From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #40 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Saturday, August 1 1998 Volume 07 : Number 040 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** [none] Current projects in Skunk works Fw: Re: Simple Answer to Simple question Needed RE: SR-71 Re: SR-71 News from RIAT, Fairford, UK RE: News from RIAT, Fairford, UK Re: Simple Answer to Simple question Re: Simple Answer to Simple question John Glenn's not so historic next ride into space Glenn's Folly Re: Glenn's Folly RE: Glenn's Folly Re: Glenn's Folly Re: Glenn's Folly More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft Re: More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft Re: More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft Boylan - re B-2 etc article Re: Simple Answer to Simple question Needed; & F-18 *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Jul 98 09:10:48 -500 From: "Michael Moore (??_Rollz)" Subject: [none] lmoore@hsonline.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 15:51:54 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: Current projects in Skunk works Current projects listed as being in the LM Skunk works: X-35/JSF demonstrators two aircraft, one on the floor now. Mitsubishi Heavy industries has given component work to LM for Japan's F-2 ground attack . According to the article, the F-2 is based on the F-16 airframe, but "enlarged" . ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jul 98 04:56:34 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Fw: Re: Simple Answer to Simple question Needed RE: SR-71 I have NO idea why this puppy didn't make it to the list. George, did you get the copy I sent directly to you? Art - --------------------------Forwarded Message------------------------------ On 7/23/98 7:23PM, in message <35bbeeff.12972260@smtp.netwrx1.net>, George R. Kasica wrote: > Hello: > > > First simple question: NOT INCLUDING some "unknown" aircraft (i.e. > Aurora or some such) currently is the SR-71 the fastest and highest > flying NON-ROCKET powered vehicle we have either US or foreign and IF > NOT what is? The SR-71 is the fastest air-breathing aircraft in the world. I don't know its ultimate altitude, but its normal operational altitude is higher than anything else. > > Second: Can anyone give me or point me at the actual numbers (i.e. > speed/altitude) that it has attained? > > It's normally credited with "Mach 3.2+". Both operationally and in training it has been openly documented that it has exceeded M3.3. The fastest that has ever been acknowledged in open source literature was M3.5 (over Libya, as a matter of fact). It probably can go a bit, but not much more, faster than that but not on a normal or routine basis. It is not thrust limited, but rather has thermal and shockwave limits. Altitude-wise missions are flown starting in the low to mid 70,000s. rising up to 83,000 ft. or so. Note that this is not a zoom climb, this is normal operating altitude with normal performance. It can certainly go higher, but this would degrade mission and sensor performance. It would do this as necessary if it encountered a meaningful threat. The ultimate altitude has never been published, and I don't know if anyone ever tried a zoom climb or why they would. Those statements of 140,000-150,000 ft. are almost certainly pure fiction. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 01:41:39 EDT From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: SR-71 I'm not sure that the SR-71 has a maximum ceiling of 100,000 feet. That sounds a bit high. There is a Lockheed performance graph that shows a maximum ceiling of 92,000 feet at a maximum gross weight of 60,000 lbs. Another graph from a test report shows maximum altitude restrictions under various conditions: 85,000 ft. - Normal operation 80,000 ft. - With manual inlet operation 75,000 ft. - With Fuel Derich System malfunctiom During one test flight, SR-71A (61-7953) attained 86,700 feet at a gross weight of 80,000 lbs. Peter W. Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 10:51:20 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: News from RIAT, Fairford, UK I was at the Royal International Air Tattoo at RAF Fairford yesterday and picked up some news from crews regarding the U-2. All but one U-2 is now an S model. The engines they fitted in the upgrade were left over from a black project that was changed a while ago (probably the B2). Although the U-2 has GPS fitted for sensors, the GPS sensor is to be moved from the middle of the wing to the central body section, because ten feet away from the cameras ain't near enough for the guys who use the pictures! The current U-2 program is due to remain active until at least 2025 and there are plans for the Skunk Works to start producing new U-2s to increase the number in the inventory from the present 30 U-2s. Although no one admitted having been there, almost everyone on the U-2 crew knew of someone who had been or who works at "The Ranch" or Groom Lake, so who says its dead? :) Gavin Payne ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 19:54:56 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: News from RIAT, Fairford, UK Hi, A few people have replied to me about this. I didn't listen too much to the reason for the change, but it has something to do with the great distance between the aircraft and the Earth and the fact that GPS doesn't indicate a direction to remove the 10 feet from. Thats all I really remember, ask the NSA/CIA/AIA/USAF if you have any more questions :) Gavin - -------------- Gavin Payne, UK G.Payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk - -------------- - -----Original Message----- From: patrick [SMTP:patrick@e-z.net] Sent: Sunday, July 26, 1998 6:02 PM To: G.Payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: News from RIAT, Fairford, UK At 10:51 AM 7/26/98 +0100, Gavin wrote: >the B2). Although the U-2 has GPS fitted for sensors, the GPS sensor is to >be moved from the middle of the wing to the central body section, because >ten feet away from the cameras ain't near enough for the guys who use the >pictures! > > You mean they couldn't figure out how to add or subtract 10 feet from the GPS reading? No rocket scientists on that crew!! patrick PS.....Good report. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 00:12:06 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Simple Answer to Simple question George wrote: >> First simple question: NOT INCLUDING some "unknown" aircraft (i.e. >> Aurora or some such) currently is the SR-71 the fastest and highest >> flying NON-ROCKET powered vehicle we have either US or foreign and IF >> NOT what is? Art responds: > The SR-71 is the fastest air-breathing aircraft in the world. I don't know >its ultimate altitude, but its normal operational altitude is higher than anything >else. Well, I agree, ... with reservations. After all, the question and answer weren't real precise. So as punishment, you have to sit through this: Honorable mention is the XB-70A-2. Although it is now in pieces, and it never was as fast as the blackbirds, it did make it just over Mach 3 (or so it is claimed). AV-1, which is now in the USAF museum, was not as good an airplane as AV-2 was, and spent most of its days speed limited below Mach 3. The D-21 flies as fast as the A-12 and SR, is stealthier, and could fly it's operational missions at a higher altitude. Does a real Mach 5, ramjet powered, deeply supersonic vehicle, that relies on body lift (it has no wings) qualify as an aircraft? In case it does, here's a little gem from the old USAF WPAFB History WEB site: "Advanced Strategic Air Launched Missile (ASALM). Ramjet powered test vehicle set new speed (Mach 5.4) and range marks." And one of my favorites, although it breaks the rocket powered criteria, it's rather exciting as the vehicle was a subscale X-24A, ie: Project PRIME! It even had a little hump where the pilots cockpit would go. Outside earth's atmosphere, Project PRIME vehicles were maneuvered by the release of high pressure nitrogen through jet thrusters. When the craft re-entered the atmosphere, its control system automatically switched to airplane-type flaps for pitch and roll control (similar to X-15A-3). On a typical flight, the unmanned PRIME was launched by an Atlas booster from Vandenberg AFB, California. At the high point in its flight path, the Atlas pitched downward while its rocket continued accelerating it to speeds near Mach 20. The lifting body's inertial guidance system directed it to a preselected recovery point. Three PRIME test flights were made, the first on December 21, 1966, and the last on April 19, 1967. A scheduled fourth flight was cancelled due to successes of the previous tests. (I hacked some of this from the USAF Museum WEB site). And of course, it doesn't qualify either, BUT MAYBE SO, as the vehicle was INTENTIONALLY reconfigured to test high mach scramjets. And it did find out some interesting things about podding hypersonic airbreathing engines, to say nothing of other things about hypersonic flight in the atmosphere. So I think it does qualify, namely the mach 6.7 X-15A-2, although the last time it flew it was pure rocket powered. It did have a dummy podded scramjet on its ventral. >> >> Second: Can anyone give me or point me at the actual numbers (i.e. >> speed/altitude) that it has attained? >> >> > It's normally credited with "Mach 3.2+". ... >it has been openly documented that it has exceeded M3.3. The fastest that has >ever been acknowledged in open source literature was M3.5 (over Libya, as a matter >of fact). It probably can go a bit, but not much more, faster than that but not >on a normal or routine basis. It is not thrust limited, but rather has thermal >and shockwave limits. I've been wondering lately what water injection would do. It might help push the CIT limit out a little bit. Also, cut the nacelles back a little to be 'shock on lip' at a higher mach no. Put an RCS on it for control out of the atmosphere. Get Budweiser to sponsor it. Paint it red. Set lots of records. Go on the airshow circuit. ... !! Give rides like the Russkies! Get a gold helmet! Hmmm ... ! > Altitude-wise missions are flown starting in the low to mid 70,000s. rising >up to 83,000 ft. or so. Note that this is not a zoom climb, this is normal >operating altitude with normal performance. It can certainly go higher, but this >would degrade mission and sensor performance. It would do this as necessary if it >encountered a meaningful threat. The ultimate altitude has never been published, >and I don't know if anyone ever tried a zoom climb or why they would. Those >statements of 140,000-150,000 ft. are almost certainly pure fiction. I always thought this was why they didn't want fighter types flying it. A nice reasonable guy who did what he was told. Seriously, former SR driver Buck Adams, told some of us at one of the SMOF parties, his exploits flying SR's in SE Asia. Once, he overcooked a climb to get away from a wall of SAMs. He was outside the envelope for awhile. If the SAMs didn't get him, loosing control might. Needless to say, he corralled it, and brought home the bacon. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jul 98 03:42:24 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Simple Answer to Simple question On 7/27/98 12:12AM, in message <199807270712.AAA116162@pdxcs199.pdx.intel.com>, Larry Smith wrote: > > George wrote: > >> First simple question: NOT INCLUDING some "unknown" aircraft (i.e. > >> Aurora or some such) currently is the SR-71 the fastest and highest > >> flying NON-ROCKET powered vehicle we have either US or foreign and IF > >> NOT what is? > > > > Well, I agree, ... with reservations. After all, the question and answer weren't > real precise. So as punishment, you have to sit through this: > > Well, Larry, he did say "currently". > > Does a real Mach 5, ramjet powered, deeply supersonic vehicle, that relies on > body lift (it has no wings) qualify as an aircraft? In case it > does, here's a little gem from the old USAF WPAFB History WEB site: > "Advanced Strategic Air Launched Missile (ASALM). Ramjet powered test > vehicle set new speed (Mach 5.4) and range marks." > An interesting footnote: When USAF bailed on the program, it was pitched to the Navy as a high speed long-range SAM, as well as an anti-ship missile or training target. A number of folks in the Navy were salivating at the prospect of this, when suddenly interest evaporated. I suspect that was due to a number of factors, one of which being the fighter and attack community didn't like the idea of any ship having an Mach 5 + SAM with really, really long range. Might give other folks (as well as those in charge of the air budget here) the "wrong" idea, don't you know. USAF probably lobbied against it as well, not wanting the Navy to have sussuchch a weapon, especially after they in their august wisdom had walked away from it. > > >> > >> > > >and shockwave limits. > > I've been wondering lately what water injection would do. It might help push the > CIT limit out a little bit. There's also the problem of dissipating the heat from the fuel. How long you go how fast has a bearing on the SR's descent profile for that reason, especially above 3.15~3.2. Going much faster for very long would exacerbate this. > Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:31:44 -0700 From: patrick Subject: John Glenn's not so historic next ride into space Is it my impression only that the Space Shuttles are running around like empty buses late at night.....nobody on them but right on schedule? Hate to be negative but I am bugged by this John Glenn thing. Mind you I got up at 4 am and watched him fly Freedom 7, but..... His current mission really is a stretch when they masquerade it as science. They conjured up some ersatz "experiments" after the big PR push to allow him to tag along. And they had to get a waiver for him to fly after previous stunts were outlawed such as sending Senator Jake Garn from Utah into orbit when he was a member of NASA's budget approval committee. It's sad NASA has to be so politically correct to fight for survival. And now CNN has announced that in addition to 3 days of coverage preceeding the lift off that they have hired Walter Cronkite to help anchor the coverage of this extravaganza. I just hope Walter doesn't tear up this time as he watches Glenn's return to space. Course old John will be strapped in his safety seat in the back somewhere waiting for them to serve milk and cookies. I am sorry, I don't even like that Piccard guy who warps around in deep space! patrick cullumber "A million dollars here and a million dollars there. You know pretty soon this starts to add up to some serious money." Sen. Everett Dirkson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 17:54:17 EDT From: CatshotKim@aol.com Subject: Glenn's Folly Don't blame Glenn's joyride on NASA. You can bet this was forced on them by the White House. NASA has plenty of serious flight objectives for shuttle missions without adding this fantastical quest for data on the effects of weightlessness on ageing. This is nothing more than another dog & pony show by an administration that couldn't care less about space exploration. When Mr. Clinton should be twisting Boris Yeltsin's arm to make him pay for Russia's contributions to the International Space Station, instead he's doling out lifetime achievement awards to septogenarians that helped him out politically, or announcing the selection of a female mission commander. I'm frankly surprised that Glenn doesn't have the honor to respectfully decline what is an embarassment to the American space program. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 17:14:54 -0700 From: jaz5@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: Glenn's Folly catshotkim wrote: >Don't blame Glenn's joyride on NASA. This is nothing more than another dog & pony show by I'm frankly >surprised that Glenn doesn't have the honor to respectfully decline what is an >embarassment to the American space program. > I thnk its wonderful. America's astronaut going up again. Showing that age isn't a barrier to space flight, acting as a guiding light for america's elderly to show they can do anything they want. No Limits! Besides, there is scientific intent. We may learn a lot about how elderly people are affected by low gravity, there may be connections between going up when you are young and doing it again years later. the differences in how an old body perfomrs in space versus a young body may tell us many things about our body's and how they function. And if it is a dog and pony show, its a good one. And the good ones live on in memory long after the last "serious" science mission has long been forgotten. jaz ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 11:03:50 +0930 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: RE: Glenn's Folly catshotkim wrote: >Don't blame Glenn's joyride on NASA. This is nothing more than another dog & pony show by I'm frankly >surprised that Glenn doesn't have the honor to respectfully decline what is an embarassment to the American space program. > And if it is a dog and pony show, its a good one. And the good ones live on in memory long after the last "serious" science mission has long been forgotten. Now if the SR-71 had a "well known" Ace to fly it, you'd see the bucks come out of the woodwork, too. Hey, if you don't market your taxpayer-supported product correctly .... Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jul 98 05:44:12 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Glenn's Folly On 7/29/98 2:54PM, in message , CatshotKim@aol.com wrote: > Don't blame Glenn's joyride on NASA. You can bet this was forced on them by > the White House. I'm frankly > surprised that Glenn doesn't have the honor to respectfully decline what is an > embarassment to the American space program. > The political spin going around is that this is payback. Glenn has always said he'd do almost Anything to go back to space once more (I can understand that). During the illegal campaign fund investigations last year, it was expected that because of his past integrity, Glenn would not follow the party line and would press for and vote for deep investigation into some of Clinton's methods of getting money. Instead, to many people's surprise, Glenn fell right in line, and made it clear that he didn't want the investigation to proceed. It was less than a month after the hearings wound down that it was announced that Glenn would get his flight to space. Not trying to get into a political debate, just that there was a Lot of buzz on this at the time. Art ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 19:57:35 -0600 From: Wayne Busse Subject: Re: Glenn's Folly Glenn's return to space wasn't earned by his many contributions to aviation and aerospace research. Put his record against Chuck Yeager's and it pales in comparison. Yeager is a giant in aviation. If anyone deserved to be a senior-citizen astronaut, it's Yeager. Once again a pretty boy goes up to further a political agenda. Sorry if I'm ranting, but it's pretty unfair. Wayne Wayne Busse wings@sky.net http://www.sky.net/~wings ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 23:39:46 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft Source: Richard Boylan, Ph.D. More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft Retired Air Force Colonel Donald Ware has passed on to me information from a three-star general he knows who revealed to him in July that "the new Lockheed-Martin space shuttle [National Space Plane] and the B-2 [Stealth bomber] both have electro-gravitic systems on board;" and that "this explains why our 21 Northrup B-2s cost about a billion dollars each." Thus, after taking off conventionally, the B-2 can switch to antigravity mode, and, I have heard, fly around the world without refueling. I have also heard, and deduced for myself after inspecting a Stealth F-117A fighter at Beale Air Force Base, that the F-117A _also_ has hybrid propulsion and lift technologies, utilizing conventional thrust for public take-offs and landings, but switching to antigravity mode for extended cruising range, for lightning-fast maneuverability, and for shrouding the airframe in invisibility (by having its local counter-gravity field bend light around the airframe). The notorious extremely-unstable lift and forward-motion of the F-117A is merely temporary, until it moves into antigravity mode, where independent field propulsion provides stability. {Unfortunately for the pilot who went down in an air show over Maryland, his Stealth fighter was in conventional jet- thrust mode at the time.) Further commentary, revealing that the government eventually plans to release antigravity technology publicly, is provided by Colonel Ware. "Apparently this highly controlled military program was used to gainexperience with 4th-density technology that may transform civil aviation after all national leaders choose peace." In a perhaps unrelated aside, Colonel Ware stated that his two brothers are on a list to receive free electricity machines by United Community Services of America (UCSA) in New Jersey. "They [UCSA] claim to have produced 50,000 machines and are preparing to install them on selected homes. They say they will provide free electricity to the home owner and sell the excess power to the power company." Col. Ware adds cryptically, "I wonder if this environmentally-friendly technology is associated in any way with alien liaison." Richard Boylan, Ph.D. Richard Boylan, Ph.D. 2826 O Street, Suite 2, Sacramento, CA 95816, USA. (916) 455-0120 E-mail: rich.boylan@24stex.com ; Primary website: www.ufonetwork.com/boylan/ Author: Close Extraterrestrial Encounters, Labored Journey To The Stars and Project Epiphany. - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: http://www.seacoast.com/~jsweet/brotherh/index.html Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 00:19:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft On Fri, 31 Jul 1998, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > Source: Richard Boylan, Ph.D. Where he got his Ph.D. from? What field? May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu Self-realization. The immortal words of Socrates, when he said "I drank what?" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 01:43:44 -0700 From: ryankirk@juno.com Subject: Re: More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft Last I heard I believe the B-2 costed $3.2 billion apiece. That was several years ago, has the number changed? >provide free electricity to the home owner and sell the excess power to the power company." Col. Ware adds cryptically, "I So the electric company buys back power from the machines it already owns? And why wouldn't it just get free power from its own machines? >him in July that "the new Lockheed-Martin space shuttle >[National Space Plane] and the B-2 [Stealth bomber] both have >electro-gravitic systems on board;" and that "this explains why Yeah this makes sense. A space shuttle with anti-gravity. Sort of like the submarine with the screen door. (logic problem here: If the VentureStar already has to have rockets so that the public "thinks" that it has them, which will propel the VentureStar into space, and it doesn't need antigravity in space, then why the heck would it have antigravity capabilities?) I don't know if Rocketdyne (maker of the VentureStar's linear aerospike rocket engines) would take this as a compliment or as an extreme insult. >lightning-fast maneuverability, and for shrouding the airframe Why would the F-117 need lightning-fast maneuverability? >I have also heard, and deduced for myself after inspecting a >Stealth F-117A fighter at Beale Air Force Base, that the F-117A This brings up an interesting question. Has anyone ever seen an F-117 on static display? I believe that the F-117 is still highly classified as far as the public being able to "inspect" it. Last year I took a tour of the Skunk Works on the day of the air show at Edwards, and they were fueling the F-117 to fly in the show at Palmdale airport on the Air Force's property. As soon as our big white van got in the vicinity of the plane they immediately closed the gates to the area the F-117 was inside and sent out guards and patrol cars to keep us away. And the F-117 was not even on display at the show, even though the B-2 was (with several guards with M-16's around it). I think the F-117 is a lot more classified than people think. Maybe they weren't refueling the F-117. Maybe they were just hooking it up to one of those super-secret electricity machines. Ryan Kirk StratusNine Productions _____________________________________________________________________ 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, 1 Aug 1998 23:46:52 +1200 (NZST) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: Boylan - re B-2 etc article Ok, this will get me in trouble with the topic police. Dr. Boylan is well known in "ufology"..his Phd was in Psychology or similar. A couple of years back he was struck off for using a umm new therapy that involved his female patients and a hottub (conspiracy freaks saw this as him being "silenced"). Just about all he spouts is grade-A crap, alot of his fellow "ufologists" cringe at the mere mention of his name. He seems to end up being behind alot of the wilder claims that make it out to the media etc. Loads of his matter-of-fact style text files seem to be on eternal rotation across the internet. anyway the point is, if his name is on it you can automatically ignore. K "Men go crazy in congregations, they only get better one by one" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 15:23:53 -0700 From: ryankirk@juno.com Subject: Re: Simple Answer to Simple question Needed; & F-18 This is one of those "I heard through my friend..." stories, but I believe this one is valid. I was talking to a good friend of mine today who I'll call Bob. Bob flew 2 tours in Vietnam, in RF-4's and F-111's; and was awarded a DFC. I was asking him his opinion of the F-111 and the topic just happened to stumble on the SR-71. Surprisingly he said, "Yeah, I almost flew those at one point." So I asked him what happened. He said that he was still flying F-111's in the late '70's during the big rush when a large number of F-111 pilots left the AF to go commercial to start making the money, and as a result of that all the F-111 pilots left over, especially with 'Nam experience, were not allowed to transfer to different projects. Their jobs were in effect frozen by TAC because they were a "valuable resource" or however he put it. Anyway one of the SR pilots suddenly failed his physical; turned out he had heart problems so he wasn't allowed to fly. Anyway through some good connections Bob was asked for by name to replace this pilot. So Bob turned in his papers to TAC, figuring that SAC gets the priority and they can request any pilots they want. But that's not what happened; instead his transfer was denied. (In fact at the same time they also said that he would be flying the 111 for the rest of his career; that's when he quit the AF and joined the Guard just so he could have some variety). Here's the point of the story. I said something like, "Yeah, and the SR-71's top speed is still classified after all these years." To which he said, "Oh, it goes Mach 4." In the process of turning in his papers ane everything, he had been talking to some of the other SR pilots who I guess were a little more open-mouthed to him since he figured he would be one of them soon. And Bob said that one of them said, "Yeah, I've taken it up to Mach 4 before." As to its max. altitude, he has no idea; but as to its speed, the SR-71 can go at least Mach 4. And it makes logical sense. Someone posted to the list saying that the SR-71's limits are thermodynamical, not engine-related. And Ben Rich said that the SR was made out of a titanium alloy that was softer than "regular" titanium so that it would be easier to work with. What if they didn't use soft titanium? Then the plane would be able to take the heat produced at this speed, and thus, it would be able to go Mach 4. The fact that Mach 4 isn't a very wild or outrageous claim (plus the manner in which he was saying it, which was pretty casual), leads me to believe that this is a true figure. Plus I know the guy well and would trust him with my car and I know he's not making it up. But you of course can't really rely on that because you don't know him, you just have to believe what I say. But even from your point of view it still should be pretty plausible. On a completley unrelated note. This applies back to the Super Hornet discussion that was supposedly taken back to the Aircraft list. This very same Bob also had the opportunity to fly a Canadian F-18 back in the late '80's just as part of a thrill ride. Regardless of fuel/wt. ratio or any of that, the F-18 is an excellent plane as far as maneuverability and ease of use is concerned. The cockpit is clean and simple and everything centers around four screens in the cockpit with buttons around them, and almost nothing else, which makes the F-18 very simple to fly -- not constricting, as you might think, but just easier to do great flying. And as far as maneuverability is concerned, the F-18 is more maneuverable than an F-16 because it doesn't have an alpha limiter, meaning that it can pitch its nose up higher -- without stalling -- in order to fly slower. This is especially important for when the pilot gets stuck in a rolling dogfight, which is not a really good situation to be in, but if you find yourself in that situation then you want the slower plane because the slower plane wins a rolling dogfight The F-16 can acccelerate faster but it is not even as maneuverable as the F-18 because of this, and other reasons which I don't really understand because I'm not an engineer or a pilot. For example, the F-18 can do a *square* loop -- A loop, except it has right angles, and the corners are just a little rounded. This is possible mainly due to the fact that the F-18 can fly slower than the F-16. So, price? Fuel? I'm not sure about those issues. But I do know that this particular Air Force pilot had a very high opinion of the F-18, and I think we were definitely underestimating its capabilities. As for the usefulness of the *Super* Hornet, I know nothing about that, but I do know that the F-14 would never be able to take the place of it. Ryan Kirk StratusNine Productions _____________________________________________________________________ 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 #40 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "majordomo@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