From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #49 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 Wednesday, August 19 1998 Volume 07 : Number 049 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Air Crashes F/A-18 vs. Tomcat...and Tomcat21. New? X Planes Book/magazine SU-37 Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ??? Re: A-11 at Palmdale More on the A-11 Re: air crashes Re: Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ??? Re: F/A-18 vs. Tomcat...and Tomcat21. SR-71 news Re: Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ??? Re: Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ??? Re: A-11 at Palmdale Re: Global Hawk Teledyne Mach 4.0 UAV Re: Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ???---TR-3A Re: Global Hawk Powers TR-3 *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:24:32 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: Re: Air Crashes > > This is completely off topic, but others do it so why can't I. I was > wondering if anyone new of websites dedicated to major air crashes and the > investigations that followed. I've recently become very interested in the > topic and thought the best place to start would be the net, but so far I've > found nothing. Thanks for any help. > > Rob Foster > Robin.Foster@btinternet.com > > Way off topic, but maybe the list owner will let this one slide by ... > (Hey, if you asked the same request referring to a F117 or an SR-71 > crash then it would be acceptable) |:-) > I did quick a web search using Web Ferret > , > with the search keywords: > > major "air crashes" investigations website > > Came up with the following. > > I have NOT checked it out myself yet, but just took a quick look at > their front page. > Maybe these will help you find what you are looking for. > > http://www.gic.ch/matafora/aircrash.htm > > http://www.itn.co.uk/World/world0806/080602w.htm > > http://www2.aero.com/catalogues/books/4162.htm > > http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/CRASH/crash.html > > -Martin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 06:35:53 +0900 From: "James Matthews" Subject: F/A-18 vs. Tomcat...and Tomcat21. Sorry, that was an unspecific e-mail I wrote...I'll try again :) > F-14D is more agile, than E/F, has better sensors and can be equipped to > carry any weapon E/F can and then some. AMRAAM was always planned for > F-14, on the D it's only a software mod; may still happen. AMRAAM has > some problems too, like locking on to wrong target when it goes active. I was referring to the F-14A etc, not the D...because I couldn't really comment on the the D. Is the D really more *agile* than the E/F, that'd really surprise me. I know the E/F is something like 20% larger than the F/A-18C/D, but not as big as the Tomcat I thought. > Unusual opinion since they're the best tactical recon platform we have right > now (as long as the SR-71s stay on the ground). In fact, there is now some > designate the Hornet as a super recon vehicle, even though they haven't been > able to get that to work in 15 years of trying. Wow, well, I stand corrected. You da boss :)... >> Bombcats never got approved. > This will prove to be a surprise to those already flying them, including the > LANTIRN-equipped ones. If you're referring to Quickstrike or the Block IV > upgrade, that's a different, more extensive change. That would have produced Again, sorry for that rather general term...yes, I was referring to Quickstrike. What was the Block IV upgrade? Don't get me wrong, I'd be the guy to jump for joy if the F-14D was used more extensively instead of the E/F, but sadly... Anyone got any information on the Tomcat21? Thanks, James. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 17:36:53 -0700 From: "Corea, William C (WCCO)" Subject: New? X Planes Book/magazine I have just received a really nice magazine entitled "Xplanes A history of the world's most secret planes and missions." It is published by Air Forces Monthly in England. In addition to what appears to be a very complete listing of the whereabouts of all the A-12, F-117, SR-71, YF-12, and U-2s on public display, it has chapters on Russian "X-Planes," UCAV's, British spyplanes, and many color photos (including the D-21 and "M-21" (sic)). All this for only 3.95 POUNDS STERLING (4.95 Delivered)! (My VISA was docked less than $8.00) Available from: Key Publishing Limited P.O. Box 100 Stamford, Lincolnshire PE9 1XQ England +44(0)1780 755131 www.keymags.co.uk. I have no affiliation with Key, I am just a very happy customer!! - ----------------------------------- Bill Corea San Ramon, California ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:14:38 +0930 From: Craig Norton Subject: SU-37 Hi, Does anyone know of any good Web sites that contain either video images or phtot's of the SU-37 ?? I haven't been able to find any videos of the maneuvers that it apparently can do. Cheers Craig... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 22:37:32 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ??? Since (these are the chart's (digest) scope of discussion), The skunk-works mailing list was created for discussions of advanced technology aircraft and historical discussions about products of theLockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as theSkunk Works. Primary areas of discussion include: U-2 and variants --> doesn't bring much new and exciting news anymore SR-71 and variants --> has been grounded F-117 TR-3A --> soon to be made visible "Aurora" and variants --> has never been proven to exist and its years later do we the public even know of any Skunky stuff when it comes out of the black covers, if at all. Then what's there to discuss anymore ... hoo-hum ... \:-) /:-( p.s. - Fellow Skunker's, keep on discuss'n and speculat'n !!! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 23:42:21 EDT From: YF117@aol.com Subject: Re: A-11 at Palmdale In a message dated Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:50:55 EDT Peter Merlin (Xelex@aol.com) wrote: The "A-11" aircraft listed at Palmdale are most definitely the A-12 fleet. The A-11 designation is incorrect, and has been misused for many years. Drawings of the A-11 design (never built) have been declassified. Pete is a very knowledgeable guy, but occasionally like all of us, he is wrong. He discounts evidence like the A-11 designation because it conflicts with what he believes. His beliefs in this case are based on some interesting claims, such as Kelly Johnson's diary/log and allegedly declassified drawings. I worked in the Skunk Works during the 80s and during that time I never heard the single-seat recon bird (not to be confused with the F-12 interceptor version) ever referred to as anything but the A-11. When President Johnson first revealed the plane in 1964, he called it an A-11. Note: The picture released showed an F-12 to disguise its recon function. About 12 years ago a personal friend and colleague who had worked on the A-11 during the 60s was given a commendation by Ben Rich which referred to his earlier work on the "A-11". You can also read the second book by Brian Shul (a former SR-71 pilot) . It has many comments by the Lockheed support people who worked on the various Blackbirds. It's interesting that these people refer to the bird as an A-11. Draw your own conclusions. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 23:49:23 EDT From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: More on the A-11 In a previous post, I mentioned published information Lockheed's A-11 and A-12 designs. Here is a little more detail. The A-11 material was part of "The U-2's Intended Successor: Project OXCART, 1956-1968." This was allegedly a chapter of the CIA history of the U-2, and it was released in October 1994 (possibly by the NRO). The U-2 history in its (sanitized?) entirety will be released next month. The OXCART section includes drawings of the Lockheed A-1, A-2, A-3, A-11, and the Convair FISH and KINGFISH. The A-11 featured a cylindrical-cross-section fuselage with a double-delta wing mounted high and aft. It also had a single, large verical stabilizer, and engine pods beneath the wings. The text states that: "By the summer of 1959, both firms had completed their proposals. In early June, Lockheed submitted a design for a ground-launched aircraft known as the A-11. It would have a sped of Mach 3.2, a range of 3,200 miles, an altitude of 90,000 feet, and a completion date of January 1961. Kelly Johnson had refused to reduce the aerodynamics of his design in order to achieve a greater antiradar capability, and the A-11's radar cross section, although not great, was substantially larger than that of the much smaller parasite aircraft being designed by Convair." Following design changes: "Lockheed's new entry was much like its first, but with several modifications and a new designator, A-12. It, too, would employ two of the powerful J58 engines. Lockheed's major innovation in reducing radar return was a cesium additive in the fuel, which decreased the radar cross section of the afterburner plume. This improvement had been proposed by Edward Purcell of the Land Committee. Desiring to save weight, Kelly Johnson had decided not to construct the A-12 out of steel. Traditional lightweight metals such as aluminum were out of the question becausethey could not stand the heat that would be generated as the A-12 flew at Mach 3.2, so Johnson chose a titanium alloy." I think that the "A-11" designation became permanently ingrained in the public conciousness because President Lyndon B. Johnson used it erroneously, the press picked up on it and repeated it, and the Lockheed workers used it in place of the classified "A-12" terminology. Peter W. Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 23:56:08 EDT From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: air crashes Rob Foster asked about web sites for aircraft accidents. Here is one more: http://www.lostbirds.com There are quite a few such sites. Some specialize in warbirds or airliners. Tony Moore and I will probably start one soon, dealing with exotic and experimental aircraft. It will feature such aircraft as U-2, A-12, YF-12A, SR-71, X-1A, X-2, X-15, XB-70, etc. We have visited many of these crash sites in the vicinity of Edwards AFB, California, and in Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico. Peter W. Merlin THE X-HUNTERS Aerospace Archeology Team ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 22:20:23 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ??? At 10:37 PM 8/18/98 -0400, you wrote: >Since (these are the chart's (digest) scope of discussion), > > The skunk-works mailing list was created for discussions of advanced > technology aircraft and historical discussions about products of > theLockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as theSkunk > Works. > Primary areas of discussion include: > > F-117 TR-3A --> soon to be made visible > There is no TR-3A. It is a bogus invention of writers of black airplane fiction. And even in their writings it is totally unrelated to the F-117. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 98 05:33:57 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F/A-18 vs. Tomcat...and Tomcat21. On 8/18/98 2:35PM, in message <199808182218.HAA14768@tkb.att.ne.jp>, "James Matthews" wrote: > Sorry, that was an unspecific e-mail I wrote...I'll try again :). > > I was referring to the F-14A etc, not the D...because I couldn't really > comment on the the D. Is the D really more *agile* than the E/F, that'd > really surprise me. I know the E/F is something like 20% larger than the > F/A-18C/D, but not as big as the Tomcat I thought. > The Hornet E/F is less agile than the C/D and the F-14B/D is more agile than the C/D. In fact, the A would be more agile if it weren't for the miserable TF30 engines it was burdened with (the A does beat it in a few close in areas), which even when it was working tended to run out of thrust when the Tomcat needed it most. The Tomcat was always designed around a 27,000 lbs engine, it's just that it didn't get it until 1989. The E/F is roughly the same size as the Tomcat. > > > >> Bombcats never got approved. > > > Again, sorry for that rather general term...yes, I was referring to > Quickstrike. What was the Block IV upgrade? > The Block IV upgrade was the formal designation for the final version of Quickstrike > .. > > Anyone got any information on the Tomcat21? > > Actually, I do, but I'm not sure if it is appropriate for this list. Tomcat21, for those not familiar, was a proposal to further develop the F-14, when the Navy found it wouldn't be able to afford the navalized F-22. Its avionics would actually be more advanced than that of the F-22 (except for the antenna), but aerodynamically it couldn't match the Raptor in a number of areas. Not even remotely as stealthy, but much greater strike capability and it would have been better armed. It would have cost less to develop than the Hornet E/F. Not sure if more detail really belongs on this list. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 98 05:53:33 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: SR-71 news There are a number of efforts to get the SR-71 back, as more of the user community is becoming aware of what we're about to lose. Saddam beating his chest again doesn't help the effort to put the plane away. Congressional interest is growing again. However, USAF has decided not to allow the directive not to do anything irreversible to the system to be disseminated. Some of the test equipment has been destroyed and some of the sensors have been taken away and sent to the U-2 program. The next step if they can get away with it, will be to destroy the remaining sensors. SR-71 fuel is being destroyed and all the JP-7 at Beale has been reblended. I am not privy as to the status of any other forward deployed JP-7. USAF is trying to use the restored $39 million that was returned to the program for termination. The aircraft are still airworthy, but because of these actions it would now take 60 days to get an operational capability back. It would disappear on Jan 1, when the last crew retires, but they are willing to come back as contractors to train new AF crews. Aug 14, Lockheed issued an order to its employees to not lobby for restoration of the program. This may be a result of high level pressure threatening other USAF contracts, I'm not sure. There were rumored threats against the ATF program back during the 1990 retirement if Lockheed didn't go along. I can't confirm this. It's all up to Congress, and they are taking note of correspondence they receive. A couple of the supporters have been silenced with promises of other AF money coming to their Districts, and of course Glen isn't going to do Anything that might jeopardize his Shuttle flight. On the other hand, a number of former fence riders or opponents are now interested in the program as more word gets out on how much it can do and how much less the UAVs are going to do than we thought (although they're probably still good ideas). It'll be very close. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:19:52 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ??? >patrick cullumber writes: >There is no TR-3A. It is a bogus invention of writers of black airplane >fiction. And even in their writings it is totally unrelated to the F-117. With respect, it's hard to see how you can be so certain that this platform is 'bogus.' If the TR-3A offered LO recon. and/or laser designator capabilties, I can't imagine a commander who wouldn't welcome it with open arms. D ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:09:15 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ??? Patrick/David, Without access to classified information or inside information (Avleak) these kind of blanket statements invite comment from the UFO community. There are several dozen reports, especially in the western U.S. and Scotland, which indicate one or more experimental aircraft. Oddly, the writers of fiction in the black airplane and UFO areas continue to confuse the picture. Terry - -------------- David wrote: > > >patrick cullumber writes: > > >There is no TR-3A. It is a bogus invention of writers of black airplane > >fiction. And even in their writings it is totally unrelated to the F-117. > > With respect, it's hard to see how you can be so certain that this platform > is 'bogus.' > > If the TR-3A offered LO recon. and/or laser designator capabilties, I can't > imagine a commander who wouldn't welcome it with open arms. > > D - -- 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: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 12:35:17 -0400 From: Joe Donoghue Subject: Re: A-11 at Palmdale At 11:42 PM 8/18/98 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:50:55 EDT >Peter Merlin (Xelex@aol.com) wrote: >The "A-11" aircraft listed at Palmdale are most definitely the A-12 fleet. >The A-11 designation is incorrect, and has been misused for many years. >Drawings of the A-11 design (never built) have been declassified. > And YF117@aol.com followed up with the following misinformation: >Pete is a very knowledgeable guy, but occasionally like all of us, he is >wrong. >He discounts evidence like the A-11 designation because it conflicts with what >he believes. His beliefs in this case are based on some interesting claims, >such as Kelly Johnson's diary/log and allegedly declassified drawings. > >I worked in the Skunk Works during the 80s and during that time I never heard >the single-seat recon bird (not to be confused with the F-12 interceptor >version) ever referred to as anything but the A-11. When President Johnson >first revealed the plane in 1964, he called it an A-11. Note: The picture >released showed an F-12 to disguise its recon function. >About 12 years ago a personal friend and colleague who had worked on the A-11 >during the 60s was given a commendation by Ben Rich which referred to his >earlier work on the "A-11". >You can also read the second book by Brian Shul (a former SR-71 pilot) . It >has many comments by the Lockheed support people who worked on the various >Blackbirds. It's interesting that these people refer to the bird as an A-11. >Draw your own conclusions. > > I sent YF117's message to one of the A-12 operational pilots for his comment. The lines below are his response on the matter of A-11 vs A-12. " Thanx for the msg regarding the ubiquitous and mysterious A-11..In the five years that I was on the OXCART program I never heard anyone call the CYGNUS anything but the Article or A-12." The secret of the real designation was well kept. I was briefed in OXCART at CIA headquarters in 1966 but did not find out the vehicle was really called A-12 till this became public in the early eighties. For all those years since LBJ's 1964 announcement, I had thought of it as the A-11. Joe Donoghue ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:58:58 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: Global Hawk Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:57:22 +0100 From: Andy C - -----Original Message----- From: Grant, John F. >I find this "official" posting of the first Atlantic crossing a little >naive since USAF has had the capability for many years. The latest long >duration unmanned craft is called the "Global Hawk", it's massive, with a >wing-span bigger than that of a boeing 747. It's single turbo fan on "lean >burn" can fly at 340mph for 24 hours, that 8160 miles!!!! (if anyone wants >some more info. I'll be glad to provide it). The Atlantic seems a little >insignificant compared to this. Well John, >From the official "Global Hawk" web pages: >3,000 NMI Radius (for 24 Hr Mission at Full Payload)67,000 Ft Maximum >Altitude 24.7 Hr. Loiter Time 343 Kts Loiter Velocity14,405 NMI Ferry >RangeFlight Critical Reliability: 1 Loss in 505 Flights 50 Mbps WB SATCOM >SupportedSAR with On-Board Image Formation EO/IR Simultaneous with >SAR 40,000 Sq NMI Wide Area Search1,900 Spot Target Coverage / Day So the official range is 3,000 Nautical miles. The 116-foot wingspan is less than the 211 wingspan of a 747-400d or the 195 foot of the 747-sp. The first flight of Global Hawk was on February 28, 1998 at Edwards airforce base, the second flight was May 10, 1998 again at Edwards Airforce base. I don't see how this could be used to describe the USAF as h aving the ability to fly unmanned across the atlantic for many years. Global Hawk home page: http://www.tdyryan.com/ - -- "The most popular genre is comedy (19%) and is particularly attractive to girls, with 23% of girls selecting it. Perhaps surprisingly the second choiceamong the girls was horror (14% of the female vote). " Media Matters, Herald Survey, What They Watch - -- 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: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:57:20 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: Teledyne Mach 4.0 UAV Maybe a bit off topic but it does touch on high speed and altitude, though. Skunk Works was also working on such drones back in the 60's and early 70's. It's really surprising with all this early technical pioneering going on with drones, UAV's and the like, that they haven't been fully exploited and fairly mature by now. The below mentioned Teledyne website, also carries a news brief of a Mach 4.0 100,000 altitude flying machine. http://www.tdyryan.com/BackGrnd/uav.htm And I quote: "That experience was put to use in what is one of the most exotic air vehicles built by Ryan, the Firebolt, a target developed for the Air Force, capable of Mach 4.0 speeds and altitudes over 100,000 feet. Twelve of these hybrid rocket powered targets were produced, and ultimately set a world altitude and speed record for unmanned sustained level flight in 1984." Didn't know anything about this one. Anybody seen any pictures or have more information about it. - -Martin --------------------------------------------------------- > Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:57:22 +0100 > From: Andy C > -----Original Message----- > From: Grant, John F. > >I find this "official" posting of the first Atlantic crossing a > little > >naive since USAF has had the capability for many years. The latest > long > >duration unmanned craft is called the "Global Hawk", it's massive, > with a > Global Hawk home page: > http://www.tdyryan.com/ > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 12:11:57 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ???---TR-3A At 09:09 AM 8/19/98 -0700, Terry W. Colvin wrote: >Patrick/David, > >Without access to classified information or inside information (Avleak) these >kind of blanket statements invite comment from the UFO community. There are >several dozen reports, especially in the western U.S. and Scotland, which >indicate one or more experimental aircraft. Oddly, the writers of fiction in >the black airplane and UFO areas continue to confuse the picture. > >Terry > >-------------- >David wrote: >> >> >patrick cullumber writes: >> >> >There is no TR-3A. It is a bogus invention of writers of black airplane >> >fiction. And even in their writings it is totally unrelated to the F-117. >> >> With respect, it's hard to see how you can be so certain that this platform >> is 'bogus.' >> >> If the TR-3A offered LO recon. and/or laser designator capabilties, I can't >> imagine a commander who wouldn't welcome it with open arms. >> >> D > Let me correct my statement and apologize for misspeaking. The TR-3A was hypothesized based on information received by an AvWeek editor. This consists of his personal sighting as a ground observor of an unidentified object flying overhead in a group of F-117's. Also some data supplied by a speculator of black aircraft data. And the term TR-3A, that popped in conversations with Norththrop. At this point is was only speculated as to its existence and mission. No evidence existed to connect all this data. After the Gulf War a rumor circulated about a secret mysterious plane seen flying in conjunction with F-117 sorties. The Federation of American Scientists has concluded the F-117's needed no help in pinpointing fixed targets planned for in advance. At this point writers began to lose it. Lockheed is then mentioned as the manufacturer despite the term originating from Northrup. Steve Douglas, after visiting Canon AFB for a day came away convinced the base was being prepared to maintain 30 to 40 of these aircraft which he believed already existed. I was with him every moment of that day and saw nothing of the sort and can refute all of his wild allegations. In a conversation with Greg Pope the author of the Popular Science article, he inferred it was a highly speculative article he wrote based on a trendy topic that caught his eye. This all took place a number of years ago and absolutely no evidence has been offered since nor has anything ever been proven to connect any of the evidence offered. Even back then, it was all speculative in nature. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 12:26:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: Global Hawk On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > >From the official "Global Hawk" web pages: > >3,000 NMI Radius (for 24 Hr Mission at Full Payload)67,000 Ft Maximum ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Altitude 24.7 Hr. Loiter Time 343 Kts Loiter Velocity14,405 NMI Ferry > >RangeFlight Critical Reliability: 1 Loss in 505 Flights 50 Mbps WB > So the official range is 3,000 Nautical miles. The 116-foot wingspan is > less than the 211 wingspan of a 747-400d or the 195 foot of the > 747-sp. > > The first flight of Global Hawk was on February 28, 1998 at Edwards > airforce base, > the second flight was May 10, 1998 again at Edwards Airforce base. > I don't see how this could be used to describe the USAF as h > aving the ability to fly unmanned across the atlantic for many years. > Terry, I think when it says 3,000 nmi RADIUS, is a two way trip... So, enought to cross the Ocean for one way trip. Am I wrong? May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu "Find a job you love and you will never have to work a day in your life." Confucius ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:22:12 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Powers On this day, August 19, 1960, Gary Powers was sentenced to 10 years in prison by the Russians. (according to CNN). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:26:06 -0500 From: Wayne Busse Subject: TR-3 Re; The TR-3A and whether it exists etc. Let's see now, there is a Tier-1, and there is a TR-1. And there is a Tier-3, so there must be a TR-3. ....or maybe it kinda sounds like that to an evesdropper. Wayne Wayne Busse wbusse@johnco.cc.ks.us wings@sky.net ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #49 ******************************** 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