skunk-works-digest Friday, March 13 1998 Volume 07 : Number 013 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re[3]: X-15 - re: SR-71's at 314,750' Bib on XF8U-3 promised some time ago. Re: X-15 vs. SR-71 Re: X-15 accident Re: F-117 with U.S. flag Re[2]: X-15 vs. SR-71 Re: Re[2]: X-15 vs. SR-71 RE: Re[2]: X-15 vs. SR-71 RE: Re[2]: X-15 vs. SR-71 Re[4]: X-15 vs. SR-71 Re: Re[2]: X-15 vs. SR-71 Re: Re[3]: X-15 - re: SR-71's at 314,750' Re: SAR/UAV/U-2's and more... unsubscribe radar dishes (again) Re: Re[2]: X-15 vs. SR-71 Re: SAR/UAV/U-2's and more... Re: radar dishes (again) Re: SAR/UAV/U-2's and more... Re: radar dishes (again) unsubscribe RE: Re[2]: X-15 vs. SR-71 RE: F1 Off-Topic F-117 Designation UFO lands at Edwards during X-38 test Re: F-117 Designation *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 09 Mar 98 22:01:07 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re[3]: X-15 - re: SR-71's at 314,750' Yeah, Air & Space has a nice website and they have the X-15 as fastest AND highest flying. I knew the X could outrun (for 60 seconds or so) the SR, but I didn't realize that the SR would be that far outside its envelope, although that should have been fairly obvious! Just for conversation's sake, how high do you folks think the SR could go on a straight run altitude attempt? 100K plus? 150K plus? Greg Weigold ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re[2]: X-15 - re: SR-71's at 314,750' Author: at INTERNET Date: 3/9/98 1:55 PM >Pete wrote: >17 JUL 62 Robert M. White 314,750' FAI world altitude record >... >On 22 AUG 63, Walker set an unofficial record of 354,200' altitude. Greg replied: > Does anybody know where the 'official' final word is on this? I'm > currently having a discussion similar to this on another list. > > The other guy says the SR-71 had the record, ... But > neither of us has enough complete info to prove the other wrong. The other guy says the SR-71 had what record? The altitude record? No way! Think of it this way. Have any SR or A-12 pilots earned astronaut wings? Not to my knowledge. Does the SR have a similar control system to the X-15-3? Namely BOTH an endoatmospheric (aerodynamic) and exoatmospheric (reaction control thrusters) control system? Nope! Also, look at those big 6-digit numbers on the list Pete posted. Look at the top one which is 'official FAI world alt. record', 314,750. An SR at 314,750? No way. Can an SR zoom itself outside its aerodynamic envelope? Yes, I believe it can, but not that far out. Someday it will be way cool when USAF and hopefully USN/USMC pilots earn astronaut wings on non-shuttle military missions, but we're not there yet. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 19:02:03 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Bib on XF8U-3 promised some time ago. As promised some time ago, here's the bib on XF8U-3 Crusader III Flight Journal, Dec 1997, pgs 38-44, "Crusader vs Phantom", Adm. Paul Gillcrist USN Ret. with Bob Kress, Grumman VP Ret. Airpower, Vol 7 No. 4 July, 1977, pgs 12-25 and pgs 54-55, "Crusader Without A Cause", Jay Miller Wings Of Fame - The Journal Of Classic Combat Aircraft, Volume 9 (available NOW), pgs 20-29, "Beyond the Frontiers - Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III - What might have been ...", Peter B. Mersky If anyone knows of others, let me know. The Flight Journal should be available on back issue, and last I checked, that issue of Airpower was still available. The Wings of Fame magazine (actually it's more like a book) is available now on better newsstands (saw it at the local Borders). Larry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 22:54:46 EST From: Xelex Subject: Re: X-15 vs. SR-71 Greg Weigold asked for the definitive "official word" on the altitude record of X-15 vs. SR-71. Well, that is exactly what I gave in my last post. For absolute speed and altitude, the X-15 beats the SR-71 hands down. There is no comparison because the X-15 was a rocket plane, designed to operate at the edge of space. The SR-71 is the highest and fastest air-breathing aircraft, and the X-15 is the highest and fastest rocket plane, if you want to make the distinction. Peter W. Merlin NASA Dryden Flight Research Center History Office ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 23:22:41 EST From: Xelex Subject: Re: X-15 accident Erik Hoel has asked about the crash of the number three X-15 (56-6672). Here are some details: On 15 November 1967, Maj. Michael J. Adams piloted the X-15-3 for a high altitude flight, his first above 50 miles. The X-15 was launched from NASA's NB-52B (52-0008) at an altitude of 45,000 feet over Delamar Lake, Nevada. A minute after launch, an electrical disturbance from one of the onboard experiments caused a transient motion in all three control system servo actuators, deactivating the normal reaction controls. Other guidance systems were affected, causing significant errors in the inertial data displayed on the cockpit instrument panel. The reaction controls occaisionally became functional, but were not working for a major portion of the climb to altitude. They failed to prevent the aircraft's heading from slowly drifting. The X-15 peaked at an altitude of 266,400 feet, but the heading was misaligned 15 degrees to the right of the flight path. Aircraft velocity was about 4,600 feet per second. Adams attempted to adjust his heading, but his control inputs only increased the heading drift (possibly due to pilot vertigo). Coming down through 230,000 feet, the aircraft began to spin. Through a combination of control inputs and the X-15's natural aerodynamic stability, Adams recovered from the spin and entered a conventional dive at 120,000 feet, and a speed of Mach 4.7. The X-15 then developed a pitch oscillation that saturated the automatic control system. This led to a self-sustaining increase in the pitching motion. At 62,000 feet, increasing airloads caused the aircraft structure to fail catastrophically. Adams did not eject, and was killed when the forward fuselage impacted the desert. The canopy from X-15-3 (56-6672) is on display at the San Diego Aerospace Museum in Balboa Park, San Diego California. Several other pieces, recovered by The X-Hunters (Peter Merlin and Tony Moore) are displayed at the Air Force Flight Test Center Museum, Edwards AFB, California. These include a large chunk of horizontal stabilizer and part of the tail with "72" painted on it. Peter W. Merlin THE X-HUNTERS Aerospace Archeolgy Team ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 23:54:26 EST From: Xelex Subject: Re: F-117 with U.S. flag A. W. Hardin has asked if any photos have been published showing the F-117A with a U.S. flag motif painted on the underside. Although many photos were taken of this aircraft, none have yet been published. At least four (two in-flight, two in the hangar) are known to exist. The aircraft was the third Full Scale Development prototype, or YF-117A (79-10782). It was originally overall gray. The upper surface was then painted flat black with standard gray markings. The tail markings have been duplicated exactly in Mike Machat's "Lockheed Legends" painting. There was a 6" white disk with a Lockheed skunk logo near the top of the tail. Below it, and spread out rather more widely than usual, were USAF and 782. The forward third (ending about 6" aft of the retractable blade antenna) of the underside was blue with 50 white stars. The stars were in even rows, except a few stars had to be nudged out of line to accomodate the DLIR window. The thirteen red and white stripes increased in width toward the aft end (Think "rising sun"). A camera pod under the right wing (to photograph weapon drops) was in the middle of one of the red stripes, and was also painted red. It was a beautiful airplane, and kept its patriotic colors for a number of months before being repainted overall flat black. Peter W. Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 98 09:22:19 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re[2]: X-15 vs. SR-71 The difference between air-breathing and rocket-powered is where we were getting hung up. I was talking about air-breathers, not experimental 'one off' (yes, I know there were at least 3 X-15's) rocket-powered units. The discussion was sort of like the argument over the the fastest automobile (Ferrari or Lambourgini I think) and the new land speed holder from the UK. Yes, the land speed holder 'could' be called a car, but when someone asks you the question "What's the fastest car?" your immediate reaction doesn't include rocket-powered. Thanks for the info. Greg Weigold ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: X-15 vs. SR-71 Author: at INTERNET Date: 3/9/98 10:54 PM Greg Weigold asked for the definitive "official word" on the altitude record of X-15 vs. SR-71. Well, that is exactly what I gave in my last post. For absolute speed and altitude, the X-15 beats the SR-71 hands down. There is no comparison because the X-15 was a rocket plane, designed to operate at the edge of space. The SR-71 is the highest and fastest air-breathing aircraft, and the X-15 is the highest and fastest rocket plane, if you want to make the distinction. Peter W. Merlin NASA Dryden Flight Research Center History Office ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:35:58 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: Re[2]: X-15 vs. SR-71 At 09:22 10/03/98 -0500, you wrote: > The discussion was sort of like the argument over the the fastest > automobile (Ferrari or Lambourgini I think) and the new land speed > holder from the UK. Yes, the land speed holder 'could' be called a > car, but when someone asks you the question "What's the fastest car?" > your immediate reaction doesn't include rocket-powered. > > Thanks for the info. > > Greg Weigold Actually, the Thrust SSC is an air-breather. :-) As for series-production, street-legal, a McLaren F1 managed 231 mph. Lamborgini claims something like 202 mph for the Diablo, Ferrari claims 199 mph for the F 550 Maranello, something like 202 mph for the F 40. Jaguar, I think, claimed 212 mph for the XK 220, and possibly Bugatti claimed something similar for the EB 110. The McLaren also holds the record for the most expensive - but it does have passnger seats and luggage space. Personally, I've thought that Thrust SSC could have a great career as a Bentley - same basic principles, just needs a bit of wood and leather :-) - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 11:53:51 +1030 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: RE: Re[2]: X-15 vs. SR-71 > Actually, the Thrust SSC is an air-breather. :-) > > As for series-production, street-legal, a McLaren F1 managed 231 mph. > Lamborgini claims something like 202 mph for the Diablo, Ferrari > claims 199 > mph for the F 550 Maranello, something like 202 mph for the F 40. > Jaguar, > I think, claimed 212 mph for the XK 220, and possibly Bugatti claimed > something similar for the EB 110. The McLaren also holds the record > for > the most expensive - but it does have passnger seats and luggage > space. > > Personally, I've thought that Thrust SSC could have a great career as > a > Bentley - same basic principles, just needs a bit of wood and leather > :-) > The Australian Formula 1 Grand Prix (held last weekend and won by the McLaren team in a very controversial first, second placing) previewed an experimental F1 car that will carry two people (front-rear). It is scheduled to make an appearance sometime later this year at a Grand Prix where the winner of a contest will be able to ride (race?) around the track during Grand Prix week prior to the big race. Not real skunky, but the closest most people will ever get to it on the ground. FYI - For all US-based folks, the F1 is the premier world auto race circuit. Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:42:33 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: RE: Re[2]: X-15 vs. SR-71 At 11:53 11/03/98 +1030, you wrote: >> Actually, the Thrust SSC is an air-breather. :-) >> >> As for series-production, street-legal, a McLaren F1 managed 231 mph. >> Lamborgini claims something like 202 mph for the Diablo, Ferrari Whoops, erratum - the "McLaren F1" is a strret car - they called it that because they drew on their Formula One experience. It's called an "F1", but its not an F1 car. - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 98 22:14:36 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re[4]: X-15 vs. SR-71 Yeah, I was gonna ask about that. I hadn't heard of the McLaren, but the others you mentioned are more what comes to mind. Greg Weigold ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: RE: Re[2]: X-15 vs. SR-71 Author: at INTERNET Date: 3/11/98 1:42 PM At 11:53 11/03/98 +1030, you wrote: >> Actually, the Thrust SSC is an air-breather. :-) >> >> As for series-production, street-legal, a McLaren F1 managed 231 mph. >> Lamborgini claims something like 202 mph for the Diablo, Ferrari Whoops, erratum - the "McLaren F1" is a strret car - they called it that because they drew on their Formula One experience. It's called an "F1", but its not an F1 car. - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 98 06:28:42 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Re[2]: X-15 vs. SR-71 Of course, the SR has a distinct advantage if you want to take off and there's no B-52 around, or if you have to go around on landing! Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 98 06:30:45 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Re[3]: X-15 - re: SR-71's at 314,750' SR ultimate altitude: 100K plus? Probably. 150K plus? Highly unlikely. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 98 06:41:08 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SAR/UAV/U-2's and more... On 3/9/98 9:05AM, in message <3504216B.4E09@airmail.net>, G&G wrote: > Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > I believe someone on the list mention that the U-2's wing can be > > fold down, or remove? > > True, but only once. The airframe is pretty much ruined after that... :) > > Greg > Actually, they took them off for carrier ops, and I beleive the outer tips folded, but I'm not sure. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:58:12 +0100 From: Jesus Brezmes Subject: unsubscribe unsubscribe ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 09:14:34 +0000 From: Steven Barber Subject: radar dishes (again) I'm disappointed. No-one actually answered my question, which was: does a modern radar 'dish' have to be radar-reflective? I accept that the F117 probably doesn't have a radar but the F22, etc, will have and so whether the radar dish is going to be a source of increased RCS is of interest. Steve ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:42:35 +0100 From: "Pavel Sestak" Subject: Re: Re[2]: X-15 vs. SR-71 ssc could be an air breather, but for my friend's russian copy of fiat 1966 this is no difference pavel sestak bludicka@teledin.cz Brett Davidson on 11.03.98 01:35:58 Please respond to skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com cc: (bcc: Pavel Sestak/Teledin) Subject: Re: Re[2]: X-15 vs. SR-71 At 09:22 10/03/98 -0500, you wrote: > The discussion was sort of like the argument over the the fastest > automobile (Ferrari or Lambourgini I think) and the new land speed > holder from the UK. Yes, the land speed holder 'could' be called a > car, but when someone asks you the question "What's the fastest car?" > your immediate reaction doesn't include rocket-powered. > > Thanks for the info. > > Greg Weigold Actually, the Thrust SSC is an air-breather. :-) As for series-production, street-legal, a McLaren F1 managed 231 mph. Lamborgini claims something like 202 mph for the Diablo, Ferrari claims 199 mph for the F 550 Maranello, something like 202 mph for the F 40. Jaguar, I think, claimed 212 mph for the XK 220, and possibly Bugatti claimed something similar for the EB 110. The McLaren also holds the record for the most expensive - but it does have passnger seats and luggage space. Personally, I've thought that Thrust SSC could have a great career as a Bentley - same basic principles, just needs a bit of wood and leather :-) - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 07:16:44 -0500 From: John Stone Subject: Re: SAR/UAV/U-2's and more... >On 3/9/98 9:05AM, in message <3504216B.4E09@airmail.net>, G&G > >wrote: > >> Wei-Jen Su wrote: >> > I believe someone on the list mention that the U-2's wing can be >> > fold down, or remove? >> >> True, but only once. The airframe is pretty much ruined after that... :) >> >> Greg >> > > >Actually, they took them off for carrier ops, and I beleive the outer tips >folded, >but I'm not sure. Ya, the outer 30-50 inches, (it happens at "wing station 550") of the wing fold up and lays on top of the rest of the wing. And it will fit down a elevator to be taken below decks! Best, John John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web page: http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 98 09:09:38 EST From: keller@eos.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: radar dishes (again) Steve Barber wrote: >I'm disappointed. No-one actually answered my question, which was: >does a modern radar 'dish' have to be radar-reflective? >I accept that the F117 probably doesn't have a radar but the F22, etc, >will have and so whether the radar dish is going to be a source of >increased RCS is of interest. I was thinking of replying to this, but since my knowledge of this is limited to what I've read in Aviation Week, and what I generally know about radio & radar as an engineer, which isn't much since that isn't my specialty, I waited to see if any knowledgeable insiders would reply. Nobody did, so... Concealing radar antenae on stealth aircraft, yes, is a difficult problem since the radome, obviously, needs to be transparent to the radar's own radio frequencies, and, underneath the radome, you have all sorts unstealthy hardware. The problem there, I would guess, is more with the transmit elements if you have a phased array radar than with the receive elements. The transmit elements tend to be stongly reflective at the frequencies they're designed to transmit at. Even radio receive antenae aren't necessarily good absorbers of radio frequency (RF) radiation. They're mainly just RF detectors, and poorly designed RF receivers will even radiate a bit at the frequency they're tuned to. The report that the F-117A does not have any radar beyond a radar altimeter is pretty much what I had thought. The B-2, though, I know does have a radar, and so will the F-22. I don't know what the solution was to concealing the B-2's radar from radars at it's own frequencies. I would suspect, though, that that answer is at least mostly classified. Having said all of the this, though, I have a couple of followup questions of my own: Are all that many fighter radars phased arrays? I think the MIG-31's is, but I've seen plenty pictures of fighters with their radomes removed, and many, particularly US fighters, still have dishes, which I presume are at least partially mechanically steered. Does anyone on the list know what the F-22 will have for a radar? - --Paul Keller ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:20:00 -0800 From: G&G Subject: Re: SAR/UAV/U-2's and more... John Stone wrote: > > Ya, the outer 30-50 inches, (it happens at "wing station 550") of the wing > fold up and lays on top of the rest of the wing. And it will fit down a > elevator to be taken below decks! I stand corrected. Thanks John. Greg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:18:03 +0000 From: Steven Barber Subject: Re: radar dishes (again) >From what I know of time-scales, etc, having worked on the fringes of airborne radar groups fifteen to twenty years ago, I think phased-array radars have really come in since the current inventory of fighters. The F15 and F16, for example, are both pretty old designs now, as is the Tornado ADV. What would be neat, of course, is a radome that is non-transparent to any frequencies whilst a small electric field is passed through it but becomes transparent otherwise (or vice-versa). That way, you could be stealthy until such time as you turn your radar on - when everyone is going to spot you anyway. lidar (laser radar), of course, is a completely different kettle of fish... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:04:46 +0100 From: Samuel Sporrenstrand Subject: unsubscribe unsubscribe ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:08:00 -0800 From: Erik Hoel Subject: RE: Re[2]: X-15 vs. SR-71 Dennis fatuously wrote: ... blather about dandified F1 stuff mercifully deleted ... > FYI - For all US-based folks, the F1 is the premier world auto race > circuit. Snicker.=20 Hardly ... NHRA (National Hot Rod Association) is obviously the premier = circuit. Imagine if you will a race where Joe Amato in a Top Fuel = Eliminator does the quarter mile (1320') in 4.55 seconds with a speed of = 320.9 MPH (1997 Winston Nationals, Pomona, CA). As an added benefit, the = crowds at an NHRA event are the antithesis of the typical euro-trash = that frequent F1 events (i.e., lots of bikers, truck drivers, pro = wrestling fans, and copious amounts of tattoos [often sporting American = flags]). Blown nitro-methane - its a good thing. Couldn't resist =3D:-O Erik - -- Erik Hoel = mailto:ehoel@esri.com _|_| Environmental Systems Research Institute = http://www.esri.com _|_| 380 New York Street 909-793-2853 = tel ESRI Redlands, CA 92373-8100 909-307-3067 = fax ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:39:21 +1030 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: RE: F1 Off-Topic > Dennis fatuously wrote: > > ... blather about dandified F1 stuff mercifully deleted ... > > > FYI - For all US-based folks, the F1 is the premier world auto race > > circuit. > > Snicker. > > Hardly ... NHRA (National Hot Rod Association) is obviously the > premier circuit. Imagine if you will a race where Joe Amato in a Top > Fuel Eliminator does the quarter mile (1320') in 4.55 seconds with a > speed of 320.9 MPH (1997 Winston Nationals, Pomona, CA). As an added > benefit, the crowds at an NHRA event are the antithesis of the typical > euro-trash that frequent F1 events (i.e., lots of bikers, truck > drivers, pro wrestling fans, and copious amounts of tattoos [often > sporting American flags]). > > Blown nitro-methane - its a good thing. > Thanks, Erik, I'm glad someone caught the hook. No arguments from me on this. Yes, I, too, enjoy the NHRA, but only as a spectator. I still remember Jack Ditmars Opel Kadet funny car (friend of my brother). If I recall, his was the first funny car with the driver in front of the engine. His helmet was inches from the windshield and his legs extended ahead of the line where the front axle would have been. Because he was seated so far in front, Jack had a stick where a hood ornament normally is attached, so he could gauge where the backend of the car was in relation to the front. Blown nitro? Ahh!! About as good as, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning ..." BTW - The Adelaide Grand Prix (until it was stolen by Melbourne three years ago and screwed it up ever since) still holds the world record for attendance for ANY automobile race in the world. Here we watched the race with beer, wine and champagne, and not a truckie, bikie or tattoo in sight (Australian terms of endearment are often in the diminutive context - no "truckers," but "truckies." ). As for the fans in the rest of the world, who cares ... The thrill at the Adelaide GP was the US Air Force F-16s and F-18s down here on a "training exercise." They always arrived on station low and mean - as low as Aussie FAA authorities would allow in a metro area, with exemptions thrown in. From the roof of a ten story building, one could see a horizontal line in the distance, almost level with our location. It came closer without a sound, until it was too late (if you didn't have ear plugs!). They were low enough and close enough from out rooftop perch to see the pilots waving with thumbs up! They then spent GP week performing over the track, which means all over the metro area. For people not familiar with Adelaide, the city sits on a plain between the sea (to the west) and the Adelaide Hills (east). Many maneuvers involved coming in over the Hills at less than 100 feet, only to DROP into the plains and over the track before performing. It was one of the few times Australians ever appreciated anything American. At least during GP week I wasn't on the receiving end of any anti-Yank jokes ... Apologies for the extended off-topic. We now return you to regular programming ... Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 14:21:05 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: F-117 Designation Question for the group: Does anyone know (A) Where the F-117 designation came from; and (B) Regardless of where it came from, why the Air Force was permitted to disregard the DoD Directives. Had the Air Force followed the directive, it would have designated the F-117 with an "A" designation. Jim - -- ************************************ James P. Stevenson E-mail:jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com Office:301-254-9000 Home: 301-530-4241 FAX: 301-530-6923 5600 Roosevelt St. Bethesda, MD 20817-6740 USA ************************************ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 00:27:28 EST From: Xelex Subject: UFO lands at Edwards during X-38 test UFO Lands at Edwards AFB during X-38 test! The unpiloted X-38 lifting body made its first free flight on 12 March. It was dropped from NASA's NB-52B by launch officer Brian Anderson. The B-52 was piloted by Gordon Fullerton and Ed Schneider. This was the first free flight of the subscale demonstrator for the Space Station lifeboat. It was also the first lifting body vehicle dropped from the NB-52B since the X-24B program ended on 26 November 1975. The NB-52B, serial number 52-0008, has served as a "mothership" at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center since the X-15 program. During the final run towards the drop zone, Fullerton asked ground observers and a chase helicopter to identify an unknown object that was apparently hovering about 4,000 feet above the X-38 landing site. After several radio calls, a telescopic camera was trained on the mysterious UFO. The object appeared to be a cluster of weather balloons with a radiosonde attached. It drifted slowly away from the drop zone, and descended on the Edwards AFB bombing range a few minutes before the X-38 was dropped. Immediately after the X-38 was released, its drogue chute was released. The parasail deployed successfully, suffering a few minor rips in the fabric. Ground controllers guided the vehicle to a landing on the bombing range, one mile east of Haystack Butte. The X-38 landed upright, and skidded about 20 feet before stopping. It received slight damage to the landing skids. Peter W. Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 98 17:10:02 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F-117 Designation On 3/12/98 11:21AM, in message <350835A0.DF874ACC@sprintmail.com>, "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > Question for the group: Does anyone know > > (A) Where the F-117 designation came from; and > > (B) Regardless of where it came from, why the Air Force was permitted to > disregard the DoD Directives. Had the Air Force followed the directive, it > would have designated the F-117 with an "A" designation. > > Jim > -- > ************************************ > James P. Stevenson > E-mail:jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com > Office:301-254-9000 > Home: 301-530-4241 > FAX: 301-530-6923 > 5600 Roosevelt St. > Bethesda, MD 20817-6740 USA > ************************************ > A) I believe the number "117" was used for some time in documentation to refer to the aircraft when it was still very highly classified and had no official designator. They had to call it Something in print, and "Mystery Plane" probably would have called too much attention. Supposedly some manuals were eventually printed accidentally referring to it as the "F-117", and that ended up being propagated so much that it just stuck. It was easier to officially as the F-117 than to cause more confusion by calling it something else. B) USAF does not believe there in the "Attack" mission as a job for Real airplanes. In their pecking order, aircraft are essentially Fighters, Bombers and Everything Else. If you look at how the "A" designation has been applied you'll see this. A-1: A Navy plane used by USAF that already had a designator (the days of separate USAF and USN designators for the same aircraft ended in 1962). A-7: Ditto A-26: B-26s sent to Vietnam who were redesignated because "Bomber" sounded to provocative. A-10: Only USAF aircraft actually born with an "A" designation. This was political maneuvering used to give the appearance that USAF actually had an interest in the Close Air Support Mission. This was part of their move to kill the Army's AH-56 (i.e. "See, Congress? We're willing to do CAS. We even have an "A" aircraft under development, so why don't you just cut off funding for that silly Army toy"). Otherwise, if it had been developed at all, the Warthog would have had an "F" designation. Art ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #13 ******************************** 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