of the= measure seeking two more base closing rounds. The substitute requires the= government to study the impact of past base closures before new closure= rounds are ordered. The substitute now becomes part of the 1998 defense= authorization bill, which is still pending before the Senate. Four previous rounds of base closings resulted in 98 major bases being= ordered shut down. By 2001, those closures will result in a net savings of= $13.5 billion, according to the Pentagon. After 2001 they will produce= annual savings of $5.6 billion, by Defense Department estimates.=20 Copyright 1997 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This= material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or= redistributed. =20
arialCopyright 1997= ABCNews and Starwave Corporation. All rights reserved. This material may= not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed in any form.= =20 <<#top> =20
<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 19:11:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: X-38 vs. HL-20 Does anybody care to comment on the demise of the HL-20, and why this vehicle was abandoned in favor of the less sophisticated, smaller "X-35", which was later designated X-38? Actually, the X-38 is only a test vehicle for the actual CRV, like the X-33 is only a sub-orbital test vehicle of the STO RLV Venture Star. - -- 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, 10 Jul 1997 19:17:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: New Area 51 "joke" ? I have to disagree with Larry regarding the notion that the author of the PM article was joking, when he wrote that Area 51 had been closed down. He used more than half of the article to show that Area 51 had been abandoned, and repeatedly points out why (in his opinion) that was done, throughout the article. I don't want to discuss all the strange and sometimes even ridiculous assumptions the author makes and conclusions he draws, but the article seems to me even less credible or useful than the AFM article(s) about the Boscomb Down incident. To make an analogy: Only because Groom Lake was one of several (emergency) landing sites for the X-15 program, nobody would have suggested in the early 1960s that Edwards AFB was supposed to be shut down, all operations were supposed to be moved to Nellis AFB, and the X-15 was supposed to be used as an operational, secret, strategic reconnaissance aircraft. While PM is claiming something like that for Michael AAF, the X-33 as a sub-orbital satellite launcher, and Area 51 to be moved to their so-called "Area 6413". - -- Andreas (just a little bit skeptical, today) - --- --- 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, 10 Jul 1997 19:21:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: F-117A accident Has anybody heard anything further regarding the Class A mishap at Holloman AFB, NM, on June 5, 1997, which involved an F-117A? The only information I have is that the pilot, Maj. Jonathan E. Bachman, was injured when the aircraft overshot the runway and all landing gears collapsed, resulting in extensive airframe damage (of $1 million or more). My questions include: * Serial number (or tail number) of the aircraft; :) * Unit of the aircraft and or the pilot; * Condition/injuries of the pilot; * Preliminary cause of the accident; * Will the aircraft be repaired or is it a write-off (unlikely); Also, were the other two F-117As involved in accidents at Holloman AFB, (824 on 04/05/1995 and 843 during 1996), both of which burned, finally repaired or written off? - -- 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, 10 Jul 1997 19:23:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Orion - spy in the sky Even 37 years after Gary Powers was shot down, Lockheed-built reconnaissance aircraft are still worth a diplomatic protest from the Kremlin. :) Russia's Foreign Ministry issued an angry statement last Tuesday saying a P-3 Orion, which is carrying out geological research over resource-rich Kazakh territory adjoining Russia, has spy equipment on board. "A dangerous precedent of using the territory of one CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) state to spy on other states is being created. We expect that the flights of the U.S. Orion P-3 plane over the territory adjoining the Russian Federation will be stopped without delay," the statement said. Press Attache Karen Williams said the Orion's scientific flights, which started June 24, will be carried out until July 11. The geographical surveys were a joint project involving Kazakhstan's Ministry of Science, the U.S. Department of Energy and a number of U.S. research laboratories, she said. She said besides flights over the Central Asian state's southern Almaty region the plane was also researching areas in the northeastern Semipalatinsk region which borders Russia. Williams said flights over Semipalatinsk were to study environmental effects of the former Soviet Union's weapons testing areas, including nuclear sites, which sprawl for hundreds of miles. - -- 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, 10 Jul 1997 19:36:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: LO F-16s in WAPJ Greg Fieser wrote (some time ago): >The latest World Air Power Journal (WAPJ Vol 29) has a couple of >interesting photos of F-16s being tested at LMTAS in Ft Worth. >One photo shows LMTAS test airframe 83-1120 (an early F-16C) with >a new serpentine intake. There is a prominent bulge on the underside >of the fuselage (kind of like the shock cones on an F-104) and the >intake is larger, lower, and has a scalloped leading edge. The aircraft >appears to be landing, so the mod is flying. Given the lead time of >the magazine and the appearance of the background vegetation, this >shot is probably 3-6 months old. I think I know who the photographer >was too... :) >The next photo shows an F-16C with "tail number" 00-ALC. This airframe >is the testbed for the Low Observable Axisymmetric Nozzle (LOAN), an >F100-PW-100 with a thrust vectoring nozzle with sawtooth edges on the >'turkey feathers'. The engine also incorporates a reduced IR signature. >I don't know if this is a flying airframe (given the SerNo), and the >photo shows 00-ALC in full burner at night during ground runs. This >looks like an internal LMTAS publicity photo. Here is some additional info on those (and other) F-16s modified for testing: * F-16C-5..-CF '93-.702'; - '93', '702', 'ED' on tail; - operational with 416th TS (or FLTS), 412th OG, 412th TW, AFFTC, AFMC, at Edwards AFB, CA; - used for break-chute tests; * F-16C-..-CF '..-....'; - 'F-16 EJECTOR NOZZLE', 'LOAN', 'Lockheed Martin' (plus 'LM' logo), 'OO-ALC', and 'PW' logo on tail; - used for PW "LOAN" (Low Observable Axisymmetric Nozzle) with F100-PW-200 engine (not -100 as stated in WAPJ) at LMTAS, Fort Worth, TX, November 1996, under the JSF test program; - the "OO-ALC" on the tail is not a serial number -- apparently the aircraft does not display its USAF serial -- but is the abbreviation for: Ogden Air Logistics Center, 75th ABW, Hill AFB, UT -- other ALCs are: OC-ALC = Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker AFB, OK; SA-ALC = San Antonio Air Logistics Center, Kelly AFB, TX; SC-ALC = Sacramento Air Logistics Center, McClellan AFB, CA; WR-ALC = Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, Robins AFB, GA; - the LMTAS press release regarding the LOAN tests can be found at: http://www.lmtas.com/press/jsfpr-1.html - contrary to what WAPJ writes, there is no plan to fly the LOAN on that (or any other) F-16; * F-16C-30-CF '85-1440'; - '85', '440', 'LOBOS', wolf drawing, and 'SOUTH DAKOTA' on tail; - operational with 175th FS, 114th FG, 114th FW, SD ANG, Joe Foss Field, Sioux Falls, SD; - used for GE "LO Axis" nozzle with F110-GE-100 engine; - the "LO Axis" was tested on a test-stand at Edwards AFB, April 1996; - ground-tested in F-16 at Joe Foss Field, Sioux Falls, SD, in July 1996, also under the JSF program (more than 8 hr., including 3 min. in full afterburner); - this one is not mentioned in WAPJ, though; * F-16C-25-CF '83-1120'; - '83', '120', big LM logo, 'Lockheed Martin' (plus 'LM' logo), and 'GE' logo on tail; - used for low observable intake, and before that as F-16ES demonstrator; - formerly operational with 416th TS (or FLTS), 412th OG, 412th TW, AFFTC, AFMC, at Edwards AFB, CA; - the AW&ST from Feb. 17, 1997, has a photo (by Andy Wolf) of this aircraft under "News breaks" (on page 19), with the following caption: - "A Lockheed Martin F-16 modified with an advanced propulsion system inlet prepares to land at the company's Fort Worth facility. The proprietary inlet features a pointed lower lip and bulbous, contoured upper surface that probably reduce the aircraft's front-aspect radar reflectivity. Company officials said the design is applicable to future tactical aircraft. Testing was completed earlier this year." - it appears to me that the aircraft had at this point in time a standard F-16 pitot tube, while the photo in WAPJ shows a longer pitot tube with additional AoA-probes or something like that; * NF-16D-30D-CF '86-0048; - '86', '048', and 'VISTA', on tail; - operated by Calspan Corp., but currently at LMTAS; - the VISTA (Variable Stability In-flight Simulator Test Aircraft) was modified by LMTAS with a larger, MCID (Modular Common Inlet Duct) and an F100-PW-229 IPE (Improved Performance Engine), and is scheduled to be equipped and then test flown with an axisymmetric thrust-vectoring PYBBN (Pitch/Yaw Balanced-Beam Nozzle) from P&W, when (and if) the funds are made available; - was previously NF-16D MATV (Multi-Axis Thrust Vectoring) test aircraft, equipped with an F110-GE-129 engine and the AVEN (Axisymmetric thrust Vectoring Exhaust (or Engine) Nozzle); - this one is also not mentioned in this WAPJ; Other recent or future aircraft with thrust-vectoring capability include: ========================================================================= * 2D TVNs (Two-Dimensional Thrust-Vectoring Nozzles): --------------------------------------------------- - 1 MDC F-15B S/MTD (STOL/Maneuver Technology Demonstrator); (USAF '71-0290') (2 F100-PW-100 engines); - 2 LM/Boeing YF-22A; ('N22YF', USAF '87-0701' (?) and 'N22YX') (2 YF119-PW and YF120-GE engines); - 2 NGC YF-23A; ('N231YF', USAF '87-0800' and 'N232YF', USAF '87-0801') (2 YF119-PW and YF120-GE engines -- TVN was not operational); - several hundred (?) series produced LM/Boeing F-22A Raptor; (2 F119-PW engines); - 2 MDC X-36A; (1 F112-WR engine); - 1 AVPK Sukhoi Su-27LL-PS; (2 engines -- only left (port) engine was vectored); * AS TVNs (AxiSymmetric Thrust-Vectoring Nozzles): ------------------------------------------------ - 1 MDC F-15B ACTIVE (Advanced Control Technology for Integrated VEhicles); (former F-15B S/MTD, USAF '71-0290', 'NASA 837') (2 F100-PW-229 IPEs with PYBBNs); - several series produced AVPK Sukhoi Su-30MKI; (2 Lyulka-Saturn AL-37FU engines); - several (?) series produced AVPK Sukhoi Su-37 (Su-27M); (2 Lyulka-Saturn AL-37FU engines); - several (?) series produced Eurofighter EF2000; (2 EJ200 engines -- may be equipped with a new ITP/Sentry nozzle); - several (?) series produced VPK MAPO MiG-35 (MiG-29); (2 RD-33 engines ?); * Paddles/Deflectors: ------------------- - 1 MDC F/A-18A HARV (High Angle-of-attack Research Vehicle); (BuNo '161251', 'NASA 840') (2 F404-GE-400 engines); - 2 Rockwell/MBB X-31A EFM (Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability); (BuNo '164584' and '164585') (1 F404-GE-400 engine); * And a whole bunch of V/STOL aircraft, including: ------------------------------------------------ - 2 (or more) Yakovlev Yak-141; (1 R-79V-300 engine with rotating axisymmetric nozzle); (plus 2 RD-41 lift engines); - 2 Boeing X-32 (JSF demonstrator); (1 F119-PW-derived engine with two-dimensional nozzle); (plus 2 lift-nozzles); - 2 LM X-35 (JSF demonstrator); (1 F119-PW-derived engine with rotating axisymmetric nozzle); (plus 1 shaft-driven lift-fan); - several hundred (?) series produced JSF (Joint Strike Fighter); (1 F119-PW (or maybe even F120-GE)-derived engine); (plus lift-fan/lift-nozzles) I probably have overlooked some others, though. - -- 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/ - --- --- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #62 ******************************** 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