skunk-works-digest Friday, February 20 1998 Volume 07 : Number 008 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: SR-71 question Re: SR-71 question Global Hawk (no subject) (no subject) Re: Det 2 status Re: Det 2 status Re: SR-71 status Re: Det 2 status IRCM Pods Re: IRCM Pods ESM Pods "borrowed" AFNS article SR-71 question Re: SR-71 question Re: SR-71 question Only a test Re: SR-71 question Re[2]: SR-71 question B1B crash B-1B Crash News Re: SR-71 question Re: SR-71 question Re: SR-71 question Re: SR-71 question Re: SR-71 question Re: SR-71 question Air & Space - March issue *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 98 15:11:59 EST From: keller@eos.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: SR-71 question Su Wei-Jen asked... > Hello Skunkers... Anyone know what is the maximum temperature that >the combustion chamber of the SR-71 (when is runing a Ramjet mode) can >held? Don't know the answer to that one, although I'd be interested in that myself. Larry? Anyone? >And what is the melting temperature of Titanium? > Thanks in advances. 1660 +/- 10 degrees Celsius (3020 degrees F), according to my Chemical Rubber Company bible. That isn't the last word on what temperatures titanium can take, though, or even a good measure for it. It turns out that titanium has the nasty property that it burns violently in both air and nitrogen at temperaures well below its melting point. As a result, although it is useful in applications where the temperatures are too high for aluminum, it really isn't the highest temperature-capable metal that's commonly available. For temps that titanium can't handle, most often less glamourous, and heavier, high nickel alloys, such as Inconels get the nod. The X-15 was mostly Inconel, wasn't it? In jet engines, titanium is mostly limited to low to moderate temperature sections. It seems to me that I read once in Aviation Week that GE had a bad experience with titanium in the early F404 engines which power the F/A-18 Hornet. I thought I read once that it initially, at least, had an all-titanium compressor. Turns out, the darned thing liked to catch fire once in while. Can anyone confirm/deny or elaborate on that one? - --Paul Keller ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:56:54 -0700 (MST) From: Brad Hitch Subject: Re: SR-71 question > > 1660 +/- 10 degrees Celsius (3020 degrees F), according to my Chemical > Rubber Company bible. That isn't the last word on what temperatures > titanium can take, though, or even a good measure for it. It turns > out that titanium has the nasty property that it burns violently in > both air and nitrogen at temperaures well below its melting point. As > a result, although it is useful in applications where the temperatures > are too high for aluminum, it really isn't the highest > temperature-capable metal that's commonly available. For temps that > titanium can't handle, most often less glamourous, and heavier, high > nickel alloys, such as Inconels get the nod. The X-15 was mostly > Inconel, wasn't it? In jet engines, titanium is mostly limited to low > to moderate temperature sections. It seems to me that I read once in > Aviation Week that GE had a bad experience with titanium in the early > F404 engines which power the F/A-18 Hornet. I thought I read once that > it initially, at least, had an all-titanium compressor. Turns out, > the darned thing liked to catch fire once in while. Can anyone > confirm/deny or elaborate on that one? > > --Paul Keller > In general, the usefulness of titanium above 1000 F is limited due to its high creep rate. Some recent alloys and heat treatments have pushed this maybe up to 1300 F. I know at least one titanium compressor burned up in a GE test cell after a blade rub. Augmentor cases and some parts on the exhaust nozzle have been made of titanium and have burned up on occasion (usually when a general is watching). Alloys like Inconel 625, Hastelloy-X, and Haynes 188, which are nickel and cobalt-based superalloys used in combustion equipment, have limited strength above 1800 F and begin to be heavily oxidized above 2000 F. The burned gas temperatures in the main burner of the J58 engine varies depending on the local fuel/air ratio with the maximum around 4500 F just above stoichiometric in the region of the combustor dome. The dome region is usually slightly fuel-rich to obtain good combustion stability while the overall engine fuel/air stoichiometry is fairly lean. The excess air is added downstream of the combustor dome through dilution holes to bring the burned gas temperature down to something the turbine nozzles and first stage high pressure turbine blades can handle. Combustor metal temperatures are probably no higher than around 1600 F as a result of film and backside convective cooling of the combustor can. Brad Hitch "Aerospace Engineer to the Air Force" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:08:59 -0800 (PST) From: David Lednicer Subject: Global Hawk I just had lunch with a Boeing type. Rumor is that Global Hawk flies this weekend (2/14/-15) and Darkstar #2 flies real soon too. > "If God had meant man to fly, He would have given him more money." How about: "If God had meant humans to fly, He would have given us a charge number." - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (425) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (425) 746-1299 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 23:51:02 -0800 From: Sunrise Subject: (no subject) Skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 23:51:02 -0800 From: Sunrise Subject: (no subject) Skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Feb 98 08:42:54 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Det 2 status The last time to them, (Jan) there were still a number of military folks assigned but no contractors. It was expected that a move would be made for a supplemental appropriation for the program in the Spring, but that wasn't a definite. There was always the possibility that the same guy who convinced Clinton to line-item veto it the first time would do it again. However, with the line-item veto temporarily overturned, who knows? One problem is that unless it's thought to be a Very secure program now, it'll be hard to get younger civilians to bet their careers on it again. Not really sure of the exact status of the two that were flying and the others that were to be restored as of this minute. I have heard that USAF was quietly looking for funding to cut some or all of them up. Remember, until they make a change, USAF owns all of the SRs, including the ones NASA is using. Congress so far as made it clear that they won't permit money to be spent to do this. What the enemies of the program would probably like to do is transfer "title" of whatever airframes NASA wants to it (NASA probably has all it needs for the foreseeable future, but I suspect they'd like to mothball one for "insurance"), permanently give NASA whatever spares it says it could use, and then cut the others up. Frankly, though, if they thought they could insure that the plane would never come back by doing so and could get away with it, in my opinion they'd be perfectly willing to come over and take NASA's back and cut them up too. The publicity would be too bad for this, though. I'll see what I can find out when I return from my latest trip Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Feb 98 08:42:54 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Det 2 status The last time to them, (Jan) there were still a number of military folks assigned but no contractors. It was expected that a move would be made for a supplemental appropriation for the program in the Spring, but that wasn't a definite. There was always the possibility that the same guy who convinced Clinton to line-item veto it the first time would do it again. However, with the line-item veto temporarily overturned, who knows? One problem is that unless it's thought to be a Very secure program now, it'll be hard to get younger civilians to bet their careers on it again. Not really sure of the exact status of the two that were flying and the others that were to be restored as of this minute. I have heard that USAF was quietly looking for funding to cut some or all of them up. Remember, until they make a change, USAF owns all of the SRs, including the ones NASA is using. Congress so far as made it clear that they won't permit money to be spent to do this. What the enemies of the program would probably like to do is transfer "title" of whatever airframes NASA wants to it (NASA probably has all it needs for the foreseeable future, but I suspect they'd like to mothball one for "insurance"), permanently give NASA whatever spares it says it could use, and then cut the others up. Frankly, though, if they thought they could insure that the plane would never come back by doing so and could get away with it, in my opinion they'd be perfectly willing to come over and take NASA's back and cut them up too. The publicity would be too bad for this, though. I'll see what I can find out when I return from my latest trip Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Feb 98 19:58:44 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SR-71 status Just for clarification, the info I posted about there being a desire to cut up the SRs did NOT come from Det. II. It's been in the trade press and buzzing around D.C. I also don't know if "cutting up" means chopping into little pieces or simply having structural cuts made to render the aircraft permanently unflyable. Given the Congressional mood on this, they may end up just being towed back out in the desert and left. That's what happened last time. But, as long as NASA takes good care of the simulator and the B, like they have so far, there's always hope. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 20:01:59 GMT From: blackbird@telis.org (Jon Price(PJ)) Subject: Re: Det 2 status Art, Thanks so much for the update. I was at EDW Oct. 14 for the Yeager thing, and a group of us volunteers from the Blackbird Airpark had arranged a tour of the Det. Great tour, but since they had just gotten the 'cease and desist' orders that morning, the mood was kinda low. Well, at least I was able to get a supply of t-shirts and ball caps! When I heard of the judge declaring the line item veto unconstitutional, the SR's were the first thing that came to mind. Glad to hear that there is still a slim possibility that they will be reactivated. BTW, belated congratulations on the great article in the July '97 issue of Airpower. Of particular interest to me was your in depth look at the politics behind the moves to rid the world of the SR's. Very interesting stuff. Also, because of your style of writing, a very pleasant read. Look forward to all your posts on the list. On Sun, 15 Feb 98 08:42:54 GMT, betnal@ns.net put fingers to keyboard and the following resulted : : >> >>The last time to them, (Jan) there were still a number of military = folks assigned=20 >>but no contractors. It was expected that a move would be made for a = supplemental >>appropriation for the program in the Spring, but that wasn't a = definite. There >>was always the possibility that the same guy who convinced Clinton to = line-item >>veto it the first time would do it again. However, with the line-item = veto >>temporarily overturned, who knows? One problem is that unless it's = thought to be >>a Very secure program now, it'll be hard to get younger civilians to = bet their >>careers on it again. >>>> =20 - -------------------snip----------------------------------- >> Art >> - --=20 =20 Jon Price (PJ) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If there is a "NOSPAM" in my return e-mail address, please remove it prior to replying to this message. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ *From the Eastern Slopes of* *The Beautiful High Sierra* *Bishop, California, USA* =20 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 00:54:56 +1100 From: James Morris Subject: IRCM Pods I was watching footage today of RAAF Boeing 707s leaving Australia for thee Gulf, and noticed pods under the wings a few feet or so from the wingtips. >From a distance, I thought they might be fuel tanks, but from a couple of closer shots, they seemed to have a panelling underneath towards one end. At a guess I'd say they were IRCM pods, although it really is just a guess. Does anyone know what they are actually for ? - - James. - -- James Morris VK2GVA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:49:11 -0600 (CST) From: drbob@creighton.edu Subject: Re: IRCM Pods The RAAF has equipped several of their 707s with wingtip refueling pods. These are mounted underneath the wing and inboard a short distance. ESM pods such as those on the E-3F and other heavy transports are typically mounted at the wingtip itself to avoid structural obstacles. IRCM are typically located where they would do the most good, e.g., on the aft end of the engine strut. Without seeing the photos of the 707s in question, my best guess is that they are a/r pods and the planes are from 33 Sqd at RAAF Richmond. DrBob ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 15:58:30 -0000 From: Gavin Payne Subject: ESM Pods The RAF Nimrod has similar pods on its wings called Yellow Stone pods. They are US built I believe and are full of Electronic-Support-Measures (ESM) avionics. Mid-wing is a favourite place to mount ECM and ESM pods as the body of the aircraft is a lot further back from them, giving the sensors a wider effective arc. Gavin - ---------- Gavin Payne, UK G.Payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk - ---------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 23:12:40 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: "borrowed" AFNS article 980193. More F-117A Nighthawks deploy to Southwest Asia by Airman Chris Uhles 49th Fighter Wing Public Affairs HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. (AFNS) -- About 140 troops and six F-117A Nighthawks from Holloman deployed last week to Southwest Asia to add to the Air Force aircraft and thousands of Air Force members already in the area. About 70 people from various units within the 49th Fighter Wing deployed to directly support F-117 operations. Additionally, about 35 people from the 48th Rescue Squadron, deployed, as well as 20-30 49th Materiel Maintenance Group members. Defense Secretary William Cohen signed the order last weekend, though he continues to emphasize U.S. efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the current crisis regarding Iraq. According to Brig. Gen. Dennis Larsen, 49th Fighter Wing commander, deploying Holloman members are all ready to support the tasking to Southwest Asia. "We're ready -- we stay ready," Larsen said. Larsen went on to say that it's important to recognize that before this Stealth deployment, there was a solid airpower force in the region already. "We sent six F-117As and 200 Holloman folks to the region in November to join the thousands of Air Force people, and the airpower they support, that have remained combat ready in the region since the end of Desert Storm," he said. "Not only is the Air Force ready now," Larsen said, "We've been ready." & & ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 20:11:26 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: SR-71 question I guess no one answer my question because I ask on Friday and it was president day on Monday. I will appreciate if anyone know what is the maximum temperature that the combustion chamber of the SR-71 (when is runing a Ramjet mode) can held? I also need the reference in which you got the information. Thanks in advances. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net "If God had meant man to fly, He would have given him more money." BTW, if God gave us his credit card number... I will give him a heart attack of how much I spend in aerospace books ;) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 19:04:48 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: SR-71 question > I guess no one answer my question because I ask on Friday and it >was president day on Monday. I will appreciate if anyone know what is the >maximum temperature that the combustion chamber of the SR-71 (when is >runing a Ramjet mode) can held? I also need the reference in which you got >the information. > Thanks in advances. I've been very busy lately Su Wei. I won't have time to look at this for about a week. Brad Hitch gave you an answer. I'd try and look it up first in either the SR's dash-0 or in one of Miller's books. There are also some guys on this group with J-58 engine manuals. I would expect that would have an exact answer. I'll try and get one of them to check it out. I would expect maybe a chart of combustion temp given CIT. Anyway, why do you are about the main burner anyway? The SR really doesn't run in ramjet mode, per se. It doesn't really have a turboramjet engine. It really runs a bleed-bypass turbojet cycle. As such, the most interesting combustion, or the ramjet burner loosely, is in the afterburner section, where the J58 core flow mixes in with the bypass flow, when the bypass is functional. So the main burner may not be what you want anyway. Also, typical of high Mach turbojet design, the J58 core is a low pressure ratio design anyway, only about 6-to-1, if I recall, so without knowing what you really want, the J58 core burner is not that interesting. Anyway, the J58 is one interesting engine! Too bad there are no hot rodders for high Mach airplanes! Its an interesting idea though! I'll ask about core burner and afterburner temps, and see if anyone has any poop on it. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 23:29:45 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: SR-71 question On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Larry Smith wrote: > Anyway, why do you are about the main burner anyway? First, thanks for answering. I want the temp to calculate the specific thrust and the thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC) in fucntion of the Mach number. It is very easy to calculate for a ramjet if you know the burner temperature. > So the main burner may not be what you want anyway. Also, typical > of high Mach turbojet design, the J58 core is a low pressure > ratio design anyway, only about 6-to-1, if I recall, so without > knowing what you really want, the J58 core burner is not that > interesting. > I'll ask about core burner and afterburner temps, and see if anyone > has any poop on it. > Therefore I need the afterburner temperature what you trying to tell me? You don't need to answer right now... I will wait until you are not busy :) May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net "If God had meant man to fly, He would have given him more money." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Feb 98 04:36:35 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Only a test Please ignore this, thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 23:20:06 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: SR-71 question > >On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Larry Smith wrote: > >> Anyway, why do you are about the main burner anyway? > > First, thanks for answering. I want the temp to calculate the >specific thrust and the thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC) in >fucntion of the Mach number. It is very easy to calculate for a ramjet if >you know the burner temperature. > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Wei-Jen, you better not be building an SR-71 in your back yard. I think that it is against the law! Remember the guy who "built" an Atlas rocket in his backyard in LA? He found all the right pieces in surplus stores in LA. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Feb 98 09:08:46 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re[2]: SR-71 question Wouldn't put it past him! Greg Weigold ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: SR-71 question Author: at INTERNET Date: 2/18/98 11:20 PM > >On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Larry Smith wrote: > >> Anyway, why do you are about the main burner anyway? > > First, thanks for answering. I want the temp to calculate the >specific thrust and the thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC) in >fucntion of the Mach number. It is very easy to calculate for a ramjet if >you know the burner temperature. > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Wei-Jen, you better not be building an SR-71 in your back yard. I think that it is against the law! Remember the guy who "built" an Atlas rocket in his backyard in LA? He found all the right pieces in surplus stores in LA. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Feb 98 09:19:02 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: B1B crash Anybody know anything about the B1B that crashed yesterday in KY? Greg W. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 15:44:16 -0000 From: Gavin Payne Subject: B-1B Crash News Hi, Nothing on the USAF News email last night maybe tonight. CNN have the story though : http://www.cnn.com/cnn/US/9802/18/B1.crash.update/index.html "Crew parachutes from B-1B bomber just before crash" Gavin - ---------- Gavin Payne, UK G.Payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk - ---------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 09:54:25 +0000 From: entropy@brighid.sunflower.com Subject: Re: SR-71 question > Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 23:20:06 -0800 > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > From: patrick > Subject: Re: SR-71 question > Reply-to: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Wei-Jen, you better not be building an SR-71 in your back yard. I think > that it is against the law! > > Remember the guy who "built" an Atlas rocket in his backyard in LA? He > found all the right pieces in > surplus stores in LA. > Well, it wasn't an Atlas - it was supposed to be a man-rated suborbital rocket. The fellow, BTW, is Bob Truax of Polaris missile fame. He eventually sold the system to the USN which used it for tests. I have no idea of what the eventual disposition of the system was. Tom G. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 09:34:11 -0700 From: Brad Hitch Subject: Re: SR-71 question Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Larry Smith wrote: > > > Anyway, why do you care about the main burner anyway? > > First, thanks for answering. I want the temp to calculate the > specific thrust and the thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC) in > fucntion of the Mach number. It is very easy to calculate for a ramjet if > you know the burner temperature. > > > > > Therefore I need the afterburner temperature what you trying to > tell me? > You don't need to answer right now... I will wait until you are > not busy :) > > May the Force be with you > > Su Wei-Jen > E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu > wjs@webspan.net A ramjet burner exit temperature can range up to near stoichiometric, i.e. in excess of 4500 F or so. Just knowing this temperature still doesn't allow you to calculate thrust-specific fuel consumption (TSFC), you also need the exhaust nozzle pressure ratio, area ratio, and thrust coefficient. Since the ramburner can run at any mixed exit temperature up to nearly stoichiometric, to find what the TSFC is at any specific point in a mission requires you to know what %power the engine is running - which depends on the vehicle drag at that point, the engine air flow, and if you are accelerating or not. I generally use MIL-E-5008B to calculate the inlet pressure recovery: Pt/Pt,inf = 1 for M<1 = 1-0.075*(M-1)^1.5 for 15 where: Pt = total pressure of the air coming to the burner from the inlet Pt,inf = total pressure of the ambient air flow around the vehicle M = flight Mach number If you introduce turbomachinery then calculating engine performance becomes much more complicated, requiring component performance maps for the compressor and turbine on each spool in the engine and iteration to balance the power produced and consumed by each. This gets very complicated - whole groups are dedicated to this task at the engine companies. Brad Hitch ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 09:41:53 -0700 From: Brad Hitch Subject: Re: SR-71 question entropy@brighid.sunflower.com wrote: > > > > Remember the guy who "built" an Atlas rocket in his backyard in LA? He > > found all the right pieces in > > surplus stores in LA. > > > Well, it wasn't an Atlas - it was supposed to be a man-rated > suborbital rocket. The fellow, BTW, is Bob Truax of Polaris missile > fame. > > He eventually sold the system to the USN which used it for tests. I > have no idea of what the eventual disposition of the system was. > > Tom G. Bob Truax is completely capable of building a real workable booster, though he's probably slowing down a bit these days. For those who don't know, Truax started his career working for Robert Goddard then became a Navy employee working at Aerojet where he did actual hardware development on early U.S. rocket engines. He's not just "some guy". Brad Hitch ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 09:39:51 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: SR-71 question > For those who don't know, Truax started his career working for Robert Goddard then became a >Navy employee working at Aerojet where he did actual hardware >development on early U.S. rocket engines. He's not just "some guy". > >Brad Hitch > >================================================================== Ok, so I read about in "My Weekly Reader" when I was 11 years old. At least I got the quiz right on page 4. I couldn't afford the student subscription rate to Av Week until 2 years later when I got my first paper route. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 18:27:29 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: SR-71 question On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, patrick wrote: > > Wei-Jen, you better not be building an SR-71 in your back yard. I think > that it is against the law! > I don't need to build the SR-71... a A-12 is in my back yard on top of the Intrepid!! ;) Thanks for the joke. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net "If God had meant man to fly, He would have given him more money." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 18:30:51 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: SR-71 question On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, Brad Hitch wrote: > > A ramjet burner exit temperature can range up to near stoichiometric, > i.e. in excess of 4500 F or so. Just knowing this temperature still > doesn't allow you to calculate thrust-specific fuel consumption (TSFC), > you also need the exhaust nozzle pressure ratio, area ratio, and thrust > coefficient. Since the ramburner can run at any mixed exit temperature I was going to assume ideal expansion nozzle... So, I don't have to ask so much question to you guys. Thanks a lot for answering... There is not much Aerospace Eng. willing or have time to answer me. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net "If God had meant man to fly, He would have given him more money." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 08:08:08 -0800 From: G&G Subject: Air & Space - March issue I don't know if this has been mentioned yet on the list but the March issue of Air & Space magazine has an article on flight testing at NASA's Dryden Center. A couple of nice shots of SRs, including one with the LASER (LASRE?) on the back and a great cover shot - an aerial view of the X-31, F-15 S/MTD, SR-71, QF-106, F-16XL, X-36, X-38, and another plane I don't recognize. Haven't read the article yet, tho... Greg Fieser ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #8 ******************************* 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