skunk-works-digest Monday, March 16 1998 Volume 07 : Number 015 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** The function of Canards Re: Aerodynamics. RE: skunk-works-digest V7 #13 RE: Aerodynamics./B1-B Re: A-26 Tomcat Inlets... Re: The function of Canards Please unsubscribe me! Re: A-26 Aircraft Manuals Re: Aircraft Manuals Re: Aircraft Manuals Re: F-117 Designation Re: F-117 Designation Re: F-117 Designation dashing... Military AI. B-26 (was: F-117 designation) Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... Re[2]: A-26 Re: Re[2]: X-15 Re: Huntsville X-15 *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 19:59:13 -0800 From: Adam Chance Subject: The function of Canards Let me start out by admitting that I may not have a clue as to what I am talking about. I've never been sure of what I have more talent in, useless aviation knowledge or talking out my ass. You be the judge. Here is my understanding of canards. All aircraft are subject to a center of gravity. The center of gravity is usually placed in the center of the wings. Imagine if you took a model of a plane, put a pencil beneath it, where would that pencil go so the plane wouldn't fall off? It would be positioned so that weight for and aft is evenly distributed, like a see-saw. It is because of this that the tail is shaped like it is. The tail is an upside down airfoil. So that while the wings produce lift in an upward direction the tail produces lift in a downward direction. The balance between the 2 should keep the plane going straight and level. With this in mind lets look at the canards. The canards are also upside down, and while the tail is mostly (but not always, see Wright Brothers) located in the very rear of an aircraft the canards are positioned in the very forward postion. They are not rigid, but on a movable mechanism witch leads me to beleive they increse stabilily in the aircraft much like the tail does. Also note that canards are mostly found on aircraft with very forward cocpits (see Valkyrie and Concord), I would imagine that because of these forward cocpits these aircraft have problems with center of gravity. I would also imaging that the canards help balance out that center of gravity problem by changing the weight of the nose as needed. Well how did I do? Think I understand it or am I talking out of my ass? I am by no means expert and I am curious if my understanding is accurate. If you happen to get any other replies I would be interested in seeing them. Fell free to forward them. Thanxs ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Mar 98 03:08:16 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Aerodynamics. On 3/14/98 12:50AM, in message , Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > 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, > . > > I heard the reason of the B-1B has no variable inlet because it > will be stealthier. Not sure about that. This is true. It's also cheaper and requires less maintenance. Even if it had variable inlets, though, The B-1B wouldn't be any faster. It is airframe limited. The B-1A would have retianed the variable inlets, even though in normal use they'd be inop. > But, as far as I know, the F-22 has a fix inlet because of stealth > characteristics... A lot of pressure loss. > > Also true. F-22 will cruise faster than the aircraft it replaces, but its top speed will be noticeably less. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Mar 98 03:11:49 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V7 #13 On 3/14/98 12:47AM, in message , Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > 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. > Actually, McNamara had already killed the B-70 by the time of the crash. The facilities to build it were gone by then and it would have been too expensive to resurrect. In hindsight, killing it was the right thing to do, but for the wrong reason. The bomber version of the Blackbird would have been more effective. Of course, that was killed too... Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Mar 98 03:26:40 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: Aerodynamics./B1-B On 3/14/98 8:38AM, in message <01BD4F67.A9544560@G.Payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk>, Gavin Payne wrote: > 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. > The B-1B is limited in top speed by two main factors. One is that the inlets are fixed for RCS, cost and maintenance reasons. The second is that since the plane couldn't go above M1.8-1.9 anyway, a good deal of structural stiffening that was in the wings and fuselage of the B-1A was removed because it was only there for M2+ flight. This reduced cost as well as offsetting some of the weight growth between the B-1A and B-1B. The B-1A while much faster than the B, would never have been capable of Foxbat speeds. The airframe wasn't designed for it, it would have had to have different materials in certain areas that would be unnecessary for its mission. Plus the frontal area drag of those F101s would have been a limiting factor as well. An illustration of the effect large fan frontal area can have can be seen on the F-14B/D. It was expected that the World's Best Operational Fighter would have range advantages over the A model on all missions because the infinitely better F110s didn't need to use afterburner as much as the constantly choking TF30s, plus fuel/lb thrust was lower. However, because of the larger frontal area of the F110, higher power settings have to be carried to compensate for the somewhat increased drag. On some missions with a lot of long range cruise, this higher power setting will offset the other economies of the F110, and so range works out to be the same. In addition, although the B/D is faster than the A (if the ramps are operational), it isn't as much faster as you'd expect from a 40% increase in thrust because of the greater fan frontal area drag. Art > 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! > ---------- > Have heard that too ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Mar 98 03:31:22 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: A-26 Sorry Patrick, You're simultaneously corect and mistaken (ain't aviation grand?). When the AF came into existence, the "A" designation was dropped and "P" was changed to "F". The Marauders were all gone by then, so the Invader's AAF "A" became USAF's "B". THAT B-26 is the same plane that became the A-26 of Vietnam fame, getting its old designation back for exactly the reason Jim mentioned. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 14:03:38 +0900 From: "James Matthews" Subject: Tomcat Inlets... Ok, well...someone explained for me. But I'll still fulfill my promise with some pictures: Go to my homepage: http://www.home.att.ne.jp/gold/tomcat21/index2.html. Click on "Skunkworks." There you will find two pictures of the inlets taken from the F-14 manual. Thanks goes to Torsten who got these pictures...here is his homepage. http://www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/sites/mats/ Sorry I didn't put a direct link to pictures, but I haven't made the page yet...=) James. PS: Does anyone have (or know where I can get) the manual for the Tomcat. I had a guy who was gonna give it to me -- but he disappeared... ____________________ 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: Sun, 15 Mar 98 08:06:44 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: The function of Canards Canards also permit shorter takeoffs and landings for a given wing area. The reason is that to raise the nose with conventional controls, you must put a downward force on The tail to pitch the nose up. This naturally subtracts from total lift (it's also why delta aircraft don't use flaps). A canard pitches up by putting positive lift on the nose instead of negative lift on the tail. Therefore both the main wing and the smaller horizontal controls (in this case the canard) are producing an upward force. Then again canards do have their drawbacks as well. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 05:21:45 +0100 From: Samuel Sporrenstrand Subject: Please unsubscribe me! (To George Kasica) Hello there!, I've been trying to 'unsubscribe' myself from the list (lack of time) but without success. If you could do it manually so to speak, I would be grateful! Thanx! Best regards // Samuel Sporrenstrand ____________________________________________________________________________________ Contact: Samuel Sporrenstrand E-mail: sporren@swipnet.se Voice: +46 (0)125-10110 Fax: +46 (0)125-40290 ICQ-UIN: 7753932 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 19:31:11 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: A-26 I think we are in violent agreement. What you say is true. When the U.S. Air Force finally received its autonomy, it separated itself completely from cooperating with the Army by dropping the “attack” designation altogether. All of its formerly attack designated aircraft were now bombers. Thus, the Douglas A-26 Invader was now, by designation segue, the B-26, notwithstanding the fact that the designation had already been given to the Martin Marauder. The Douglas B-26 Invader was used in the South East Asia confrontation and stationed in Thailand. However, due to some treaty agreements with the Thai government not to station “bombers” in the country, the Douglas B-26 Invader was changed back to its original designation. patrick wrote: > > 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 13:00:34 -0000 From: Gavin Payne Subject: Aircraft Manuals Does anyone know where I can get an aircrew manual for an SR-71? - ---------- Gavin Payne, UK G.Payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk - ---------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 08:41:16 -0500 From: John Stone Subject: Re: Aircraft Manuals Gavin Payne wrote: >Does anyone know where I can get an aircrew manual for an SR-71? They, as I understand it are out of print. So your probably going to have to find a used copy....which I've also been looking for with no success! Best, John John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web page: http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 15:49:55 GMT From: blackbird@telis.org (Jon Price(PJ)) Subject: Re: Aircraft Manuals you might want to try running a search for it at www.abebooks.com. On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 08:41:16 -0500, John Stone put fingers to keyboard and the following resulted : : >> >>Gavin Payne wrote: >>>Does anyone know where I can get an aircrew manual for an SR-71? >> >>They, as I understand it are out of print. So your probably going to = have >>to find a used copy....which I've also been looking for with no = success! >> >>Best, >> >>John >> >>John Stone >>jstone@thepoint.net >>U-2 and SR-71 Web page: >>http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html >> >> - --=20 Jon Price (PJ) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If there is a "NOSPAM" in my return e-mail address, please remove it prior to replying to this message. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ************************************************** ************************************************** **A Moderate soon to be back on the Beautiful* **Left Coast of the good 'ol USA, Huntington Beach **California! * ************************************************** ************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 12:22:40 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F-117 Designation Art, Thanks for your reply. Since asking the question, I have learned something. The pilots of the Have Drill, Have Donut, etc. e.g. the U.S. MiG aircraft, had to enter something into their log books. They picked up where the F-111 left off with F-112, F-113, etc. This would equate to MiG-15, 17, 19, 21, and 23. The F-117 was the next in line. Your response to the A designations in accurate but my question was intended to ferret out a greater subtlety: how did the Air Force justify not using the A designation with the F designation stood for fighter and a fighter has to have, according to the DoD Directive, some air-to-air capability. Jim betnal@ns.net wrote: > > 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Mar 98 20:33:32 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F-117 Designation On 3/13/98 9:22AM, in message <35096B64.58D0747E@sprintmail.com>, "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > Art, > > > Your response to the A designations in accurate but my question was intended > to ferret out a greater subtlety: how did the Air Force justify not using the > A designation with the F designation stood for fighter and a fighter has to > have, according to the DoD Directive, some air-to-air capability. > > Jim > > They were the Air Force Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 21:21:43 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: F-117 Designation At 08:33 PM 3/15/98 GMT, you wrote: >On 3/13/98 9:22AM, in message <35096B64.58D0747E@sprintmail.com>, "James P. >Stevenson" wrote: > >> Art, >> >> > >> Your response to the A designations in accurate but my question was intended >> to ferret out a greater subtlety: how did the Air Force justify not using the >> A designation with the F designation stood for fighter and a fighter has to >> have, according to the DoD Directive, some air-to-air capability. >> >> Jim >> >> > >They were the Air Force > > > ALso remember the Golden Rule, "He that has the gold, makes the rules" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 00:00:58 -0800 From: Adam Chance Subject: dashing... Over the weekend I came across a new concept, dashing. At first it didn't impress me much, but I cannot seem to get it out of my head, what is the purpose? Is it actually used in modern aircraft? I came across it in an article I read on the AV-70 Valkyrie. When the Airforce was trying to decide on an aircraft to fullfill the role the Valkyrie would eventually play they looked at several aircraft designs where the planes wouldn't cruise at Mach 3 but would dash to it during the final bombing runs. Maybe I am niave but I figured that all planes that were supposed to be supersonic had the ability to cruise at those speeds, afterall isn't the whole concept behind supersonic speeds missile avoidence and the ability to get to your targets faster? So here are my questions: 1. Are there any real benefits to an airplane being able to dash to a target, I am thinking that maybe there is a benefit in fuel consumption, or possibly engine maintanince? Why would you choose to build an aircraft that would dash at Mach 3 rather than cruise at Mach 3? 2. Are there currently any planes in use that use a supersonic dash instead of cruising? Possibly these would be planes that I would never have thought of as supersonic planes. - -If God didn't intend me to fly then why was I given the ability to gaze towards Heaven?- Sllim ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 22:19:51 +0900 From: "James Matthews" Subject: Military AI. Brian Winston Jr. wrote: I read your post in the Skunk Works Digest. Regarding your questions about UAV's. You have to remember UAV's like PROWLER and SCORPION are relativly inexpensive when compared to a system like JSTARS. And you don't have to send any type of fighter escort to protect them. If you'd like to discuss this further, my e-mail address is bwinston@interlaced.net. Feel free to e-mail me. I thought I'd take this to the Digest itself, Brian...I am starting a page about AI (Artificial Intelligence) and, as part of my duties, I will be writing an essay on AI and the military. Now, the PROWLER is powered by AI...etc. Can anyone give me some info on it? Or any info on military AI. Brian, I've added you to my contact list...so if I am online and hema (Japanese = free, no work to do =) we can chat. James. ____________________ 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: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:25:05 +0100 From: "Pavel Sestak" Subject: B-26 (was: F-117 designation) This calls for revolutionary F-26 designator :-) But I heard about adding some armor in forward parts and more machine guns to B-26, when it was sent to Vietnam, but I am not sure about it. Does anybody know about it more? Pavel Sestak bludicka@teledin.cz 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: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:32:30 +0100 From: "Pavel Sestak" Subject: Re: Marine crew in Italian gondola crash... Should anyone help me with EA-6. Is this vehicle based on B-707? (As KA-6 and Hermes are...) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 98 07:39:29 GMT From: "Terry Colvin" Subject: Re[2]: A-26 Jim, unless the treaty changed during the course of the Vietnam war then those B-52s I saw leaving from and returning to base at U-Tapao Air Base in 1973 and 1974 were figments of my imagination. I returned to southern Thailand in June 1990 and saw nary a sign of our presence there so few years before. No plagues, monuments, road signs, etc. Terry ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: A-26 Author: skunk-works@netwrx1.com at smtp-fhu Date: 03/14/1998 11:20 AM 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: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:13:14 -0500 (EST) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: Re[2]: X-15 NASA says 354,200' in a variety of sources, including the CP put out for the 30th anniversary of the first flight. I think this is tracking radar altitude, not barometric, but I'm not sure. I'd say that the SR-71 never got above 100,000', although I have no evidence that it ever went above about 87,000'. The Dash 1 shows the top edge of the envelope as 85,000' barometric. The acceptance testing results are classified, so that's no help. The higher altitudes I've heard of were barometric altitude, by the way. The reason that the X-15 record is "unofficial" is that it wasn't certified by the FAO, which is the keeper of official records. The maximum Mach record is similarly unofficial, for the same reason. The FAO has a set of requirements, including observers and sealed instrumentation, that groups like NASA and the USAF rarely bother with. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Sun, 8 Mar 1998 gregweigold@pmsc.com wrote: > > 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, I say the X-15. But > neither of us has enough complete info to prove the other wrong. > > Thanks in advance > Greg Weigold > > > ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ > Subject: Re: X-15 > Author: at INTERNET > Date: 3/7/98 7:37 PM > > > Not to beat this subject to death, but... > > The X-15 did technically enter "space" every time it flew above 50 miles. Of > the 12 pilots who flew the X-15, eight of them earned their astronaut wings. > All of them did so in the number three X-15 (56-6672). > > Here is a list of initial astronaut wings flights for each of the pilots: > > 17 JUL 62 Robert M. White 314,750' FAI world altitude record > 17 JAN 63 Joseph A. Walker 271,700' First civilian flight above 50 > miles > 27 JUN 63 Robert A. Rushworth 82,000' > 29 JUN 65 Joseph H. Engle 280,600' > 28 SEP 65 John B. McKay 295,600' > 01 NOV 66 William H. Dana 306,900' > 17 OCT 67 William J. Knight 280,500' > 15 NOV 67 Michael J. Adams 266,000' Fatal accident > > On 22 AUG 63, Walker set an unofficial record of 354,200' altitude. > > Peter W. Merlin > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:28:59 -0500 (EST) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: Huntsville X-15 Our mock-up is made of aluminum. The guys in the sheet metal shop built it during their otherwise idle time, taking something over a year to do so. I think the frame is also aluminum and am certain that what you see is aircraft aluminum, mostly because I saw it several time while it was being built. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 jeffhclark@juno.com wrote: > 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] > ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #15 ******************************** 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