skunk-works-digest Wednesday, April 8 1998 Volume 07 : Number 022 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: super duper way off topic [Ben Rich comment on hams] The last "Astro-Chimp" Re: The last "Astro-Chimp" Re: WWII stealth including Mosquito Re: WWII stealth including Mosquito Re: F-117 designation Re: F-117 designation==C-5C's C-5Cs New magazines Sonic Boom Re: Sonic Boom JSF movies test *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Mar 98 07:06:28 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: super duper way off topic [Ben Rich comment on hams] Glen and Quinte: He Was Making A Joke! He was kidding about an unusual use for the SR-71 in the Gulf ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 08:01:55 -0800 From: patrick Subject: The last "Astro-Chimp" I am saddened to have to report to the group that Minnie, the last surviving "Astro-Chimp" of our early space program has died of natural causes at the age of 41. Although never actually flown in space, Minnie was trained as an understudy to Ham and Enos for the Mercury program.. Ham was our first "Astro-Chimp" in space making a 15 minute sub-orbital flight in preparation for Alan B. Shepard's historic flight. Enos flew in orbit before John Glenn made his journey into space. Minnie was the only female in the program at Holloman Aero Medical. She later in life had 9 offspring who gave their lives to the study of Hepatitus B and in AID's research. In addition she acted as a surrogate mother in raising other chimps at the Coulston Institute. The Institute, located on the edge of Holloman AFB, had the caretaking responsibility of the old Air Force programs for chimpanzee's. Minnie died of natural causes. She will be buried next to Ham in the "Astro-Chimp" cemetary at the SpaceCenter in Alamogordo, NM. Vaya con dios Minnie. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.met ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:00:07 EST From: MELUMAN Subject: Re: The last "Astro-Chimp" Too bad - Minnie could have gone up instead of the senator. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:24:56 EST From: ConsLaw Subject: Re: WWII stealth including Mosquito By starting this topic, I was indirectly trying to get a discussion going about how much was known about RCS and radar reflectivity reduction during World War II. Responding to Andreas, I don't know if there was a standard procedure to test radar reflectivity of aircraft during World War II, and if there was, whether the Mosquito or the Bat were tested. I do know that there was interest in the field going back to World War II. Of course, chaff (radar reflecting aluminum strips) was/were used extensively by just about everybody during the war, with the British taking the lead. he Germans conducted extensive research in the radar reflectivity of materials and even tried putting radar reflective coatings on U-boat periscopes and schnorkels. As I recall, they had problems coming up with a material which would be both effective and durable enough to stay on in the open ocean, ut I believe they had a limited amount of success. If the Allies did investigate relative radar reflectivity of aircraft, it seems like the Mosquito would be a natural for the inquiry. It was, fterall, probably the premier insurgency bomber day and night of the war. The Bat as designed to perform some of the same functions as the Mosquito, plus, it just looks sleek with the recessed engines. Finally, I'm somewhat embarrassed that I got the designation of the Bat incorrect. I must have associated the number 85 with MacDonnell because of the Goblin, then transferred that to the Bat. I feel ashamed because the Goblin is in residence at the Wright-Pat Air Force Museum, where I met ndreas and his wife Katherine, two very fine people. I can therefore verify that Andreas definitely exists. Dr. David Baker, I wonder. . . Steve Hofer conslaw@aol.com (sometimes I wonder if I exist) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 11:46:01 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: WWII stealth including Mosquito Steve- I believe you may be looking at the Mosquito from the wrong perspective. With what we know today it would seem reasonable if one elimenated the metal skin of an airplane's fuselage it would be relatively stealthier. But I don't believe the technology existed to measure RCS during WW2 nor the subject well understood. I have to believe, without specific knowledge that the Mossie was built of plywood for several other reasons. Keep in mind the conditions at the time. To build a plane of wood saved metal for vital other needs. It also spared existing production lines requiring metal fabrication. And it was probably quicker to assemble a wood airplane than that requiring many preformed metal parts all requiring proper scheduling. And wood technology was nothing really new. The Mossie was a rather fast airplane but I won't guess if there was a weight saving in the choice of wood. I think if the designers were able to use a good wind tunnel they probably felt complete in their design efforts. Looking back at the decision, it was mentioned earlier that a wood skin is transparent to many reflective surfaces such as engines, guns, fuel tanks, armor plate, seats, etc. RCS is a funny thing. With the F-117 design, the pilots helmet turned out be a real problem. So were the compressor blades of the buried engines. A Quail radar decoy exhibits the same RCS as a B-52. I am wondering if one were to test the RCS of a Supermarine Spitfire that it may exhibit a lower RCS than the Mossie. Its possible the Spits surfaces may be reflective in the right angles to exhibit a lower RCS. But despite all my conjecture I see no logic as the Mosquito being an early low observable design. I still don't believe that body of knowledge was beyond the theoretical state. If it did have a low RCS it was not by design. Chaff was a strategic weapon designed to mask bomber fleets over a large area using highly reflective surfaces. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net Why can't you find a good Brit Aeroplane designer when you need one? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 23:26:41 -0500 From: jeffhclark@juno.com Subject: Re: F-117 designation On Sun, 29 Mar 1998 22:25:58 -0500 (EST) Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl writes: >On the other hand, even designations not listed therein, because of secrecy >considerations, might exist, including relatively mundane aircraft such >as the C-5C, AH-6, MH-6 and AH-60 models, which were not listed, at least >while they were classified. What is / was the C-5C? I've never heard of it. Searching on Dejanews produced only a mention of a Lockheed proposal of a C-5C which was a regular C-5 with C-17 engines. Is that it, or something else? Did this ever get into production, like the helicopters you listed did? 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: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 23:48:57 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: F-117 designation==C-5C's >What is / was the C-5C? I've never heard of it. Searching on Dejanews >produced only a mention of a Lockheed proposal of a C-5C which was >a regular C-5 with C-17 engines. Is that it, or something else? >Did this ever get into production, like the helicopters you listed did? > >Jeff Clark > - --------------------------------------------- Couple of years ago the AF had two C-5's gutted out including part of the crew area behind the cockpit. The intent was to be able to haul oversize cargo such as big radar satellites for DARO that are built in LA and launched from Cape Canaveral. They are designated C-5C's and are recorded in the AMC's inventory in "Air Force" magazine. I believe they are still based at Travis. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net PS: Andreas, if you can get the serial number of these two guys then you really are good!!! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 07:40:48 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: C-5Cs Jeff Clark wondered: >What is / was the C-5C? I've never heard of it. Searching on Dejanews >produced only a mention of a Lockheed proposal of a C-5C which was >a regular C-5 with C-17 engines. Is that it, or something else? >Did this ever get into production, like the helicopters you listed did? Two C-5As (c/n '500-0016', USAF Serial '68-0213' and c/n '500-0019', USAF Serial '68-0216') were modified in the early 1990s under the 'Space Cargo od' program, and were redesignated C-5Cs. They are both operated by the 60th AMW (Air Mobility Wing), 15th AF (Air Force), AMC (Air Mobility Command), and re based at Travis AFB, CA. I don't know to which of the two C-5 Airlift Squadrons they are assigned, the 21st AS, the 22nd AS, or maybe both. The aircraft are used to transport out-sized cargo, specifically satellites, like KH-11 and MILSTAR, as well as other secret cargo from and to factories, test and launch sites. The 'Space Mod' included removing the upper passenger deck all the way from the cockpit to the tail, and required major (complete) re-routing of all control cables and electric, hydraulic and pneumatic lines/ systems. The only external difference between C-5A/Bs and C-5Cs is pparently the C-5Cs rear cargo door layout, which now has double-hinged external cargo doors, unlike any other transport aircraft that I know of. The center/middle part, which usually folds up (inside) on other C-5s, is now on the outside f the two smaller side doors, but this is probably only visible when the doors are open. There was a show on the Discovery Channel a year or so ago, which has been repeated a couple of times since then, called "Spies in the Skies". They showed the inside and outside of one of the two C-5Cs, loading a Lockheed MILSTAR communications satellite into it. And in AirForces Monthly No. 108, March 1997, on pages 18/19 is a photo of '68-0213', showing one of the modified back doors. I believe the semi-OTS (Off-The-Shelf) C-17 replacement aircraft proposed by Lockheed was dubbed C-5M (for modified or modernized) and C-5D. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 19:11:22 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: New magazines I purchased several new aviation magazines in the past month, some of which contain Skunk Works-related stuff, while other are just interesting, some of which I have listed below: * WAPJ (World Air Power Journal), Vol. 32, Spring 1998: - nothing skunky at all, but otherwise interesting as usual; * AE (Air Enthusiast), No. 74, March/April, 1998: - nothing really skunky, but the Caribou article is interesting; * AI (Air International), Vol. 54, No. 3, March 1998: - C-135 series (RC-135s and EC-135s), part 3; - Tu-144 SST research update; * AFM (AirForthes Monthly), No. 120, March 1998: - nothing skunky besides an F-117 photo, but AFM and AI have commercials for the new AFM Special called 'X-Planes', apparently featuring Black Program aircraft, rather than Experimental types. Couldn't find it yet anywhere, though; * AFM (AirForthes Monthly), No. 121, April 1998: - article on the USAF purchase of Moldavian MiG-29s; - article about covert CIA operations in Vietnam, including a 'silent', 'black' helicopter project; * AC (Air Combat), Vol.26, No. 2, March/April 1998: - X-35 Update; - U-2 Dragon Lady article -- has several annoying typos and some rather inaccurate data (didn't want to say 'facts' there), and basically no new photos; * WoH (Wings of Honor, Collector's Edition), USAF Series, Summer 1997, probably a 'one-of': - has pictures of several Skunk Works planes: SR-71, F-117, F-22, etc. as well as a new, at least to me, photo of U-2D '56-6954', equipped with he MIDAS pickle barrel mod. The officer in front of the aircraft wears the name tag 'Capt. D. Levans', and he looks vaguely similar to the avigator posing in a pressure suit on the backseat of a U-2D, in a photo in Chris Pocock's book 'Dragon Lady', on page 127; * ACL (Air Classics), Vol. 34, No. 3, March 1998: - very interesting article on RB-45s during the cold war, including overflights of denied territory; * AAG (Aviation Art Gallery), Vol. 1, No. 1, March 1998: - article with artwork about the Skunk Works by Mike Machat -- some paintings are quite nice; Besides those periodicals, I also finally found a copy of Warbird Tech Series, Vol. 10, titled: "Lockheed SR-71/YF-12 Blackbirds" by Dennis R. Jenkins (known for his excellent Space Shuttle book). The book has many b&w and several color pictures of A-12, YF-12, D-21 and SR-71 Blackbirds, including more YF-12 material than usual. It includes drawings from SR-71 and YF-12 manuals, and several new pictures. I haven't read anything other than the captions yet, and they were near perfect! Another must buy for Blackbird fans. Publisher is Airlife Publishing Ltd, in the UK and Specialty Press in the USA, ISBN is 0-933424-75-2, and I paid $16.95 at Barnes & Noble. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 11:34:23 -0600 From: Dave Bethke Subject: Sonic Boom If a plane flies overhead, or nearly overhead, at a speed greater than Mach 1, will a sonic boom always be heard by persons on the ground or is this dependent on other factors? Not to skunky, but I'd appreciate the experts opinion. Thanks, - -- Dave Bethke - on the fringe of Houston ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Apr 98 20:24:48 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Sonic Boom On 4/4/98 9:34AM, in message <35266F1E.BA742BFD@ix.netcom.com>, Dave Bethke wrote: > If a plane flies overhead, or nearly overhead, at a speed greater than > Mach 1, will a sonic boom always be heard by persons on the ground or is > this dependent on other factors? > > Not to skunky, but I'd appreciate the experts opinion. > Thanks, > > -- > Dave Bethke - on the fringe of Houston > It could depend on the altitude, atmospheric conditions, design of the ircraft and a number of other factors including speed. In the latter case, the aster the speed the "louder" the boom. However, as speed increases, the angle of he shock wave off the nose becomes more acute. Eventually (around Mach 10 I elieve), the shockwave is almost parallel to the direction of flight and will dissipate you've got to be pretty high to cruise Mach 10) before it ever reaches the ground. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Apr 98 20:37:32 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: JSF movies Boeing has updated their JSF website to make it as pretty as Lockheed's. here are some interesting computer animations at http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/jsf/jsf video.htm. You should either have a fast connection or go there on weekends or late t night because their server isn't super fast and these are big files that have to download before they can run. These animations give a lot more detail of the design than has heretofore always wanted to use that word!) been available, and also show the problems and ngenious techniques necessary to pack a lot of stuff into a confined space (and the oeing JSF is a little airplane). The movies also illustrate some of the unusual aspects of this ompetition. They talk about affordability and innovation but don't brag about performance or capability. This is the quandary that Boeing is in: They want to build and promote an aircraft that is good enough to beat their rival, but not so ood that the Air Force will either just select their rival to keep theirs out of ervice or will even kill the JSF program entirely. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 14:40:52 -0400 From: Drew Subject: test testing ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #22 ******************************** 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