skunk-works-digest Saturday, October 11 1997 Volume 06 : Number 081 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: RE: Recent Military Aircraft Crashes Re: Recent Military Aircraft Crashes VZ-10s Re: overexposed F-117s Re: overexposed F-117s RE: Recent Military Aircraft Crashes RE: Recent Military Aircraft Crashes Re[3]: Recent Military Aircraft Crashes RE: Recent Military Aircraft Crashes Re: Recent Military Aircraft Crashes (probably too long) RE: Recent Military Aircraft Crashes Re: overexposed F-117s re: FLYING THE F-117 [NEW BOOK] 09oct97 AFNS Breaking the Sound Barrier Reenactment on NASA TV Re: 09oct97 AFNS Way Cool! Re: VZ-10s *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 07:35:04 -0400 (EDT) From: JNiessen@aol.com Subject: Re: RE: Recent Military Aircraft Crashes Andreas, Thanks, you said it well...and I absolutely agree... Jay M. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 06:56:51 -0700 From: Speed Racer 71 Subject: Re: Recent Military Aircraft Crashes Lynch, Brian wrote: > It is my reasoned and researched opinion... > -Brian Lynch Brian - is that Lynch? as in Mob? It is my reasoned and researched opinion that such comments, baseless as yours or otherwise, do not belong in this forum. Greg Fieser ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:04:01 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lednicer Subject: VZ-10s I noticed Andreas' mention of the "VariEzes" flying with the US military. The story as I got it is that back in the early 1980s, two Army officers at in the Army 9th Infantry Division at Fort Lewis got the idea that the Rutan Long EZ (not VariEze) would make a good covert ops aircraft. Two Long EZs were built at Fort Lewis, under the code name "Monkey Green" and were used in test evaluations. One of the two (serial 84-1240, N1253) was also extensively flight tested at the US Army flight test center at Edwards AFB. I have the resulting report, entitled "Preliminary Airworthiness Evaluation of the Rutan Aircraft Factory (RAF), Inc. Long-EZ Aircraft" USAAEFA Project No. 82-18. Burt told me that they had a designation, but he could never remember it. I guess VZ-10 is what it is/was. Rumors placed the aircraft overflying Nicouraga, etc. If I am not getting this story mixed up with another one, I think the outcome was that the two Army officers got in trouble for exceeding their authority and resigned, forming an organization named "Sky Blue", which has subsquently faded from sight. I think their names were Jim Kreutz and Milo Burroughs and that they also had a hand in getting the idea for the Scaled/Rutan Ares ground-attack aircraft going. The military's other contact with the Long EZ is from when California Microwave bought up some Long EZs and turned them into drones under the designation CM-44. After this, they had Scaled Composites build a more optimized Long EZ-like drone, designated th CM-144. I saw it fly (manned) when I was out at Scaled in 1989. I have no idea what happened to this program, but it appears to have dissapeared. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:00:39 -0400 (EDT) From: MiGEater1@aol.com Subject: Re: overexposed F-117s In a message dated 97-10-07 07:31:46 EDT, Andreas writes: << On the other hand, I hear over and over that auto focus and/or auto exposure would not work on F-117s, B-2s and other aircraft. I am not really an avid photographer, >> I am an aviation photographer and find the dark shapes of the U-2, SR-71, and F-117 wonderful to shoot against just about any sky because of the extreme dark to light contrast. The autofocus in most cameras looks for any contrasty horizontal or vertical line/detail to make its range calculation. For slide film, I merely overexpose the image 1/2 stop (almost every camera with controls will allow this) to bring out any details in the black. In fact, my autofocus has a much harder time with the low contrast grays of almost every other aircraft in the military. The only autofocus cameras that WON'T work are ones that use an ultrasonic range finder such as those found on a Polaroid One-step instant camera. I have found one VERY effective method that the Air Force uses to prevent getting good shots of the "Black" aircraft... Guards with M-16's!!! John Clark http://avphoto.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 97 12:18:32 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: Re: overexposed F-117s Maybe I should clarify what I was talking about regarding autofocus: It's been my experience that when shooting the F-117 or SR-71 up close (especially the SR) the autofocus doesn't have enough contrast or lines to work with accurrately. Back off so that there's some distance between you and the aircraft and the autofocus works pretty accurately, but up close manual is better. Regarding compensation, like MigEater says, I overexpose for slides, especially when the sky's prdominant. Interestingly enough, on my previous Ricoh I used 1/2 stop, but on my newer Canon I find a full stop is better. Looks like experimentation with a particular body will give the best answers in each photographer's case. Art Hanley Although those of simple minds might want to infer otherwise, none of the above has anything to do with the views of my employers ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 06:28:23 -0800 From: John Stone Subject: RE: Recent Military Aircraft Crashes >Brian Lynch enlightened us with: *****I've snipped this part out, once was more then enough***** Then Andreas responded..... >I am glad to hear that the culprits were identified. Actually, I was afraid >we aliens (legal, illegal or extra-terrestrial) would be blamed, together >with the Jewish-controlled, liberal media. > >Has anyone inquired, if those females, homosexuals, and blacks, that take >over the US military and push all those highly skilled Caucasian men into >despair, are maybe conspiring with Moslems, communists, or, god forbid, >Hispanic Catholics? > >But I guess, this is the wrong forum, here. Makes you wish for the good old days of alien(extra-terrestrial) technology posts, eh! Well said Andreas! Thanks for the prompt response to his missive! 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: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 10:12:24 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: RE: Recent Military Aircraft Crashes At 07:25 7/10/97 -0400, you wrote: >Has anyone inquired, if those females, homosexuals, and blacks, that take >over the US military and push all those highly skilled Caucasian men into >despair, are maybe conspiring with Moslems, communists, or, god forbid, >Hispanic Catholics? > >But I guess, this is the wrong forum, here. > >Keep the promise ('cause I don't want it). > >-- Andreas [who can't stand such 'Wichser'] One might also ask if this was the case during the Second World War, when women in great numbers entered the factory and maintenance workforce. I think that the insinuations are a slur on their efforts. Or, by implication, it might also be asked whether previously, incompetent men received promotions over women simply because they were men... or whether it is supposed that there is data demonstrating that caucasioid ("Caucasian" means a native of the southern Russian region) men are intrinsically better. Not only is it offensive, it doesn't appear to be particularly reasoned or researched. - --Brett "I'm not Aryan, I'm Celtic" Davidson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:11:58 -0400 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com (Greg Weigold) Subject: Re[3]: Recent Military Aircraft Crashes Me too! I just couldn't come up with the right words Greg Columbia,SC ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: RE: Recent Military Aircraft Crashes Author: JNiessen@aol.com at INTERNET Date: 10/7/97 7:35 AM Andreas, Thanks, you said it well...and I absolutely agree... Jay M. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 14:20:35 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: RE: Recent Military Aircraft Crashes >At 07:25 7/10/97 -0400, you wrote: > >Has anyone inquired, if those females, homosexuals, and blacks, that take >over the US military and push all those highly skilled Caucasian men into >despair, are maybe conspiring with Moslems, communists, or, god forbid, >Hispanic Catholics? > >But I guess, this is the wrong forum, here. > >Keep the promise ('cause I don't want it). > >-- Andreas [who can't stand such 'Wichser'] One might also ask if this was the case during the Second World War, when women in great numbers entered the factory and maintenance workforce. I think that the insinuations are a slur on their efforts. Or, by implication, it might also be asked whether previously, incompetent men received promotions over women simply because they were men... or whether it is supposed that there is data demonstrating that caucasioid ("Caucasian" means a native of the southern Russian region) men are intrinsically better. Not only is it offensive, it doesn't appear to be particularly reasoned or researched. - --Brett "I'm not Aryan, I'm Celtic" Davidson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 97 02:25:36 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Recent Military Aircraft Crashes (probably too long) I thought I might throw in my 1.3 cents worth on this issue. Brian, in my opinion, is correct (wait 'til I finish before throwing things) when he states that the mandates for PC quotas have resulted in some people being given positions for which they are under- or unqualified for. This is a reality. Careers of innocent people have been ruined, readiness has been affected to an extent and some people have died (wait, now) due to the push for PC. To pretend this isn't happening is to be naive. However, I definitely don't agree that PC is responsible for all the ills and problems the military faces, nor can you use a broad brush to say that PC and quotas is the cause of every crash or rash of crashes (these problems are also happening on the ground and sea as well). I would maintain that the rash of problems and crashes are due to a much more basic and logical explanation. (ascending soapbox) About 18 months ago we had a discussion here about the Defense budget and where it's going. We also talked about some of the implications of Defense and NASA basically having to shoulder virtually all the cuts in the Budget. Not much has changed. Training and proficiency time is down. Maintenance is being deferred. Spare parts are in short supply and some parts that might need replacing are being held onto a bit longer than in the past. Systems are being retained beyond what they were originally planned for. The inventory from the '80s has been pretty much depleted. At the same time, we're sending troops and forces overseas for operations that don't really provide meaningful training opportunities or readiness enhancement. Part of the problem has been covered up by back to back deployments and extending operational times. The costs of some of the extra operations are not being fully covered by requests for supplemental appropriations, so even moe money has to come out of O&M to pay for it (it takes money to steam a ship across the ocean or for an aircraft to repeatedly fly to protect against someone who has no air force). Compensating for a lack of forces to do what you want done by extending people's time away from their families while you cut their benefits motivates a lot of people to walk out. Although PC is causing us to lose some good people, this latter problem is responsible for a lot more of our experienced people voting with their feet. My Personal belief is that the Administration's well-known unfamiliarity with military operations and people and possible even dislike for same means that these issues aren't getting the attention they need. What's happening now is very similar to what happened during the Carter years, for much the same reasons. If you work people harder, cut back on training and maintenance, keep them away from their families for longer periods, especially when we're not at war on in a crisis, your proficiency and experience level is going to go down along with morale. This is a recipe for pain. If we're going to have some arbitrary or fixed figure that we want to spend on Defense, so be it. That number, though, will determine what you are able to effectively and safely can do. On the other hand, if you want to define the goal by certain missions you want accomplished, then holding those absolute is going to cost a certain amount of money to do them effectively and safely. We can't have it both ways. If we keep trying to, the situations we've seen are going to be repeated. This will get worse after 2000-2001 because virtually all of the major new acquisition programs have been restructured so that the serious money for them doesn't have to get requested until after 2000. This will put a further squeeze on O&M, and we should be facing up to this now. (just fell through soap box--boards weren't maintained) Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 22:53:14 -0700 From: patrick Subject: RE: Recent Military Aircraft Crashes At 09:57 AM 10/6/97 -0500, you wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lynch, Brian > Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 9:46 AM > To: 'brett@arch.vuw.ac.nz' > Subject: Recent Military Aircraft Crashes > > Brett, > >It is my reasoned and researched opinion that...unqualified women have been placed into critical >positions. Some of these have been pilot positions, but many have been aircraft maintenance >and safety-related positions. > > -Brian Lynch > > Brian, my mother was an Aviation Machinist Mate in the US Navy during World War Two. She repaired instrument panels out on the flightline at Jacksonville NAS, Fla. She is interned at Arlington National Cemetary. What time period does your research cover? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 22:46:23 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: overexposed F-117s At 12:18 PM 10/7/97 GMT, you wrote: >Maybe I should clarify what I was talking about regarding autofocus: > >Looks like experimentation with a particular body will give the best answers in >each photographer's case. > ============================================================= Without sounding to pedantic, you guys are getting into basic rules of photography which are based on optics. A good book will explain it all and eliminate all this guessing. Art you seem to have a camera that measures contrast in the reticule in your viewfinder. It focuses by adjusting for maximum contrast. If you fill the small rectangle with an all black area, an all aluminum area or an all sky blue area, it sees no contrast and will either "search" or shut down. Find a point in the middle of the area you want to be in focus such as the edge of a tail fin or the stars and bars symbols. Focus on that. Some cameras have a focus lock. Give the meter a light and dark area in the box and it will jump on the correct focus. Not sure how infra red or sonic systems work. As far as lighting goes, you can calculate a correct exposure value. Since you are attempting this under the worst conditions you are asking the camera to do more than it was designed to do. It is compromising the situation as it was designed to but not the way you want it to. [Like the expression "my computer did what I told it to do and not what I wanted it to do"] Carry an old hand held light meter and take an incident reading and enter it manually into the camera. Unless the clouds move in or out, that reading will be good from morning till late afternoon. This worked great 20 years ago! You can usually adjust what part of the picture your light meter "sees". Shooting airplanes, use a wide a capture area as you can. And it helps to crank in some over exposure to compensate for bright skies when shooting aerial shots. Some film tolerates more than others. Buy a roll at a good camera store and ask. This will give you more of an average reading and closer to the incident reading I mentioned. Shooting 3 kids in front of the Blackbird? Then narrow it down so the reading is based only on the light reflected off of the kids faces (or skin rather than white t-shirts). And finally realize prints are made on a machine that averages all readings so all prints look bad. Ask the photo processor to reprint and tell him what the colors are in real life and he can adjust for it. Or tell him to expose for the plane in the picture and not the blue sky. Any reputable retailer will glady do this. Especially if cautioned ahead of time. Try to eliminate as much guessing as you can from start to finish. How far off topic are we now? The batteries in my GPS receiver seem to have died. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:53:15 -0500 From: "Lynch, Brian" Subject: re: FLYING THE F-117 [NEW BOOK] >They also advertise another new book, "How To Fly and Fight In the F-117 >Nighthawk", by Jon Lake, published by Jane's, with the following hyped-up >text: > >"Fly one of today's hottest planes! Take command of the most technologically >advanced fighter ever created with this lavishly illustrated volume from >Jane's, the world's number one authority on military aircraft. Strap in >for "hands-on" training in this advanced strike aircraft. Learn how to >take off and maneuver, how to recognize, evade, and attack enemy aircraft >and air defenses." > Hmm... Sounds like an interesting book, but I doubt that reading it, and mastering any CD-ROM video game which might be included, would allow one to gain access to a real F-117 for solo flying. Too bad. - -Brian Lynch ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 21:01:54 -0700 From: patrick Subject: 09oct97 AFNS >From: USAFnews >Subject: 09oct97 AFNS >971280. Stealth fighters resume flying operations > >WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- The Air Force resumed F-117 Nighthawk stealth >fighter flying operations Oct. 2 after initiating a fleetwide safety >inspection. The commander of Air Combat Command had directed a >precautionary fleet stand down following the F-117 mishap at the >Chesapeake Air Show, Maryland, Sept. 14. > >Physical evidence found in the crash debris revealed a significant >defect in a support structure in the left wing of the accident aircraft. >Based on this discovery, the ACC commander directed a thorough >inspection of every F-117 in the fleet to determine if the defect noted >in the mishap aircraft existed in any other aircraft. Of the 33 >aircraft inspected to date, no other F-117 has been found to have the >same defect. > >The inspections are being conducted by Air Force F-117 experts and >maintainers, teamed with engineers from the F-117's manufacturer, >Lockheed-Martin. Besides searching for the specific defect noted in the >accident aircraft, inspection teams are looking for other defects and >deficiencies that might exist. No F-117 will fly until the inspections >are completed and any deficiencies are corrected. > >"We are confident this inspection process will result in safe and >totally airworthy aircraft," said Gen. Richard E. Hawley, ACC commander. >"We will not jeopardize the lives of our pilots or anyone on the ground >nor risk the safety of the F-117s. So far, the discrepancy in the >accident aircraft appears to be an anomaly, but each and every airplane >will undergo this extensive inspection before we return it to the >skies." > >Two F-117s flew Oct. 2 from their home base at Holloman Air Force Base, >N.M. By that date, a total of six fighters had been determined to be >flyable. Inspections will continue until all 53 Nighthawks are deemed >safe and airworthy. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:13:02 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Breaking the Sound Barrier Reenactment on NASA TV >Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 16:00:44 -0400 (EDT) >From: NASANews@hq.nasa.gov >Subject: Breaking the Sound Barrier Reenactment on NASA TV >Sender: owner-press-release@lists.hq.nasa.gov >To: undisclosed-recipients:; > >Dwayne Brown >Headquarters, Washington, DC October 9, 1997 >(Phone: 202/358-1726) > >Fred Brown >Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards ,CA >(Phone: 805/258-2663) > >Michael Finneran >Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA >(Phone: 757/864-6121) > >John Haire >Edwards Air Force Base, CA >(Phone: 805/277-4127) > >NOTE TO EDITORS: N97-72 > >BREAKING THE SOUND BARRIER REENACTMENT ON NASA TV > > NASA TV will air a reenactment of Chuck Yeager's historic >flight in which he became the first person to successfully fly an >aircraft faster than the speed of sound. Yeager's flight in 1947 >has been called "the greatest achievement since the first >successful flight of the Wright Brothers." > > Exactly 50 years after the event, Yeager will recreate this >milestone flight in an F-15 fighter jet in California's northern >Mojave Desert. The reenactment will air beginning at >1 p.m. EDT, Oct. 14. Other activities to commemorate the >anniversary will be held at Edwards Air Force Base, CA, including >the unveiling of a "50th anniversary of supersonic flight" stamp >by the United States Postal Service. > > NASA TV will also feature historic footage of the original >event as well as footage of the development of the next generation >supersonic jet that will fly 300 passengers at more than twice the >speed of sound. Included will be an interview with the director >of that project. Live interviews also can be arranged by calling >Ivelisse Gilman at NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, >757/864-5036. > > Detailed information about the X-1, the development and >research of supersonic flight and the pilots involved is available >via the Internet. The URL is: >http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/x1/ > > NASA television is broadcast on GE-2, transponder 9C at 85 >degrees West longitude, vertical polarization, frequency of 3880 >MHz, with audio at 6.8 Mhz. > > -end- > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:42:18 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: 09oct97 AFNS >I heard a TV news report claiming that the "significant defect" noted above >was in fact several loose and/or missing bolts and/or other fastening >hardware. > >Can anyone confirm or deny this, and possigbly shed some light on what the >significant defect really was? > > ========================================================== I will confirm the TV story I heard implied it was loose or reversed hardware but that certainly isn't the tone the AF press release gives. You don't inspect all aircraft for improper assembly unless the procedures are in correct. This surely would have been discovered by now. One of the more interesting aspects of the "117" is that they were all hand made, a few at a time.. Consequently they each are different in subtle ways. Some have electrical or hydraulic lines in different places. Some have access covers that fit only the plane they were built for. One plane has a quirky habit of bleeding one of the brake lines into the catch tank when the maintainers back is turned. A rather notorius one seems to like to set itself on fire. The accident review board will release a report which will identify the specific anomaly associated with 793. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:11:38 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lednicer Subject: Way Cool! I just got my copy of a new AIAA Case Study in the mail. Entitled "Have Blue and the F-117A: Evolution of the Stealth Fighter", it is an engineering history of the this program. It is chock full of pictures and diagrams that shed new light on the program. There is even one new picture of the Have Blue prototype that I have never seen before. ISBN number is 1-56347-245-7. It can be ordered by calling (301)645-3651 and ordering item 45-7(312). AIAA member price is $39.95 list price is $54.95. I also just got "Tupolev: The Man and His Aircraft". This is another great book, which even includes the year-by-year production of all Tupolev aircraft and a serial number by serial number history of every Tu-134 ever built! ISBN number is 1 56091-899-3. I bought my copy from SAE at (412)776-4970. Price is $29.00 and order number is R-173. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 19:57:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: VZ-10s David Lednicer wrote: >I noticed Andreas' mention of the "VariEzes" flying with the US military. >The story as I got it is that back in the early 1980s, two Army officers >at in the Army 9th Infantry Division at Fort Lewis got the idea that the >Rutan Long EZ (not VariEze) would make a good covert ops aircraft. Two >Long EZs were built at Fort Lewis, under the code name "Monkey Green" and >were used in test evaluations. One of the two (serial 84-1240, N1253) was >also extensively flight tested at the US Army flight test center at Edwards >AFB. I have the resulting report, entitled "Preliminary Airworthiness >Evaluation of the Rutan Aircraft Factory (RAF), Inc. Long-EZ Aircraft" >USAAEFA Project No. 82-18. Burt told me that they had a designation, but >he could never remember it. I guess VZ-10 is what it is/was. Rumors placed >the aircraft overflying Nicouraga, etc. Regarding the US military Vari-EZ / Long-EZ aircraft, contrary to the photo caption in AFM 115, the aircraft shown is actually a Long-EZ (not 'Varieze'), I should have checked before just quoting them. One of the strange things, regarding the designation 'VZ-10' is, that it not only does not fit in the official designation scheme(s), like the US Army's 'RC-7B' (which is (should be) actually designated O-5A/EO-5B/EO-5C), but it also duplicates an actual 1950s US Army designation. The US Army used its own designation system for aircraft of all sorts from 1956 to 1962. One of the designation series was 'VZ', standing for VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) Research. The series contained 12 types, some of which were redesignated in 1962 in the 'V' series under the joint designation system. VZ-1-UH ==> Hiller Flying Platform, previously designated 'YHO-1E-HU' and sometimes also referred to as 'VZ-1E; 2 built, serials '56-6944' and '56-6945'; VZ-2-BV ==> Boeing-Vertol Model 76;, later modified to VZ-2A-BV; 1 built, serial '56-6943'; VZ-3-RY ==> Ryan Model 72 Vertiplane, later modified to VZ-3A-RY; 1 built, serial '56-6941', later to 'NASA 235'; VZ-4-DA ==> Doak Model 16; 1 built, serial '56-6942'; VZ-5-FA ==> Fairchild Model M224-1; 1 built, serial '56-6940'; VZ-6-.. ==> Chrysler; 2 built, serials '58-5506' and '58-5507'; VZ-7-AP ==> Curtiss-Wright ; 2 built, serials '58-5508' and '58-5509'; VZ-8-PH ==> Piasecki Model 59K; 2 built, serial '58-5510' and '58-5511'; VZ-9-AV ==> Avro Canada Avrocar; 2 built (only 1 to US Army), serial '58-7055'; VZ-10-LO ==> Lockheed 'Hummingbird', redesignated XV-4A-LO, 2nd to XV-4B-LO; 2 built, serials '62-4503' and '62-4504' VZ-11-RY ==> Ryan Vertifan, redesignated XV-5A_RY, 2nd to XV-5B-RY; 2 built, serials '62-4505' and '62-4506', to 'NASA 705'; VZ-12-HS ==> Hawker Siddeley P.1127; 2 planned (but not delivered), serials '62-4507' and '62-4508'; later 9 Hawker Siddeley P.1127 Kestrel Tri-Service aircraft received the designation XV-6A-HS, but only 6 were delivered; serials: '64-18262', ex RAF 'XS688', '64-18263', ex RAF 'XS689', to 'NASA 521', '64-18264', ex RAF 'XS690', '64-18265', ex RAF 'XS691', '64-18266', ex RAF 'XS692', '64-18267', ex RAF 'XS694', and '64-18268' - '64-18270', ex RAF 'XS693', 'XS695' and 'XS696'; >The military's other contact with the Long EZ is from when California >Microwave bought up some Long EZs and turned them into drones under the >designation CM-44. After this, they had Scaled Composites build a more >optimized Long EZ-like drone, designated th CM-144. I saw it fly (manned) >when I was out at Scaled in 1989. I have no idea what happened to this >program, but it appears to have dissapeared. The Long-EZ 'CM-30' and 'CM-44' RPVs, both from California Microwave (which coincidentally also developed the above mentioned 'RC-7B' aircraft) were apparently both developed under a 1986 program designated 'I-30'. There were also some other remote controlled versions of the Rutan Long-EZ in use with the US military, converted by Aeromet Inc. of Tulsa, OK, in 1983, which are generally known as AURA (Aeromet Unmanned Reconnaissance Aircraft). - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #81 ******************************** 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