skunk-works-digest Saturday, March 14 1998 Volume 07 : Number 014 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** RE: skunk-works-digest V7 #13 RE: skunk-works-digest V7 #13 Aerodynamics. Re: F-117 Designation Re: 100K plus Re: Huntsville X-15 Re: Aerodynamics. Re: 100K plus RE: skunk-works-digest V7 #13 re: F-117 designation Re: Aerodynamics. RE: skunk-works-digest V7 #13 Re: Aerodynamics. Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... RE: Aerodynamics./B1-B RE: 100K plus Re: A-26 Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... Re: A-26 Re: Aerodynamics. Re: A-26 *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:47:57 -0500 From: Michael Charles Guzzo Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V7 #13 To all: During issue 13, there was much discussion of the Michael Adams crash, but there was also another 'emergency landing' by John McKay. He did survive, but does anyone have the meat on what happened during his flight? Any one interested in seeing a real X-15, there is one on display in the US Air and Space Museum in Huntsville AL, home also to many displays of our nuclear missles, and even some that are photographed twice daily by Russkie satelites! (Rhetorical question)Also, with the XB-70 Valkyrie, why were we making a bomber that was quickly becoming outdated, extremely expensive, and usable for only one possible mission, the delivery of 14 freefall nuclear weapons? Talk about highly unintelligent. Anybody seen a picture or an actual Ames AD-1, I've heard some stuff about rotating the wing so it is almost parallel to the fuselage at high speeds. Kinda funky, and I want to know if this is actually true stuff. Thanks much Mike Guzzo "All in favor of crumpets and tea say 'Aye'!" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 13:11:30 -0800 From: Erik Hoel Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V7 #13 Mike Guzzo writes: ... chop ... > Also, with the XB-70 Valkyrie, why were we making a bomber that > was quickly becoming outdated, extremely expensive, and usable for only > one possible mission, the delivery of 14 freefall nuclear weapons? Talk > about highly unintelligent. Not that I agree with Mike's opinion, I would suggest the following excellent web site devoted to the XB-70A: http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html 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: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 10:43:30 +0900 From: "James Matthews" Subject: Aerodynamics. Ok, a question for the engineers: Since I haven't been to college yet (or even graduated from high-school =), I don't know much about aerodynamics. I know the basics, being interested in this stuff, but I don't get the aerodynamics behind canards. I know the advantages etc., but not the science behind it...could someone enlighten me on this. He-he, I'm all questions and no answers, aren't I? If you have a question on the Tomcat I could answer =) Thank you. James. PS: Once the IB Japanese oral exam is over (aaaarrrggghhh!!!!) I will update my homepage. I'll add all this stuff we've been talking about... PPS: How many of you guys know about the Skunk-works Image Archive...(or attachment archive). I found it by search FTP sites for pictures on the F-14, and I came across this one. It is affliated with SW(D), right? ____________________ James Matthews. E-mail (family): matthews@tkb.att.ne.jp E-mail (private): james_matthews@hotmail.com Homepage: http://home.att.ne.jp/gold/tomcat21/index2.html ICQ: 7413754 ____________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:57:38 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: F-117 Designation Gosh have I found the Achilles Heal in Art's vast body of knowledge? >A-26: B-26s sent to Vietnam who were redesignated because "Bomber" sounded to >provocative. > Art correct me if I am wrong, but they did take a whole squadron of A-26 Invaders to Viet-Nam. They were first refurbished with new electrical wiring, new hydraulics and panels including avionics. I have heard two stories about their demise. One is they eventually began discarding wings in flight and the other of a new general who shipped them all home complaining he ran an all jet organization. The planes were sent to D-M. I new someone who tried to buy several but to no avail. He even offered to trade in his A-26's as part of the deal. But they all went under the cutting bar if you can comprehend that decision. patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 21:24:44 EST From: Xelex Subject: Re: 100K plus I imagine you could make the SR-71 reach at altitude above 100,000 feet in a zoom climb, but it would be a bad idea. The aircraft would be uncontrollable by conventional aerodynamic surfaces at that altitude. That is why the NF-104A (56-0756, 56-0760, and 56-0762), JF-104A (55-2961) and X-15 had reaction control thrusters on the nose and wingtips. Even with the RCS, it was dangerous. The hydrogen peroxide thrusters didn't help Mike Adams very much when he entered a spin in the X-15 (56-6672), and Yeager found the RCS rather less than helpful when his NF-104A (56-0762) pitched up and entered a flat spin. Peter W. Merlin THE X-HUNTERS Aerospace Archeology Team ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 21:24:27 -0500 From: jeffhclark@juno.com Subject: Re: Huntsville X-15 Michael Charles Guzzo writes: > Any one interested in seeing a real X-15, there is one on >display in the US Air and Space Museum in Huntsville AL, home also to >many displays of our nuclear missles, and even some that are >photographed twice daily by Russkie satelites! I think that one is a mockup. There were only three real X-15s: #1 is in the National Air & Space Museum in Washington DC #2 is in the USAF Museum in Dayton OH #3 was destroyed in flight over California There is a wooden mockup of #3 made for and on display at NASA Dryden. I would guess the Huntsville X-15 is similar. Jeff Clark _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 01:06:08 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: Aerodynamics. On Sat, 14 Mar 1998, James Matthews wrote: > Ok, a question for the engineers: > > Since I haven't been to college yet (or even graduated from high-school =), > I don't know much about aerodynamics. I know the basics, being interested > in this stuff, but I don't get the aerodynamics behind canards. I know the > advantages etc., but not the science behind it...could someone enlighten me > on this. I believe the list discuss about the canard issue long time ago. But, basically, the canard act as the horizontal tail. The good thing of canard is that you don't stall because when you about to stall... the canard stall first and your pitch down... so your wing doesn't stall. Also, the setup for the center of gravity for canard type aircraft is different from the conventional one. > > He-he, I'm all questions and no answers, aren't I? If you have a question > on the Tomcat I could answer =) Ok... Can you explain how the inlet of the Tomcat works at different Mach numbers?? hehe... This is a hard question... Because it is a real amazing design... I met the guy whom design it last year. 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: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 01:08:12 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: 100K plus On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Xelex wrote: > help Mike Adams very much when he entered a spin in the X-15 (56-6672), and > Yeager found the RCS rather less than helpful when his NF-104A (56-0762) > pitched up and entered a flat spin. From what I read in Yeager's autobiography... the RCS was not working in that mission... therefore, he entered the flap spin. 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: Sat, 14 Mar 98 06:16:33 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V7 #13 > Actually, the B-70 would have worked, if it could have achieved its performance aims (we'll never know). Coupled with its speed and altitude would have been a very powerful ECM system, so it would have been very survivable, easily able to penetrate Russian defenses. The problem was it was so very expensive and would have required such a massive infrastructure. Also, airframe technology was advancing very rapidly in those days and a bomber version of Lockheed's Blackbird would have had even better performance and survivability plus be much less expensive and easier to operate. Of course that idiot McNamara killed both. As for why we were doing it, remember that throughout its life SAC absolutely dominated USAF thinking and priorities. Its philosophies were prevalent throughout the Air Force. For example, in Vietnam, it was rightly pointed out that it was McNamara's lunatic policies that had our pilots bombing worthless targets with the wrong weapons while the meaningful targets were left untouched. *However, it wasn't McNamara that had the policy that USAF aircraft had to attack targets in the North using the same course, altitudes and speeds each time, to fly in predictable formations and not to maneuver. That came from PACAF, which was dominated by old-line SAC people, and that's the way Bombers were supposed to fly. This cost us aircraft and pilots and provoked a near mutiny during Linebacker II (USN strikes weren't subject to PACAF's tactical philosophy and so their loss rate was lower). With that kind of dominance, it's not hard to see why USAF would in the late '50s- early'60s embark on a Giant triple sonic-bomber Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Mar 98 06:21:17 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: re: F-117 designation x1.com Patrick, You are correct about Vietnam, but the B-26 and A-26 are the same plane. My point was that the only reason they were called "A"-26s was that "B"-26 was considered too provocative, not because USAF beleived in the "attack" designation. To USAF, everything that carries weapons and isn't a bomber is a fighter. They don't acknowledge the other role. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Mar 98 06:38:00 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Aerodynamics. Su Wei-Jen: The variable inlet on the Tomcat is actually fairly conventional for an aircraft of its era. Probably the most remarkable thing about it is how easily it can be reprogrammed for different engines, since it was thought that the F-14 would have a number of different engines in its lifetime. Interestingly enough, I suspect that while the variable inlet's still there, it may be disabled on the F-14D. The reason that I think that is that the F-14D in recent years has been often described as having a top speed of M 1.88. The F-14A with much less thrust was much faster than that. As a matter of fact, an F-14A carrying four Phoenix, two tanks, and AIM 9s and AIM-7s is faster than any F/A-18 is clean. Grumman told me that the F-14B/D is faster than the A. The only explanation that makes sense is that the variable feature of the ramps has been disabled (pulling circuit breakers would do it). That would limit the aircraft to just under M 1.9. If so, the philosophy may be that so little time is spent above M 2.0, and so much money is needed to pour down the black hole of the Hornet E/F that it was decided to trade off speed for some dollar savings in maintenance. If M 2+ was ever needed in combat, push the circuit breakers back in. I don't know if this theory is true, I'd be interested to find out. If true, this would not be unprecedented. That's exactly what the plan was for the production version of the B-1A. You'd still have a M 2+ airframe (the B-1B doesn't) and the variable inlets, but the plane would only be certified for ~M 1.5 in service. The ramps would be disabled. However, if the speed was needed in combat, push the circuit breakers in and you're a test pilot. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 03:47:12 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V7 #13 On Sat, 14 Mar 1998 betnal@ns.net wrote: > > > > Actually, the B-70 would have worked, if it could have achieved its Just to add something more defending one of my favorite aircraft. They kill the program because of people that supporting the ICBM... The crash from the XB-70 was a pretext to kill the program. I really hate when something like this happen... When a mature and good program got cancel because of non-sense critics. It is like when a good chief cooked wonderful dishes and you are not going to eat it... What a waste of money. Imagine if the B-70 got into production... We will learn a lot from its technology. We will not be strugglin that much in the SST and get the B-70 as a testbed instead of the Tu-114. 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: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 03:50:30 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: Aerodynamics. On Sat, 14 Mar 1998 betnal@ns.net wrote: > I don't know if this theory is true, I'd be interested to find out. If true, this > would not be unprecedented. That's exactly what the plan was for the production > version of the B-1A. You'd still have a M 2+ airframe (the B-1B doesn't) and the > variable inlets, but the plane would only be certified for ~M 1.5 in service. The > ramps would be disabled. However, if the speed was needed in combat, push the > circuit breakers in and you're a test pilot. I heard the reason of the B-1B has no variable inlet because it will be stealthier. Not sure about that. But, as far as I know, the F-22 has a fix inlet because of stealth characteristics... A lot of pressure loss. 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: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 07:51:09 -0500 From: John Stone Subject: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... Hello, I have an odd question, that hopefully has not been discussed on the list yet! In the articles recently about the Marine E-6 that hit the cables and caused the gondola to fall in Italy, state that all four crew members will be prosecuted, which on the surface would make sense(I guess). But the two guys in back are kinda along for the ride no matter what happens. They have no say in what the pilot and co-pilot are doing up front. They could try and convince them to not do what they're doing....but we are talking Marines here! Or is this a PR ploy on the DOD, to look like they are very upset(which they should be), but then the 2 guys in back will be not be convicted of anything. I realize this is not Skunky but what the hey! Best, John John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web page: http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 16:38:46 -0000 From: Gavin Payne Subject: RE: Aerodynamics./B1-B According to a current B-1B pilot who also worked on the test program in the 80s, the reason that it can't break M1.5 is due to the addition of radar deflectors in the engine inlets. They are designed to ensure that if a radar pulse enters the engine it will not bounce off the blades and get sent back the way it came. Without these he said that the engines were powerful enough to get the aircraft up to the higher end of the Mach 2 scale, probably matching a Foxbat. The original B-1A was designed for this level of spec. Although the engines avoid problems with radar, for some reason they are magnets for birds. Even though they are no more than a liquid when they leave, it still baffles crews as to why this aircraft has unusually high numbers of them! - ---------- Gavin Payne, UK G.Payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk - ---------- - -----Original Message----- From: betnal@ns.net [SMTP:betnal@ns.net] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 6:38 AM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: Aerodynamics. Su Wei-Jen: The variable inlet on the Tomcat is actually fairly conventional for an aircraft of its era. Probably the most remarkable thing about it is how easily it can be reprogrammed for different engines, since it was thought that the F-14 would have a number of different engines in its lifetime. Interestingly enough, I suspect that while the variable inlet's still there, it may be disabled on the F-14D. The reason that I think that is that the F-14D in recent years has been often described as having a top speed of M 1.88. The F-14A with much less thrust was much faster than that. As a matter of fact, an F-14A carrying four Phoenix, two tanks, and AIM 9s and AIM-7s is faster than any F/A-18 is clean. Grumman told me that the F-14B/D is faster than the A. The only explanation that makes sense is that the variable feature of the ramps has been disabled (pulling circuit breakers would do it). That would limit the aircraft to just under M 1.9. If so, the philosophy may be that so little time is spent above M 2.0, and so much money is needed to pour down the black hole of the Hornet E/F that it was decided to trade off speed for some dollar savings in maintenance. If M 2+ was ever needed in combat, push the circuit breakers back in. I don't know if this theory is true, I'd be interested to find out. If true, this would not be unprecedented. That's exactly what the plan was for the production version of the B-1A. You'd still have a M 2+ airframe (the B-1B doesn't) and the variable inlets, but the plane would only be certified for ~M 1.5 in service. The ramps would be disabled. However, if the speed was needed in combat, push the circuit breakers in and you're a test pilot. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 16:38:27 -0000 From: Gavin Payne Subject: RE: 100K plus According to Ben Rich, the lack of oxygen at high altitude was the reason why the SR-71 levelled off at around 85,00 ft. Even at that altitude it was near to the danger levels regarding atmosphere content. - ---------- Gavin Payne, UK G.Payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk - ---------- - -----Original Message----- From: Xelex [SMTP:Xelex@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 2:25 AM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: 100K plus I imagine you could make the SR-71 reach at altitude above 100,000 feet in a zoom climb, but it would be a bad idea. The aircraft would be uncontrollable by conventional aerodynamic surfaces at that altitude. That is why the NF-104A (56-0756, 56-0760, and 56-0762), JF-104A (55-2961) and X-15 had reaction control thrusters on the nose and wingtips. Even with the RCS, it was dangerous. The hydrogen peroxide thrusters didn't help Mike Adams very much when he entered a spin in the X-15 (56-6672), and Yeager found the RCS rather less than helpful when his NF-104A (56-0762) pitched up and entered a flat spin. Peter W. Merlin THE X-HUNTERS Aerospace Archeology Team ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 13:20:29 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: A-26 The story I have heard and read is that the U.S. had a treaty with Thailand not to base bombers in Thailand. Consequently, the U.S. Air Force changed the designation from B-26 to A-26. Jim patrick wrote: > > Gosh have I found the Achilles Heal in Art's vast body of knowledge? > > >A-26: B-26s sent to Vietnam who were redesignated because "Bomber" sounded > to > >provocative. > > > Art correct me if I am wrong, but they did take a whole squadron of A-26 > Invaders to Viet-Nam. They were first refurbished with new electrical > wiring, new hydraulics and panels including avionics. I have heard two > stories about their demise. One is they eventually began discarding wings > in flight and the other of a new general who shipped them all home > complaining he ran an all jet organization. The planes were sent to D-M. > I new someone who tried to buy several but to no avail. He even offered to > trade in his A-26's as part of the deal. But they all went under the > cutting bar if you can comprehend that decision. > > patrick@e-z.net - -- ************************************ James P. Stevenson Aerospace Planning Group, LLC 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: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 12:40:58 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... At 07:51 AM 3/14/98 -0500, you wrote: >Hello, > >I have an odd question, that hopefully has not been discussed on the list yet! > >In the articles recently about the Marine E-6 that hit the cables and >caused the gondola to fall in Italy, state that all four crew members will >be prosecuted, which on the surface would make sense(I guess). But the two >guys in back are kinda along for the ride no matter what happens. They have >no say in what the pilot and co-pilot are doing up front. They could try >and convince them to not do what they're doing....but we are talking >Marines here! Or is this a PR ploy on the DOD, to look like they are very >upset(which they should be), but then the 2 guys in back will be not be >convicted of anything. > >I realize this is not Skunky but what the hey! > >Best, > >John > >John Stone ================================== John- The Italians are a very law minded society much like our own. And they have always shown veracity in prosecuting foreigners. So their actions are normal. Now the DOD is a different story. I think you are right in that they are pretending to make a big stink to impress the Italians. The DOD normally has to be the biggest cover up organization in existence. There is too much odd information here for me to believe it was an accident. Knowing pilots, knowing Marines, I have no problem in believing in my mind that if you came back from a mission and had your 2 GIB's confirming they flew under the wire it would be good for a round of drinks at the squadron bar. Just look at the initial comments of their CO. But like Jack Nicholson said: "You want me on that wall. You need me on that wall." patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 13:22:00 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: A-26 At 01:20 PM 3/14/98 -0500, you wrote: >The story I have heard and read is that the U.S. had a treaty with Thailand >not to base bombers in Thailand. Consequently, the U.S. Air Force changed the >designation from B-26 to A-26. > >Jim > >patrick wrote: >> >> Gosh have I found the Achilles Heal in Art's vast body of knowledge? >> >> >A-26: B-26s sent to Vietnam who were redesignated because "Bomber" sounded >> to >> >provocative. >> > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- No, no no!!! The Martin B-26 Marauder and the Douglas A-26 Invader are two entirely different airplanes. The A-26 was designed later as a replacement for the B-25, B-26. It was designed as a night fighter and light bomber due to its high speed. Production delays caused the AF to go with the P-61 Black Widow. But the A-26 in A,B and C models was always an A-26. The B-26 was known in WW2 as the "Baltimore Whore". When one looked at its short wings it appeared to have "no visible means of support." patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 09:19:56 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: Aerodynamics. At 03:50 14/03/98 -0500, Su Wei-Jen wrote: > > I heard the reason of the B-1B has no variable inlet because it >will be stealthier. Not sure about that. > But, as far as I know, the F-22 has a fix inlet because of stealth >characteristics... A lot of pressure loss. > AFAIK, the B-1 was originally optimised for high altitude supersonic cruise with perhaps only the initial approach to the target at low level. With stealth becoming increasingly important, the B-1B was supposed to spend more time at treetop level and supersonic capability was considered less important. Adding radar baffles has certainly limited its speed, but I think that the variable inlets were deliberately deleted because the cost and complexity was not considered worth it in an aircraft with a different mission profile. For bombers, speed has given way to stealth as far as design philosophy is concerned - the B-2 being entirely subsonic. As for the F-22, neither it nor the YF-23 had variable inlets, supersonic cruise rather than dash being the priority - or rather, stealth giving the relative invulnerability that higher speed couldn't: missiles are too fast and agile to outrun now. Cruise at Mach 1.5 ot thereabouts means that in the long run, an aircraft will be on station faster than one that can only cruise subsonically, however high its dash speed. Also, in terms of combat, speed above Mach 2.2 isn't considered worth the cost and complexity of variable inlets - only the MiG 25 and 31 can do much more, and their speed, range, altitude make a missile a better way of hitting them. As for actual speed, a clean F-15 is supposed to be able to reach Mach 2.5, but what does it do next? As a fighter, the Space Shuttle at Mach 25 would be just as good: it's low on fuel and has no missiles, and the cannon is relatively inflexible and short-range. Armed and fuelled, it'll be much slower. An F-22 may be limited to Mach 2.0, but with full fuel, 6 AMRAAMs, a pair of sidewinders and a cannon. Effectively, the F-22 is much faster. Very high speed may very likely become important again. My own guess is that long-term, there will be a split in design criteria between supercruise fighters and tactical attack aircraft - Mach 1.5-2, many of which will be UCAVs, subsonic carpet bombers (B-1B, B-2 performing B-52 type missions) and hypersonic - Mach 6-10 - long-range, precision strike vehicles (the successors to Global Reach, Hyper-X and Aurora???) that may well be UCAVs. Just guesswork, of course. I couldn't kill you for telling you this, I couldn't even call you rude names or pull faces. - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 17:10:03 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: A-26 > At 01:20 PM 3/14/98 -0500, you wrote: > >The story I have heard and read is that the U.S. had a treaty with Thailand > >not to base bombers in Thailand. Consequently, the U.S. Air Force changed the > >designation from B-26 to A-26. > > > >Jim > > > >patrick wrote: > >> > >> Gosh have I found the Achilles Heal in Art's vast body of knowledge? > >> > >> >A-26: B-26s sent to Vietnam who were redesignated because "Bomber" sounded > >> to > >> >provocative. > >> > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > No, no no!!! > > The Martin B-26 Marauder and the Douglas A-26 Invader are two entirely > different airplanes. The A-26 was designed later as a replacement for the > B-25, B-26. It was designed as a night fighter and light bomber due to its > high speed. Production delays caused the AF to go with the P-61 Black > Widow. But the A-26 in A,B and C models was always an A-26. > > The B-26 was known in WW2 as the "Baltimore Whore". When one looked at its > short wings it appeared to have "no visible means of support." > > patrick@e-z.net > According to "Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation" (ISBN 0-517-10316-8) [page 342]: The Douglas A-26B/C Invader was redesignated B-26B/C Invader in June 1948 when the original "ATTACK" designation was dropped (by which time the Martin B-26 Marauder had been taken out of service). In 1962 40 B-26 Invaders were refurbished by On Mark Engineering Company and redesignated A-26A. Both the Martin B-26 Marauder and the Douglas A-26A Invader were used during WW2. The redesignated Douglas B-26 Invader was used in Korea and the twice redesignated A-26A was used in Vietnam. Sam ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #14 ******************************** 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