skunk-works-digest Friday, September 19 1997 Volume 06 : Number 076 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Jane's Books by mail SR-71 Crash Re: Computerized flight controls Re: F-22 Info Re: Computerized flight controls Re: Buying Chips - More discussion Chips Rumors Re: Buying Chips - More discussion Did somebody lean on the Discovery Channel? Re: Computerized flight controls Re: Did somebody lean on the Discovery Channel? re: Did somebody lean on the Discovery Channel? Re: Computerized flight controls Re: F-117 crash F-117A Tail Number Idle speculation about the F-117 crash in Baltimore On Wings tonight Idle speculation about the F-117 crash in Baltimore, Part Two. Re: Idle speculation about the F-117 crash in Baltimore (fwd) BOUNCE skunk-works@netwrx1.com: Re: (fwd) BOUNCE skunk-works@netwrx1.com: THE PUBLIC AIR SHOW EXHIBITION PROHIBITION ACT OF 1997 *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 00:43:29 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: Jane's Books by mail I thought maybe people would be interested that Barnes and Noble mail order catalogs often have previous issues of Jane's books for pretty good prices. I just got Jane's Radar and Electronic Warfare Systems 1992-93. It's a bit dated, but the price was good and the information is informative. Plus lots of pictures. Nothing especially skunky, but drawings of russian phased array radar, a moscow abm map, and some discusion of russian over the horizon radar. Barnes and Nobel1-800-843-2665 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 00:43:29 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: SR-71 Crash Does anyone have information about an SR-71 that crashed in a lake in the northwest (before the plane was made public)? Supposedly the pilot escaped in the air, and the air force subsequently recovered the plane from the lake. A friend related this story to me, but I am looking for details/verification. JZ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 08:33:37 -0700 From: Speed Racer 71 Subject: Re: Computerized flight controls Earl Needham wrote: > If TWO go bad, they usually go bad in different ways, so the "vote" still > favors the good computers. If THREE go bad, all bets are off. But that > would be very unlikely. > Alternate scenario: remember the V-22 crash during hover tests? (*not* the one that went into the Pax River after a nacelle fire) It was found that two of the three flight control system circuits had two of the axes cross-wired (don't remember which two) so, for example, a roll input resulted in a yaw output, etc. Upon further investigation, Bell/Boeing found that, on all of the other V-22s (completed at that time) one of the three axes was cross-wired, and had been "voted out" because of this. On the crashed ehicle, the two cross-wired circuit inputs voted 2 to 1 that the good circuit was the faulty one, leading to an uncontrollable A/C and crash... "Look for the 'Union' label..." :) Greg Fieser ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 14:23:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: F-22 Info On Sat, 13 Sep 1997, Dan Singer wrote: > > Here are some specs for the F-22. > > Item Maximum Deflection Rate of Deflection > (deg plus or minus) (deg/sec) > _______________________________________________________________ > Ailerons 25 70 > Rudders 30 80 > Horizontal Tails -25 to +30 60 > Vectoring Nozzles 20 40 > Flaperons -20 to +35 70 > Leading Edge Flaps 0 to +35 30 > Inlet Bleed Doors 0 to +45 50 > > You may think that it is funny that the Inlet Bleed Doors are considered > part of the flight control system. They are opened under > certain flight conditions to help generate moments about the center of > gravity. Just a bonus feature. This isn't exactly new. Glenn Gilyard wrote a paper in 1968 or so about using the inlet doors as controllers for the YF-12. It's been ages since I read the paper, but I think the difference in thrust is what generates the moment. Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:58:20 -0400 From: stevek@Paragon.COM (Steve Kovner) Subject: Re: Computerized flight controls > If TWO go bad, they usually go bad in different ways, so the "vote" still > favors the good computers. If THREE go bad, all bets are off. But that > would be very unlikely. > Alternate scenario: remember the V-22 crash during hover tests? (*not* the one that went into the Pax River after a nacelle fire) It was found that two of the three flight control system circuits had two of the axes cross-wired (don't remember which two) so, for example, a roll input resulted in a yaw output, etc. Upon further investigation, Bell/Boeing found that, on all of the other V-22s (completed at that time) one of the three axes was cross-wired, and had been "voted out" because of this. On the crashed ehicle, the two cross-wired circuit inputs voted 2 to 1 that the good circuit was the faulty one, leading to an uncontrollable A/C and crash... You'd think they'd learn. According to Crickmore, one of the first A-12's (I think it was before the actual SR-71's) crashed due to a similar problem. Actually, it barely got off the runway, when the pilot found it uncontrollable and ejected. The pitch and yaw axes of the SAS (Stability Augmentation System) had been cross-connected. After that, the connectors were replaced so that they couldn't be exchanged like that. The pilot was fine; simulator tests proved that no other pilot could have saved the craft, either. Steve Kovner ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:10:02 -0700 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: Buying Chips - More discussion >But on these fly-by >wire and virtually computer controlled aicraft, 777, F-22 and the like, I'm >assuming they have redundant computers, ... I don't know which systems are protected with some form (there are many) of redundancy on the F-22, but I do know that before Boeing built the 777, they were looking at an airplane called the 7J7 that was inherently unstable. I think it was to be the first inherently unstable passenger airliner. Anyway, I would probably give away proprietary secrets if I mentioned how its particular form of redundancy worked, so I won't, but it was quite redundant, in many ways, let me just say that. In the end they didn't go with an inherently unstable design. The AIAA offers a Case Study on the F-16 Fly-by-wire control system for those that are interested. You should be able to find it in at the AIAA WEB page. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:18:27 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lednicer Subject: Chips The 777 might use 25 MHz 80486SX, but the A320 uses an Intel 80186 on the primary flight logic circuit and a Motorola 68000 on the backup circuit. As the 80186 chip was of limited production anyways, I am surprised they can still find any. Of course, they can cannibalize old Macs for 68000s... - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:20:48 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lednicer Subject: Rumors I haven't seen it reported in the press, but well substantiated rumor says that the Lockheed-Martin JSSAM was rolled out last Wednesday in Palmdale. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Mon, 15 Sep 97 16:33:18 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: Re: Buying Chips - More discussion Larry, Didn't see your original post about the chip, would like to read it. One other thing that has to be factored in when and if they decide how many to buy is an oft overlooked fact in Washington's planning: Military aircraft tend to get shot at. They need to insure that they've got enough chips to cover all the situations mentioned plus the case of an expanding rod that flew through the CPU at 600+ knots! Art "DUCK!" Hanley "Master, why not include the wisdom of my employers in the message above"? "Beware. Therein lies the path to the Dark Side" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 22:31:14 -0700 From: "Louis K. Scheffer" Subject: Did somebody lean on the Discovery Channel? I recently got a chance to see the Discovery Channel special on the U2 and SR-71. At the end, they asked the usual "Is there a successor?" question, and had a quick interview with someone at Caltech who reported the sonic booms picked up by siesmometers. All he said was that they had observed several sonic booms, always at the same time of day, on the same day of the week, so they did not think it was a natural event, and that the signature was different from the shuttle and the SR71. Actually, the evidence is much stronger. The track and altitude of the vehicle can be reconstructed from the seismometer readings. They know this works because they can reconstruct the shuttle speed, track, and altitude. When they apply the reconstruction to the unknown objects (which seem to travel in pairs), they find they are going Mach 2-3, at a relatively low altitude (20,000-40,000 feet), and coming from over the ocean and heading for Nevada. They also know it's not a fighter - the signature is of a larger vehicle, although not so large as the shuttle. I would have thought the Discovery channel would be eager to play up one of the most solid pieces of evidence that other large, unknown, supersonic programs exist. Instead, they deliberately seemed to court ambiguity - for example, a fighter on a schedule could reproduce the evidence as far as the Discovery show goes. Do you suppose someone "asked" them to tone down the evidence? -Lou Scheffer ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 08:18:59 -0700 From: Speed Racer 71 Subject: Re: Computerized flight controls Steve Kovner wrote: > You'd think they'd learn. According to Crickmore, one of the first > A-12's (I think it was before the actual SR-71's) crashed due to > a similar problem. Actually, it barely got off the runway, when the pilot > found it uncontrollable and ejected. > > The pitch and yaw axes of the SAS (Stability Augmentation System) > had been cross-connected. After that, the connectors were replaced > so that they couldn't be exchanged like that. > > The pilot was fine; simulator tests proved that no other pilot could > have saved the craft, either. > > Steve Kovner I had heard the same story about one of the first (Y)F-117s - is this the same story or did it actually happen to both an A-12 and an F-117? Greg Fieser ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 10:54:08 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Did somebody lean on the Discovery Channel? >I recently got a chance to see the Discovery Channel special on the U2 >and SR-71. At the end, they asked the usual "Is there a successor?" >question, and had a quick interview with someone at Caltech who reported >the sonic booms picked up by siesmometers. All he said was that they had >observed several sonic booms, always at the same time of day, on the same >day of the week, so they did not think it was a natural event, and that >the signature was different from the shuttle and the SR71. > >Actually, the evidence is much stronger. The track and altitude of the >vehicle can be reconstructed from the seismometer readings. They know this >works because they can reconstruct the shuttle speed, track, and altitude. >When they apply the reconstruction to the unknown objects (which seem to >travel in pairs), they find they are going Mach 2-3, at a relatively >low altitude (20,000-40,000 feet), and coming from over the ocean and >heading for Nevada. They also know it's not a fighter - the signature is >of a larger vehicle, although not so large as the shuttle. (this is something to be addressed on the Aurora website) The "recontructed" altitude and possibly even speed readings are most likely incorrect if the aircraft/object tracked was indeed designed to cruise at supersonic or hypersonic speeds. the Shuttle and SR-71 were no "optimized" for cruise at these speeds using modern computational fluid dynamics tools. If the aircraft tracked was indeed "Aurora" or another aircraft designed for high speed cruise it would have been optimized for it's cruise speed- unlike the shuttle or SR-71. The SR-71 was for the most part a brute force solution to high speed flight, and the shuttle is a glider designed for efficiency over a very wide range of speeds during re-entry. A waverider or other high speed blended-wing body vehicle exhibiting the flight characteristics observed on the seismometers would be pretty much a narrow design point aircraft- optimized for flying in a narrow, high speed envelope (say, Mach 5.5-6.5). Aurora, etc. would be a high speed mission solution with a greater degree of deisn refinement than the SR-71, and thus would most likely exhibit an N-wave boom- meaning the designers built the thing to fly efficienetly at high speed and sculpted the airframe accordingly. The shuttle and SR-71 tend to have much "rougher" booms of a greater magnitude and ground-level pressure than a modern supersonic/hypersonic aircraft would- so for a given seismometer reading, using caltech's figures, an Aurora could actually be travelling lower and faster than previously thought. Not the best explanation, but perhaps Larry or Mary can elaborate for me. > >I would have thought the Discovery channel would be eager to play up one of >the most solid pieces of evidence that other large, unknown, supersonic >programs exist. Instead, they deliberately seemed to court ambiguity - >for example, a fighter on a schedule could reproduce the evidence as far >as the Discovery show goes. Do you suppose someone "asked" them to tone >down the evidence? > > -Lou Scheffer The other interesting thing about thursday morning flyers (as the guys at Mugu and China lake call them) is the times they're flying- early Thursday mornings, and their flight tracks. 1. Groom Lake operates such that flight test programs generally "prep" for a test Mon-Wed/thurs, fly Wednesday or Thursday night, and spend the remainder of the week going over the flight test results and doing all of that fun debriefing stuff. Almost everybody has the weekends off to visit family, etc. Groom is largely unmanned on weekends and this of course explains the recent airspace changes around Groom for sundays. 2. The flight tracks for the sunday morning flyers point almost directly into the Groom approach. Looks almost like a Space Shuttle coming in. 3. Recently the thursday morning flyers have started up again, though there is no way to tell if this is the same aircraft or something new, but it definitely suggests hypersonic/supersonic aircraft are being tested off the California coast once again. Dan _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ DOS Computers manufactured by companies such as IBM, Compaq, Tandy, and millions of others are by far the most popular, with about 70 million machines in use wordwide. Macintosh fans, on the other hand, may note that cockroaches are far more numerous than humans, and that numbers alone do not denote a higher life form." (New York Times) ---------------------------------http://www.macconnect.com/~quellish _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 11:34:12 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: Did somebody lean on the Discovery Channel? In defense of Discovery, keep in mind that a lot of their video comes from publically available sources, or Public Affairs departments. They probably don't have very large budgets to produce what they do. They don't have teams of investigators to go out and dig up information. I suspect that some of their copy is written without actually having seen the video it's going with. With this in mind, they're going to be dependent on a number of sources for film and access. From their perspecitve there's no point in doing dramatic specualtion on something they don't have a prayer of confirming, or even understand, when the likely result would be at best a minute blip in ratings but could tick off sources and close off access. This would put them out of business. It's probably not necessary to lean on them, they're "self-leaning". Art Hanley Those that seek to find a relationship between what I've written here and what my employer may believe, seek something that can't be found. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 17:50:12 -0600 From: Earl Needham Subject: Re: Computerized flight controls At 08:18 AM 9/16/97 -0700, Speed Racer 71 wrote: > I had heard the same story about one of the first (Y)F-117s - is this > the same story or did it actually happen to both an A-12 and an F-117? > > Greg Fieser I read this story about a -117 in the book "We Own the Night" from Lockheed, I think. And, used to be if you contact them, they would send you a copy FREE. Earl Needham, KD5XB Clovis, NM Conquistador Council, BSA Wood Badge at Philmont! http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/7582/ ICQ #925486 mailto:KD5XB@AMSAT.ORG Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Pi Chi '76 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:01:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: F-117 crash The F-117A that crashed was tail number 793, veteran of 33 combat missions in Operation Desert Storm. The F-117A crash list now includes: 785 20 APR 82, Robert Riedenauer, Non-fatal, AFFTC Det. 3 (Groom Lake, NV) 792 11 JUL 86, Maj. Ross Mulhare, Fatal, Bakersfield, CA 815 14 OCT 87, Maj. Michael Stewart, Fatal, Nellis Air Force Range, NV 801 04 AUG 92, Capt. John Mills, Non-fatal, Alamogordo, NM 822 10 MAY 95, Capt. Kenneth Levens, Fatal, Zuni, NM 793 14 SEP 97, Maj. Bryan Knight, Non-fatal, Middle River, MD Two other aircraft, 824 and 843, have been damaged by fires but not written off. Peter W. Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 21:17:14 +0000 From: Jim Rotramel Subject: F-117A Tail Number This is NOT official, but if its the same airplane I saw at Langley a week ago, the F-117 that crashed at Baltimore was 81-10793. Jim Rotramel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 15:42:40 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Idle speculation about the F-117 crash in Baltimore It appears that the left outer elevon and/or the left outer wing area separated in flight. At first this seems odd as there is nothing going on out there that would seem explosive in nature. But there is a flight characteristic of this airplane that includes a potentially severe flutter problem in the wings and rudder fins and outer elevons. Without correction or control of this event, it appears that the flutter can be violent enough to cause the outer wing section to rip loose from the main section of the wing and/or put extra stress on the outer elevons to do the same. During the design phase wing roots, elevon actuator systems, even redesign of tail fins and bearing systems were undertaken to strengthen these areas to compensate for these high forces inherent in the design of the aircraft. There is an electro-mechanical system on board known as the Flutter Excitation System (FES). It includes a small control panel in the cockpit that will accept inputs from the pilot. It is my understanding the FES is designed to induce signals into the Flight Control Computer (FLCC) in order for the FLCC to better manage and react to the flutter. So then speculating about this crash, which did not seem to be created by a fuel system explosion, why would the left side of the wing structure start to come apart in a shallow level climb? Possibly, for whatever reason, improper data being received by the FLCC from the FES. This may have allowed the flutter to become unmanageable by the FLCC. Or possibly failure of an elevon actuator or even improper assembly by a maintainer. The obvious hero here is the pilot who appeared to "fly" the plane (the nose had separated including all 4 air data probes) towards water before ejecting. And upon hitting the ground, his first words to his rescuer's were whether everyone else was safe on the ground. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:17:41 -0400 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com (GREG WEIGOLD) Subject: On Wings tonight Discovery channel tonight: WINGS - Von Richtofen's DR-1 tri-plane is a highly maneuverable craft. (10p ET) Check your TV listings for local broadcast times. I'd guess you could say that guys like Von Richtofen were the pioneers aerial dogfighting. Greg Columbia,SC ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 08:53:42 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Idle speculation about the F-117 crash in Baltimore, Part Two. The F-117 did exhibit a strong tendency to flutter at the wing tips. The Flutter Excitation System was installed in early testing during the Senior Trend program. The FES system allowed engineers to induce flutter at will in order to measure its effect on changes made toward damping the problem. The fix was a redesign of the outboard elevon actuator and its movements. This sufficiently dampened the oscillation of the wing tip. And once testing and final design were completed, the FES was removed from the aircraft. I errored in stating F-117A fly with the FES system. They do not. It was only test equipment flown during Senior Trend. But there is a possibility that something breaking in the outer wing section, such as an elevon actuator would undamp the wing tip and allow the tip to flutter. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 19:11:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: Idle speculation about the F-117 crash in Baltimore Maybe a very stupid comment... but, did the USAF consider that the F-117 crash is not a accident?? Meaning a new type of weapon. There is a lot of new non-lethal weapon been test, like Microwave, vortex-shock wave, etc. Knowing that the F-117 will fly by in a airshow... easy target... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:14:56 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: (fwd) BOUNCE skunk-works@netwrx1.com: On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:00:56 -0500 (CDT), georgek@netwrx1.com wrote: >From georgek@netwrx1.com Thu Sep 18 22:00:53 1997 Received: from mail.sparknet.net (root@mail.sparknet.net [207.67.22.80]) by md.sparknet.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA16754 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:00:53 - -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail-03.telis.org (mail-03.telis.org [204.71.75.216]) by mail.sparknet.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA28226 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:05:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from s16-pm02-sbara-t.telis.org (s16-pm02-sbara-t.telis.org [206.96.158.75]) by mail-03.telis.org (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA06786 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 19:57:40 -0700 (PDT) From: blackbird@telis.org (Jon Price (PJ)) To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: F-117 still flying? Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 02:57:37 GMT Organization: Very Little Message-ID: <3423e76d.28921889@mail.telis.org> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am a member of the Airshow Committee for our local Airshow, which takes place on Saturday, 9/27. An F-117A Nighthawk has been scheduled to do a couple of flybys that morning. As of this morning, we have been assured by the USAF that there has been no change in plans for that flyby. It is our understanding that there was a 24 hour stand down of flight operations for the 117's and that was it. Anyone know any more about this? Thanks, PJ - --=20 ************************************************** Jon Price If only Naval Aviators flew SR-71's, I'd be happy. Just imagine. "O.K. 3 wire Blackbird"! A PROUD member of the Tailhook Association. I am NOT known for being politically correct. To reply via e-mail, please remove the 888 from 888blackbird@telis.org *************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 05:28:52 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: (fwd) BOUNCE skunk-works@netwrx1.com: At 12:14 PM 9/19/97 GMT, you wrote: >On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:00:56 -0500 (CDT), georgek@netwrx1.com wrote: > >>From georgek@netwrx1.com Thu Sep 18 22:00:53 1997 >Received: from mail.sparknet.net (root@mail.sparknet.net >[207.67.22.80]) by md.sparknet.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id >WAA16754 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:00:53 >-0500 (CDT) >Received: from mail-03.telis.org (mail-03.telis.org [204.71.75.216]) >by mail.sparknet.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA28226 for >; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:05:24 -0500 (CDT) >Received: from s16-pm02-sbara-t.telis.org (s16-pm02-sbara-t.telis.org >[206.96.158.75]) > by mail-03.telis.org (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA06786 > for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 19:57:40 -0700 >(PDT) >From: blackbird@telis.org (Jon Price (PJ)) >To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >Subject: F-117 still flying? >Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 02:57:37 GMT >Organization: Very Little >Message-ID: <3423e76d.28921889@mail.telis.org> >X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > >I am a member of the Airshow Committee for our local Airshow, which >takes place on Saturday, 9/27. An F-117A Nighthawk has been scheduled >to do a couple of flybys that morning. As of this morning, we have >been assured by the USAF that there has been no change in plans for >that flyby. It is our understanding that there was a 24 hour stand >down of flight operations for the 117's and that was it. Anyone know >any more about this? ================================================================= It is a general stand down to review safety of flight . It is for a 24 hour period only, to be chosen by the base commander anytime beginning September 19 through September 25. Sounds like you will have a safe flyby at your air show. Have fun! patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 11:49:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Singer Subject: THE PUBLIC AIR SHOW EXHIBITION PROHIBITION ACT OF 1997 I see that there is a bill before the armed services committe to: "prohibit the exhibition of B-2 and F-117 aircraft in public airshows not sponsored by the Armed Forces." Dan Singer dasing@engin.umich.edu Here is the text from Mr. Warner's statement: HE PUBLIC AIR SHOW EXHIBITION PROHIBITION ACT OF 1997 Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I am going to momentarily send a bill to the desk which will prohibit the use of F-117 aircraft and B-2 aircraft in public shows. Madam President, I was stunned to learn last night of this tragic accident, and in no way does my action reflect any discredit on the pilot or in any way prejudge the outcome of this tragic accident. Indeed, there are facts at this moment which indicate this pilot took a risk of life to possibly avoid a greater degree of risk to others. As I listened to that report, I thought back to my own experience in Korea in 1951. My commanding officer--I remember him very well--Lt. Col. Al Gordon, U.S. Marine Corps, took off in his AD-1 bomber, and he experienced fire over a community. He stayed with his aircraft in order to avoid that aircraft going into a community, and as a consequence it lost altitude. When he finally bailed out, there was insufficient distance between the aircraft and the ground. His chute streamed and he lost his life. I remember it so well because I was detailed to go out into the mountains and collect that brave officer. I believe that we as a nation should not be using this type of military asset in this type of show. This airplane, on a unit program cost, costs the taxpayers $100 million a copy. We only have 53 remaining, and they are needed for special missions in the national security interests of this country. I just do not believe that type of asset can be put at this type of risk. The B-2 bomber is $2 billion a copy. Madam President, I stand with some embarrassment because I realize my office and others are besieged with requests from communities and constituents to provide these aircraft for air shows. The aircraft do enhance an air show a great deal, but I feel it is a matter of principle that this Nation cannot subject that costly an aircraft, one that is essential to the performance of specialized missions, in this type of circumstance. As a result, I will submit this bill. Further, I am going to consider this issue in the course of the conference between the House and the Senate on the 1998 authorization bill. It will undoubtedly provoke some comment which I will listen to very carefully. I just wanted to express the heartfelt feelings of one Senator that we have to look more carefully at the use of these very costly systems in connection with public air shows such as this. ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #76 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "skunk-works-digest-request@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 local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to 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 viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner