From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #52 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 Sunday, August 23 1998 Volume 07 : Number 052 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: F-117 recon Military and aerospace applications, from two decades ago... Re: More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft Re: Geenamayer F-104 Re[2]: More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft Re: SR-71 Revival Re: Viewing F-117 Static Display Close-up Re: Need some info please Re: RE: TR3A & Plausible Discussion Re: Re[2]: More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft Re: Re[2]: More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft TR-3A Re: Greenamayer F-104 Greenamayer F-104 Interesting URL Re: Teledyne Mach 4.0 UAV - SR-71 Sensory Equip ?? Re: Teledyne Mach 4.0 UAV - SR-71 Sensory Equip ?? Pros & Cons of LO Recon. (Was TR-3A) Re: Pros & Cons of LO Recon. Re: A-11: CASE CLOSED Re: RE: Re: A-11 at Palmdale Re: Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ??? Re: Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ??? *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 20:11:29 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: F-117 recon Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > I am just wondering how easy is to set up the F-117 for a recon >mission in case of any emergency. There must be some proposal from >Lockheed Martin Skunk Works about it. That's a good point.Ben Rich proposed a recon. version and it was rejected. David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 15:24:31 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: Military and aerospace applications, from two decades ago... Just recently read an article about using CMOS, the silicon circuitry that goes into the PC, for Advances in CMOS chips sales of digital cameras - filmless digital cameras. - ------------------- ... Work on CMOS sensors began two decades ago for military and aerospace applications. In 1995, some NASA scientists saw commercial potential and formed Photobit Corp., a closely held company in Pasadena, Calif., that now licenses technology to Kodak and others. During the past couple of years, many others have entered the fray. - ------------------- The whole point here, is not the CMOS cameras, BUT, what the military was working on over 20 years ago, AND we are just learning about it NOW for commercial uses. I wonder what else they (the mil research labs) have come up with and/or are currently working on ?!?!?!? Makes your imagination begin to run wild, "don't it". \:-/ \:-) - -Martin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 16:03:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft I've seen the F-117 on static display. It was here at Edwards, back just after the existance of the airplane had been revealed. Everyone with a flightline badge was allowed to walk around the rope around it and pictures were allowed. The DFRC photographer took my picture in front of it, in fact. There were armed guards inside the rope, but the rope was close enough to the airplane that you could see everything pretty well. Being short, I kept having to jump up to see the engine exhaust, but the taller folks had no problem looking at it. Notice, of course, that the requirement for line badges meant that this was _not_ a public display, however. I went to an EDW Open House some years ago--1993--and there was a sort of static display of the F-117. There were three airplanes that came over from Plant 42 and did some flybys (I even saw the practice, because I was running a new car down to Pass & ID for a temporary pass). After flying by together and singly, slow and fast, they landed and taxied onto the ramp. Again the ropes and guards came out, but one airplane was close enough to the rope that you could see it fairly well, although nothing like the first time. This was public, but it wasn't great. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "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 Sat, 1 Aug 1998 ryankirk@juno.com wrote: > 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. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 16:22:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: Geenamayer F-104 This is wrong. He couldn't get the gear to come down and lock, which was either a hydraulic problem or a gear problem, but not an electrical problem. He came over to Edwards because they could foam the runway. He tried g-ing the gear down several times, but he couldn't get complete extension and locking, so he went over to the PIRA and pulled the loud handle. He didn't land because Lockheed told him that doing so was too dangerous, just like it said in the boldface. I was here and I saw most of this. It wasn't really a CF-104, either. He'd bought the structures airframe, the one they used for load testing, and built an airplane around it from spare parts he'd scrounged. There was at least one part from DFRC, I'm told, from when we traded him something we had a bunch of, that he needed, for a part that we needed and he had a bunch of, because that was so much cheaper than sending a mech to Davis-Monthan. There were several memos to cover the swap, or so, again, I'm told. The plane ended up being sort of an NCF-104ABCG, based on what was available. Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "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 Tue, 4 Aug 1998 Xelex@aol.com wrote: > On 27 February 1978, while making a second attempt to officially set a low- > altitude world speed record, Darryl Greenamayer's CF-104 lost electrical > power. Greenamayer was forced to eject over the Edwards AFB bombing range. > The aircraft was totally destroyed. > > Peter W. Merlin > THE X-HUNTERS > Aerospace Archeology Team > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 98 16:21:26 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re[2]: More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft Good to hear from you again, Mary Greg ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft Author: at INTERNET Date: 8/21/98 4:03 PM Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "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...." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 16:29:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: SR-71 Revival We already had a Daedelus here, belonging to a different company. They have the name trademarked. Go to http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/ for more info on ERAST. They're all slow, slow, slow. I think you can use a bicycle to chase them. Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "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 Sat, 8 Aug 1998, patrick wrote: > Here, this will really frost Art...... > > ABC Evening News reporting on that photovoltaic powered "6 turning, none > burning" NASA craft, the ERAST or ERSATZ, is eventually expected to cruise > higher than an SR-71. All the way to 100,000 feet. Wonder why they didn't > nickname it Daedelus? Other than the fact that Daedelus eventually crashed. > > patrick > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 17:05:48 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: Re: Viewing F-117 Static Display Close-up On Sat, 1 Aug 1998 ryankirk@juno.com wrote: > 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 Also, On Friday, Aug 21, 1998 Mary Shafer [SMTP:shafer@spdcc.com] wrote: > I've seen the F-117 on static display. It was here at Edwards, back just > after the existance of the airplane had been revealed. Everyone with a > flightline badge was allowed to walk around the rope around it and > pictures were allowed. The DFRC photographer took my picture in front of I might say I had a very close up public view of it. I went to an airshow in London, Ontario, Canada, back in Aug 1995 (It's just 2 hours north west of Toronto). There the F-117 took off from there around 10:30 am Saturday to do a fly-by at a Detroit, MI, USA airshow that was going on there. That same F-117 came back to the London, ON, Canada airshow that Saturday afternoon, around 2:30pm. It flew by, landed, taxied and stop, shutdown the engines, and waited for a few moments on the runway just about 20 feet from where I was standing. There were no guards, just maintenance guys working on it. It was then connected up and pulled towards the crowd to be put into its static display "booth". The public crowd was so close they were told to stand back and make way for it to be pulled into position. In fact, we were so close, (one foot away !!!) many people reached out and touched it with their hands, as it was being pulled. Even when it was on static display, there were no guards with guns. (That might have something to do with Canadian law that says, it is against the law to bare or carry any guns whatsoever, in private or public). Its an increditable experience that has stuck in my mind and I'll never forget it. The question was asked at the London, ON, Canada arishow, why the public was allowed to get so close to the F-117. The answer from one of the mil-types there, was that London,ON Canada, was considered a very safe place for the F-117 to go and be put on display there. - -Martin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 17:06:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: Need some info please They weren't in a EDW wall, they were hiding between my cubicle partition and the room wall, waiting to be discovered by the guy running a new wire to the printer. There were some others in there, too, which we discovered by having the partition moved (first I had to clear off my workspace, which was an incredible job). The partition guy can't figure out how any of that got there, because of the overlapping windowsill. He kept saying, "I put this in so that this wouldn't ever happen. How did you do this?" I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who sent me something to have flown, as well as from anyone outside the US who sent money, who has not yet received their items. I can't quite figure out what I have here, except for a box of things marked "Flown" with the date, Mach, and altitude, and a handful of envelopes. The timing is bad, because I'm off to Iowa, but I'll be back on 2 September and we'll get it all fixed. Apologetically, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "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 Thu, 13 Aug 1998, George R. Kasica wrote: > Hello: > > Does anyone have or know where I can find info on the "life history" > of SR-71 Tail # N831NA?? > > Just got some items back from Mary Shafer that were flown on March 31, > 1995 - she finally located the long missing items hiding in between a > wall at the EAFB office apparently. > > Thanks Mary, your persistence and memory are much appreciated here. > > George > > ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 541 8579 > Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 816 2568 FAX > http://www.netwrx1.com West Allis, WI USA > ICQ #12862186 > > Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 22:31:05 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: RE: TR3A & Plausible Discussion >> David wrote: >> If the general feeling on the list is that such a discussion isn't >> appropriate here, then perhaps we should remove topics like TR-3 and >Aurora from its remit. > >I feel that the very mention of the name "Skunk Works" conjures up and >solicits that very type of stimulating discussion about black op's >unknown, classified, even speculative conversations. But even these >types of discussions can be carried to such a point that make them seem >tooooooo far fetched to be considered even plausible. Just hold it right there. Are you saying that the notion of an LO recon. a/c is 'tooooooo far fetched ?' If you are, explain yourself now, and whilst you're at it explain why Tier III- is a LO. >What is plausible, that which is or can be based on some basic premise. >That premise could be aerodynamic, scientific, physics, mathematical, >educated and academic, or from personal experiences. What on Earth are you saying ? That the physics involved with the F-117 or the B-2 suddenly mean nothing when it comes to recon ? >Each or any one of these may not be sufficient to justify a path for >reasonable discussion. Oh I see - the reductionist view. If I can't read the specs in a book, it can't exist. >These when used collectively could, however, and should be used to weed >out the far fetched. The Tier III- isn't far fetched because it's a UAV (so much better than manned a/c ?!) AND you can read the specs, but a manned LO recon. a/c far fetched. That's logical. >Mathematical can be very theoretical, take Einstein's Theory of >Relativity, never been proven yet, but seems plausible, based on other >scientific and physical evidences or ideas. > >Based on that, I leave you to your own conclusions. We've established that a LO UAV can exist de facto. So apply Occam's Razor and tell me why a LO recon. platform can only exist as a hypothesis. I suspect that you'd be saying the same things if I suggested that a LO UAV is under test, if it hadn't been all over the media. If you want to trash any discussion of a manned LO recon. a/c, then it's time to tell me what's so crazy with the basic premise or to remove any mention of 'black' a/c from this list. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 18:02:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: Re[2]: More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft I've been being held prisoner behind a firewall, but our clever computer people have given us SecurID fobs and set up the software so that we can get out to the rest of the world. I'm about to go away again, but only for about ten days. If you're in northeast Iowa, look for me in West Union. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "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, 21 Aug 1998 gregweigold@pmsc.com wrote: > > Good to hear from you again, Mary > > Greg > > > ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ > Subject: Re: More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft > Author: at INTERNET > Date: 8/21/98 4:03 PM > > Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com > "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...." > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 23:07:20 GMT From: oxcart@jps.net (Jon Price(PJ)) Subject: Re: Re[2]: More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft Welcome back Mary. While you were behind that firewall, trapped between the desk and the wall, You didn't happen to see any socks did you? Mine keep disappearing from the dryer, and thought that they might be there ;>0 . How 'bout Andreas? Anyone aware of how he's doing. His very detailed and informative posts are missed. PJ On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 18:02:44 -0400 (EDT), Mary Shafer=20 put fingers to keyboard and the following resulted : : >>I've been being held prisoner behind a firewall, but our clever = computer >>people have given us SecurID fobs and set up the software so that we = can >>get out to the rest of the world. >> >>I'm about to go away again, but only for about ten days. If you're in >>northeast Iowa, look for me in West Union. >> >>Regards, >>Mary >> >>Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com >>"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, 21 Aug 1998 gregweigold@pmsc.com wrote: >> >>>=20 >>> Good to hear from you again, Mary >>> =20 >>> Greg >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> ______________________________ Reply Separator = _________________________________ >>> Subject: Re: More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft=20 >>> Author: at INTERNET >>> Date: 8/21/98 4:03 PM >>>=20 >>> Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com=20 >>> "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...." >>> =20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >> Jon Price (PJ) *To reply via e-mail, please remove "NOSPAM" from return address. - -- =20 ***************************************************** You run and run to catch up with the sun but its sinking, Racing around to come up behind you again. Sun is the same in a relative way but you're older. Shorter of breath and one day closer to Death. Pink Floyd ***************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 16:52:17 -0700 From: patrick Subject: TR-3A David-- First off I apologize if you detected "attitude" in my posts. None was intended. The last thing I wanted to do was debate the merits of the theory the TR-3A is a viable program that has produced flyable hardware. But I did open this thread so...here I am. My agenda is simply to debunk the notion that it exists. The reason I got a burr under my saddle was the name TR-3A was mentioned in the same sentence if you will as the F-117. The implication it was a valid program and an LADC program at that. (Well thats the inference I got) My point was that there is no conclusive evidence of its existence. In fact the few pieces of purported evidence aren't even related, further weakening the argument. I then gave a quick run down of what evidence was presented by those who speculated it exists. The lone sighting of an aircraft. The one time mention of its name by Northrup (not LADC!) and finally a drawing of a concept vehicle that goes by a totally different name. It is my opinion this does not offer up enough evidence to really debate the existence of anything. 8 years has gone by with no more evidence then what was originally offered. And the only reason now the term continues to pop up is that some people assume it must be viable as its name has appeared so many times in print. I don't know what you were speculating about in regards to LO/Recon platforms. I am only talking about the concept of the TR-3A. Again I meant nothing in any of my posts to be disparaging to you or anyone else. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 22:16:13 EDT From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: Greenamayer F-104 Uh,...yeah. Thanks, Mary. Someone has already blasted me for this, and rightly so. I got my information from a couple of books which were obviously wrong. Garbage in, garbage out. I have made the corrections on my Muroc/Edwards Crash Log. Peter W. Merlin THE X-HUNTERS Aerospace Archeology Team ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 20:42:00 -0600 From: Brent Clark Subject: Greenamayer F-104 Is this the same F-104 which was co-operated by Ed Browning of Idaho Falls Idaho? Ed, at one time operated the "Red Baron" flying service in Idaho Falls. I know that he had Greenamayer do some flying with his race planes at Reno. There are photos of the "Red Baron" F-104 parked in front of his flying service. Ed also owned the Red Baron P-51 Mustang which was unique in that it was fitted with an Griffin engine-counter rotating propeller. The P-51 was once the fastest piston engine driven airplane in the world until is was lost in an air race accident at the Reno Air Races. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 02:59:07 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: Interesting URL Heres a URL that Skunkers might find intresting. one finds links in the funniest places.... http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/big_safari.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 23:32:17 -0400 From: jeffhclark@juno.com Subject: Re: Teledyne Mach 4.0 UAV - SR-71 Sensory Equip ?? On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 08:42:10 -0400 Martin Hurst writes: >What type of sensory and imaging capture equipment did it have onboard? >What was it designed and built to be used for? >Was it and where was it ever operational, or has it been cancelled ? The AQM-81 is a target drone, according to the book. They show a cross-section of the craft, and almost all of the interior is taken up by the oxidizer tank and solid fuel. There is a small guidance package in the nose. It went operational in 1984, but the book (written in 1992) doesn't say if the missile is still operated. It was designed for a USAF contract for a recoverable high altitude, high speed target. The USAF got at least 10 of them and the USN got at least 12, flown from NAS Point Mugu, apparently. That's pretty much all the book has to say about it. Jeff _____________________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 20:48:07 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Teledyne Mach 4.0 UAV - SR-71 Sensory Equip ?? >On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 08:42:10 -0400 Martin Hurst >writes: >>What type of sensory and imaging capture equipment did it have onboard? >>What was it designed and built to be used for? >>Was it and where was it ever operational, or has it been cancelled ? > >The AQM-81 is a target drone, according to the book. They show a >cross-section of the craft, and almost all of the interior is taken up by >the oxidizer tank and solid fuel. There is a small guidance >package in the nose. It went operational in 1984, but the book >(written in 1992) doesn't say if the missile is still operated. >It was designed for a USAF contract for a recoverable high altitude, >high speed target. The USAF got at least 10 of them and the USN >got at least 12, flown from NAS Point Mugu, apparently. >That's pretty much all the book has to say about it. > >Jeff > >_____________________________________________________________________ >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] There is one near me at the Santa Monica (CA) airport's Museum of Flight. I'll swing by sometime soon and get a look for everybody- who knows, maybe it's a recce variant or has a tail number that Andreas doesn't have yet (is that possible??) :) Dan ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 08:56:47 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Pros & Cons of LO Recon. (Was TR-3A) Patrick wrote: >I don't know what you were speculating about in regards to LO/Recon >platforms. I am only talking about the concept of the TR-3A. Again I >meant nothing in any of my posts to be disparaging to you or anyone else. Thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding Patrick. I was interested in: 1) Establishing why the notion of a manned LO recon. a/c is considered so off-the-wall whilst a LO UAV isn't. 2) Exploring the pros and cons of applying LO technology to manned recon. and the way such an a/c would integrate with other known assets. However, I'm perfectly happy to drop the subject if it's going to be the source of dis-harmony on SW. There's more than enough of that elsewhere on the net. This a safe haven and I value its members opinion. David ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:07:18 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Pros & Cons of LO Recon. At 08:56 AM 8/22/98, David wrote: > >I was interested in: > >1) Establishing why the notion of a manned LO recon. a/c is considered > so off-the-wall whilst a LO UAV isn't. > >2) Exploring the pros and cons of applying LO technology to manned recon. > and the way such an a/c would integrate with other known assets. > My only comment here is the same I made to Wei-Jen earlier about a recon version of the F-117. It appears that the trend is to remove the human crew whenever possible with new designs of aircraft. An onboard pilot has become obsolete in some cases. For instance my post yesterday about the Aerosonde UAV being able to cross the Atlantic. Not only is this a symbolic event it is a true test of endurance. >However, I'm perfectly happy to drop the subject if it's going to be the >source of dis-harmony on SW. There's more than enough of that elsewhere on >the net. This a safe haven and I value its members opinion. > > There appears to have been a de facto change in broadening our acceptable tolerances on subject matter on the list. Until they fire a warning shot across our bow, I wouldn't worry about it. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 10:42:43 EDT From: JNiessen@aol.com Subject: Re: A-11: CASE CLOSED Pete, Just got in from Little Rock last night and am trying to play catch-up! Just wanted you to know that I got your note and agree with every word of it. Like you, I consider myself a reasonably serious aero-historian...and though I make mistakes...they are not often the result of some shot-in-the-dark. All the best, Jay p.s. Have you heard from Lynn Lunsford? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 12:59:15 EDT From: JNiessen@aol.com Subject: Re: RE: Re: A-11 at Palmdale Martin, Good to hear from you and happy to help anytime I can. If something pops up that needs a response or a more accurate answer, I'm happy to be of assistance. Obviously, there's a lot of spam that comes down the pike that's not worth covering. But once in a while -- like the letter to Peter Merlin -- I have to take issue. Pete knows his stuff...and the mystery guy doesn't...even if he did work for the Skunk Works. So, let me know what I can do to help. All the best, Jay ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 20:02:38 -0700 From: G&G Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ??? David wrote: > Taking the Skunk Works as just one example, the folks there haven't been > playing cards or resting on their laurels since the F-117s were built. Sure > they've been upgrading TRs and some will have been working on X-33, could > some have been working on next generation a/c ? - you can bet on it :) Well one of their current programs is "updating" A-4 Skyhawks for the Argentines. Basically an avionics update, with an export version of the APG-66 and the F-16's MMC. I think they inherited the program when LM closed the Ontario facility, I'd hardly call it "skunky"... Greg Fieser ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 02:02:04 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest, What's Next ??? At 08:02 PM 8/23/98 -0700, you wrote: >David wrote: > >> Taking the Skunk Works as just one example, the folks there haven't been >> playing cards or resting on their laurels since the F-117s were built. Sure >> they've been upgrading TRs and some will have been working on X-33, could >> some have been working on next generation a/c ? - you can bet on it :) > > Well one of their current programs is "updating" A-4 Skyhawks for the > Argentines. Basically an avionics update, with an export version of the > APG-66 and the F-16's MMC. I think they inherited the program when LM > closed the Ontario facility, I'd hardly call it "skunky"... > > Greg Fieser > Perhaps we can consider it the "lull between the storms" something to keep the skills and tools in place, and sharp. I work in the engineering development field, and we too are currently in a state of lack of work, but it appears that our storm is about to break out, company has placed ads for 350 engineers, to replace those that retired and left when the slack period started over 2 years ago. during the slack time we took in any work we could get, even if it was outside our normal field of expertese, just to keep the skills up. we are still short our goal by 80 engineers. it takes time to get and train good help to meet the design cycles. and it really hurts when when you can,t get up to speed because you let your staff leave or get out of practice. ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #52 ******************************** 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