From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #3 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 Thursday, January 14 1999 Volume 08 : Number 003 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Missing X-Planes ? Re: English vs. Metric Re: English vs. Metric B-2 News Propaganda from the Air Ministry Re: Missiles Missing Re: Missing X-Planes ? Test....(Weapons Investigators in Iraq) F-16 inlets Blackbird 965 found Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom Re: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom Re:English vs. Metric Re: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom RE: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom RE: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom RFI: French airfield(?) near Broye RE: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom Re: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom Re: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom Photo of Bogus NASA U-2 Used in Gary Powers Coverup Re: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 11:20:22 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Missing X-Planes ? At 05:49 PM 1/8/99, David from the UK admonished: >Thanks for replying John. I was a little surprised and disappointed that >no-one on the SW List seemed interested in the missing X-Planes. Now I'm >back at work, I'll look into this and let you know the outcome privately. > C'mon Yanks. Are we gonna have to read about this first in one of those 3 month old "Aeroplane" magazines we see on the rack at the cigar store that has to be paid for in pounds or shillings or farthings??? Commence FOIA'ing! patrick ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 20:27:00 -0800 From: Ryan Kirk Subject: Re: English vs. Metric David Lednicer wrote: > The metric system jumps straight from millimeters to centimeters to > meters, without a "decimeters" (factor of 10) unit. Feet are a nice unit, > as they are "just about right" sizewise for describing large things. > Similarly, inches are just about right for describing detailed aircraft > geometry, while millimeters and centimeters are too small, while meters > are too big. The same holds true for weights - pounds are much better > sized than kilograms. But there is a decimeter. It's 1/10th of a meter. The trouble is, it takes roughly three of them to equal a foot, which would put it in the "not just about right" category. Of course, that is all a matter of preference. > My real complaint is with the clowns who thought up "pounds mass" > and decided to call things weighed in the metric system "kilograms". > Pounds are unit of weight, not mass. Slugs are mass. Similarly, > kilograms are mass, not weight. If you want to weigh something in the > metric system, it should be in Newtons. My complaint also extends to Objects weighed using the SI *are* measured in newtons. However, close to the earth there isn't much use in finding the weight of an object since gravity will always be a constant (W=mg). Weight is a vector quantity. Since weight refers to the gravitational force exerted on an object by a very massive body like the earth, the weight of an object varies with its location because the acceleration of gravity varies from location to location. An object weighs slightly less in an airplane at ten thousand feet than it does at sea level. Accordingly, an object on the moon weighs one-sixth as much as it does on the earth. However, the mass of an object is always the same, since mass is defined as the amount of matter in an object, which is measured by finding its inertia (its resistance to a change in its motion by a known force). What people really mean is that they are finding the mass of an object, not the weight, when an object is measured in kilograms. Personally, I much prefer the SI. I think it's sort of ridiculous to say that the foot is a "nicer" unit of measurement than the meter. The argument that an approximation using feet is more accurate than one with meters is baloney. Anything that's being measured with such a relatively large unit of measurement is just going to be a rough estimate. Any type of detailed measurement will always include feet and inches or meters and centimeters. In that case, we're better of with centimeters than inches since they're smaller. If we were to convert, I think a staggered approach would be best. First, convert all regular units of gallons, inches, etc. in the commercial industry. Let everyone get used to that. Then, maybe a couple years later, go to kilometers. And then finally, even more after that, go from farenheit to centigrade. Save that one for last since its conversion offers the least amount of benefits. One other note. Say the US did start using the SI instead of the English system. People complain about conversion factors, but that's a moot point. The transition will be instantaneous. You won't need to convert kilometers into miles; you'll just say, "it's 76 kilometers to get there." Anyone who's gone overseas can attest that it's no trouble at all getting used to kilometers, it really is much less of a deal than people think. Ryan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 16:19:38 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: English vs. Metric At 08:27 PM 1/7/99 -0800, unfortunately everyone wrote. George I am sincerely sorry I ever created this thread. Next time I get an idea like this one I will bury my head in 6 fathoms of water. Sorry about your digest. Is it up to a ream yet? patrick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 16:32:05 -0800 From: patrick Subject: B-2 News Propaganda from the Air Ministry 990021. Last Block 20 B-2 leaves Whiteman WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE, Mo. (AFPN) -- The Spirit of Oklahoma B-2 stealth bomber recently left here for the Northrop Grumman modification line in Palmdale, Calif. The stealth bomber is the first Block 20 B-2 delivered and now the last one to be upgraded to Block 30. Since their arrival, all but two B-2s were sent back for Block 30 modification. The Block 30 modification brings more enhanced avionics, almost twice the number of radar modes, far superior terrain-following abilities and increased survivability. Also, Block 30s are certified for new weapons including the Joint Direct Attack Munitions, and are more easily deployed. The B-2 "blocks" began with a Block 10 initial configuration. The Block 20s had enhanced avionics and low observable characteristics, which improved their survivability and combat effectiveness. On Oct. 8, 1996, three Block 20 B-2s went against 16 targets at the Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., range complex. Sixteen weapons were dropped; 16 targets were hit. The re-thinking of the employment of long-range heavy bombers came because of the incredible results achieved by those three Block-20 jets loaded with the Global Positioning System-aided targeting system and GPS-aided munitions. According to Capt. David Miller, 325th Bomb Squadron maintenance officer, the wing will see increased combat capability because Block 30 planes use a dramatically improved self-diagnostic system. "Our flying mission lives and dies by our ability to quickly and accurately troubleshoot faults. Remarkable improvements in system self-diagnostics empower our technicians to rapidly narrow down the source of faults, identify corrective measures and return the jets to flying status," said Miller. The number of low observable write-ups has been reduced by a factor of five when comparing Block 30s to the Block 20s, according to Maj. Michael Andress, 509th Maintenance Squadron maintenance supervisor. Other improvements include fine-tuning the aft deck and rudders, and the leading edges of the wing were entirely re-engineered. (Courtesy of Air Combat Command News Service) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 99 03:02:56 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Missiles Missing On 1/6/99 6:33AM, in message , "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > This is totally consistant with previous experience of American air-to-air > missiles. > > The promise, while always in the 80-90 percent range, has actually > exhibited 10-20 percent in actual combat. > > Jim Stevenson > > > You'll notice, of course, they never even had a Chance to use a gun.... (Jim, did you ever get my message to you on this debate?) Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 20:08:26 +0100 From: Urban Fredriksson Subject: Re: Missing X-Planes ? On: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:44:26, win@writer.win-uk.net (David) wrote: >We know about the X-38 ACRV and the X-40A USAF SMV. >So what's happened to: X-39, X-41 & X-42 ? X-39 is unassigned, but reserved for USAF Research Laboratory. "...may have been intended for an unmanned FATE (Future Aircraft Technology Enhancements) demonstrator..." X-41 is a classified programme. "...an experimental manoeuvrabel reentry vehicle carrying a variety of payloads through a suborbital trajectory, and reentering and dispersing the payload in the atmosphere..." X-42 is a classified programme. "... an experimental expendable liquid rocket motor upper stage to boost 2000-4000 payloads to orbit..." - -- Urban Fredriksson griffon@canit.se http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 04:54:29 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Test....(Weapons Investigators in Iraq) TEST....Ignore this message. Evidently part of the brouhaha over the Weapons Inspectors acting as spies has some merit. The Inspectors were equipped with radio receivers (US made and very state of the art!) given to them by someone working for the US government. They were intended to be used by the inspectors intercepting cell phone calls made by the Iraqi Guard units who were responsible for playing the shell game with the secret weapons. Fair enough. But in addition to receiving these private calls, the same equipment retransmitted or relayed these signals to Bahrain where they were relayed on to England. All real time. Well....its not known how much the weapons inspectors were aware of their involvement in this process. And you can fill in the blanks as to who was at the receiving end of this clever little ploy. TEST OUT. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 18:13:30 -0800 From: David Lednicer Subject: F-16 inlets This is a little off-subject, but I'm hoping that someone here knows the answer to this: Later model F-16Cs and Ds have a larger inlet than the F-16As and Bs. This inlet is called either the Modular Common Inlet Duct (MCID) or "big mouth" inlet. I need to figure out the geometry of this inlet and then modify my computer model of a F-16A inlet to represent the MCID. Does anyone have accurate info on this inlet? There was an Av Week article on it sometime in the last ten years, but I can't find it - does anyone know the date of this article? - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (425) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (425) 746-1299 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:34:53 EST From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Blackbird 965 found On 9 January 1999, Peter Merlin and Tony Moore, known as The X-Hunters Aerospace Archeology Team, located the crash site of SR-71A (61-7965) near Lovelock, Nevada. The aircraft was lost during a night training sortie on 25 October 1965. Maj. Roy St. Martin and Capt. John Carnochan departed from Beale AFB, California, using the call sign ASPEN 28. A little over two hours into the flight, the aircraft was descending and decelerating near Elko, Nevada. At this time, the crew noticed a malfunction in the attitude indicator and horizontal situation indicator. The autopilot had become disconnected, and the RSO reported that his astro-inertial navigation system had stopped functioning as a valid reference source. With the aircraft in an unusual attitude, and no instrument of visual reference to correct it, the crew ejected. The aircraft struck the ground in a near-vertical dive at high speed, creating a deep crater in the desert. The SR-71 was completely destroyed, with no recognizable structures remaining. The crew parachuted to safety. Today, the crater is gone. Only scattered debris remains to mark the site. Merlin and Moore have previously located the crash sites of SR-71A (61-7953) and YF-12A (60-6936). Another Blackbird crash site, A-12 (60-6928) was located by Tom Mahood in 1997. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:40:48 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom Anyone care to comment on this photo? I am curious to know if the caption is correct--that the effect photographed really is an F-4 going supersonic and not just a hi speed vapor condensation cloud surrounding the plane. Larry aren't you the resident shock cone expert? http://www.artbell.com/images/jetbarrier.jpg thanks, patrick ps: pretend its not from Art Bell!!! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:51:00 -0800 From: Colin Thompson Subject: Re: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom I don't claim to be an expert but the photo shows an F-4 at supersonic speed at only 50' above the deck? Looks more like a hoax to me. It reeks of Art Smell! 73, Colin patrick wrote: > > Anyone care to comment on this photo? I am curious to know if the caption > is correct--that the effect photographed really is an F-4 going supersonic > and not just a hi speed vapor condensation cloud surrounding the plane. > > Larry aren't you the resident shock cone expert? > > http://www.artbell.com/images/jetbarrier.jpg > > thanks, patrick > > ps: pretend its not from Art Bell!!! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:46:52 +0200 From: Petru Radu SIRLI Subject: Re:English vs. Metric This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------6DBD68DAE0E3B4AF2B55B8EA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please remember that "mass" is something that exists also in absence of gravity and is a measure of inertia. Newton is a measure of force and, YES, weight because it is the effect of gravity on mass. For the metric system please refer to some coherent manuals and not simply on inner gut feelings. The mess is created by some measure system narrow minded who are to infatuated by the things they have learned in the primary school, like... never mind. - -- ============================= Radu Sirli rsirli@aut.utt.ro http://www.aut.utt.ro/~rsirli ============================= - --------------6DBD68DAE0E3B4AF2B55B8EA Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Petru Radu SIRLI Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf" begin: vcard fn: Petru Radu SIRLI n: SIRLI;Petru Radu org: U. "Politehnica" Timisoara, A.I.I. Dept. adr: 2 V.Parvan, TIMISOARA;;A.I.I. Dept.;Timisoara;;1900;ROMANIA email;internet: rsirli@aut.utt.ro tel;work: +40 (0)96 204 333 tel;fax: +40 (0)96 192 049 x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: TRUE version: 2.1 end: vcard - --------------6DBD68DAE0E3B4AF2B55B8EA-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:48:14 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom Patrick writes: >>Anyone care to comment on this photo? I am curious to know if the caption >>is correct--that the effect photographed really is an F-4 going supersonic >>and not just a hi speed vapor condensation cloud surrounding the plane. >> >>Larry aren't you the resident shock cone expert? >> >>http://www.artbell.com/images/jetbarrier.jpg Colin Thompson responds: >I don't claim to be an expert but the photo shows an F-4 at supersonic >speed at only 50' above the deck? Looks more like a hoax to me. It >reeks of Art Smell! I share both of your skepticism about where you found this. OK I'll give you my 2 cents worth. Other knowledgeable people can jump in too. I'm not an expert, but I enjoy learning about this stuff. However, this photo looks to me like it's probably real. The whole aircraft wouldn't have to be supersonic, just pieces of it. Therefore I would guess that this photo shows what is called a transonic flow, where the whole aircraft isn't supersonic yet, but sections of it are. I feel this way because the white fog areas are condensation areas that look quite like what are called expansion shocks. The condensation is the latent water on the air being changed from a vapor to a liquid. It's visible because the air molecules and water molecules have been rammed together by an invisible compression shock upstream of where these vapor areas are. And then the expansion area on the airframe, causes a cooling of the flow, which causes the water vapor to condense into the liquid phase as the air/water molecules expand and cool back to their ambient atmospheric density, pressure, and temperature. The expansion shocks also look like they're in the correct places. Namely just down stream of the maximum thickness of the wing, both above and below the wing, and also behind the inlet cowl lip, where the Phaontom II has an expansion area as the cowl completes its internal compression or where the inlet throat is (what did they do on the F-4's inlet - is it mixed compression or all external compression). I think the aircraft is transonic as there is no strong bow shock viisible yet, at the tip of the radome, and there really isn't an expansion area on the nose save for under the radome, where interestingly there isn't a condensation area either, however I think that is because there aren't enough water molecules there to show up. There's no expansion shocks visible at the tail as the heat of the double nozzle flow is probably too high to cause condensation before the water molecules get back to atmospheric. Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Larry PS: Cool Photo! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:53:31 -0800 From: ehoel@esri.com Subject: RE: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom As a follow-up to Larry's interesting analysis of the photo - is it possible for an F-4 to fly supersonic at this low level? If so, wouldn't it cause a fair amount of "discomfort" to the folks at the airshow? Erik - -- Erik Hoel mailto:ehoel@esri.com Environmental Systems Research Institute http://www.esri.com 380 New York Street 909-793-2853 (x1-1548) tel Redlands, CA 92373-8100 909-307-3067 fax ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:46:09 -0800 From: patrick Subject: RE: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom At 10:53 AM 1/13/99 -0800, Erik wrote: >As a follow-up to Larry's interesting analysis of the photo - is it possible >for an F-4 to fly supersonic at this low level? If so, wouldn't it cause a >fair amount of "discomfort" to the folks at the airshow? > =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=====----==-== This was my thinking. Too low. Too close to the crowd. Too many potential problems. Course I assumed (natural bias?) it was an AF plane. I was corrected by someone who spotted the Playboy bunny on the tail and he even told me the Navy squadron number. Point being is it has to be a dated photo. And the air show was Pt. Mugu NAS. I can see under those circumstances the hi speed pass being allowed. Certainly would never happen today at a commercial air show. And how can you argue with Larry's explanation. Times change fast. It wasn't too many years ago the FAA tower allowed me to stand on a runway and photograph F-106's landing. Only stipulation was I had to have a VHF radio for them to contact me. Got a bit crowded I'll admit when a 727 came in. Remember....These are the good old days! patrick ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 12:50:04 -0700 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: RFI: French airfield(?) near Broye While doing some research into French work on counter-stealth and other multistatic radars, I came across a reference (http://sat-net.com/listserver/sat-space-news/msg00166.html) to a space surveillance radar transmitter being installed at "Broyes-les-Pesnes" in the region of Dijon. Checking my trusty Michelin touring atlas of France, I see what appears to be a military airfield with a long north-south runway just north of Broye, near Pesmes, due east of Dijon and just east of the River Saone. Presumably this is the site meant. Question for the readership: Does anyone happen to have any information on the history and present activities of this airfield (assuming that's what it is)? Or what it is if it isn't an airfield? BTW and with reference to a couple of messages here last month, the referenced item indicates that the French have also been working on TV-based bistatic radars for counter-stealth ("radars antifurtivite sur la television") ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:19:56 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: RE: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom > As a follow-up to Larry's interesting analysis of the photo - is it possible > for an F-4 to fly supersonic at this low level? If so, wouldn't it cause a I believe it should be able to. According to: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/f004-21.html The F-4J can do Mach 1.15 @sea level. > fair amount of "discomfort" to the folks at the airshow? I agree with you completely, F-4's equipped with early J79 engines were notorious for being extremely loud and leaving clearly visible con-trails. The low level dash such as pictured @http://www.artbell.com/images/jetbarrier.jpg probably caused quite a bit of discomfort regardless of whether the F-4J actually went supersonic or not. The site above and http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/aircraft/f4j.html both indicate that the F-4J had J79-GE-10 turbojets. I am not intimately familiar with this version of the J79, so perhaps one of the experts on the list could enlighten us. Sam > > Erik > -- > Erik Hoel mailto:ehoel@esri.com > Environmental Systems Research Institute http://www.esri.com > 380 New York Street 909-793-2853 (x1-1548) tel > Redlands, CA 92373-8100 909-307-3067 fax ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:52:06 -0800 From: G&G Subject: Re: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom I just read something about this event (but this photo wasn't mentioned) in a newsgroup today, probably rec.aviation.mil, a search of dejanews might turn it up. IIRC the subject line contained "Pt Magu" (yes it was misspelled in the subject line). The post contained alleged text of the backseater narrating the mach meter, saying "..0.96...0.98...1.02...uhoh..." I don't recall the alleged date, but it was a few years ago. Greg patrick wrote: > > Anyone care to comment on this photo? I am curious to know if the caption > is correct--that the effect photographed really is an F-4 going supersonic > and not just a hi speed vapor condensation cloud surrounding the plane. > > Larry aren't you the resident shock cone expert? > > http://www.artbell.com/images/jetbarrier.jpg > > thanks, patrick > > ps: pretend its not from Art Bell!!! - -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% %% Reality is for People Who %% %% Can't Handle Simulation %% %% %% %% habu@cyberramp.net %% %% gdfieser@hti.com %% %% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 99 06:19:30 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom Depending on the year, that could be an F-4J or S and yes, they're supersonic on the deck. The lack of visible smoke doesn't mean anything, the J-79s without modification smoked at low or up at military power. If the F-4 was supersonic, especially down low, it would be in some stage of afterburner and there would be no smoke. IN Vietnam, as naval F-4s approached areas where it was thought Migs might be, the would cruise in zone 1 afterburner, still subsonic, and accept the higher fuel burn in order to eliminate smoke. You can get this kind of phenomena at high subsonic speeds if the air is saturated with moisture. However I wouldn't have a problem believing he might be going marginally supersonic. Pt. Mugu is right by the ocean and with the big Pacific Missile Test Range right offshore they do things at that show that they no longer can do elsewhere. For example, one feature unique to that show was that a flare would be dropped offshore and then (providing there was no morons in sailboats or idiots in Cessna where they weren't supposed to be), they would have a fighter fire a real, no-kidding, end-of-life Sidewinder at it. I wouldn't worry about distance from the crowd. Sonic booms have developed a mystique over the years because they're now so rare here. Prior to the mid '60s, they weren't that rate over land and they were often a staple of airshows at military bases that were some distance from cities. When I was but a wee lad I went to some of those shows and I remember watching a B-58s or a fighter make a just-supersonic pass some distance in front of the crowd. The boom was definitely loud, but no louder than a jet in full afterburner passing a lot closer to the crowd, and it lasted a lot less. Art ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 22:33:15 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Photo of Bogus NASA U-2 Used in Gary Powers Coverup Not a great photo but historically interesting topic if you haven't seen it. http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/U-2/HTML/E-5442.html patrick ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:59:47 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom Interesting posts from Colin, Erik, Patrick, Sam, Greg, and Art. Let me modify/clarify my analysis somewhat. Again, feel free to comment. Take this as just pointing out features that we can discuss if you want. >The expansion shocks also look like they're in the correct places. ... >and also behind the inlet cowl lip, where the Phantom II >has an expansion area as the cowl completes its internal compression or >where the inlet throat is (what did they do on the F-4's inlet - is it >mixed compression or all external compression). Let me say this better and add some more observations. The expansion shocks also look like they're in the correct places. ... and also behind the inlet cowl lip, where the Phantom II turns the flow to the inlet duct main axis (it doesn't matter if external compression or mixed compression is actually employed when supersonic, it's correct in both cases to just say the flow is turned to the duct centerline, and easier to understand too!). Also, note the vertical condensation above the inlet and below it (its harder to see the one below). This seems to be flow out of the ducts just behind the inlet ramp (the inlet ramp is the thing that looks like a flat plate stuck to the side of the F-4 just in front of the inlet duct openings). These ducts are on both the top and bottom (I believe they're also on the underside from a model of the F-4 I built some years ago). They're definitely on the top as I have a very cool picture of Steve Ritchie climbing out of his F-4, after becoming an ace, where he's standing in the cockpit and giving the thumbs up but the camera is looking down on him. You can clearly see these topside vents. I'm not sure what these vents are for on the F-4. Usually this kind of thing is an outlet for boundary layer bleed for the ramp, or they're involved with 'starting' the inlet and keeping the inlet 'started' (preventing inlet unstarts - going subcritical - coughing out the normal shock (however you want to say it). Does anyone have a Phantom II Dash-1 handy? Does it say in there? I have an F-4C Dash-1 packed away somewhere. I'll see if I can find it. >there really isn't an expansion >area on the nose save for under the radome, where interestingly there >isn't a condensation area either, Atually, it looks like there IS a condensation expansion shock fan just under the radome EXACTLY in this expanson area!! Look very closely. This would tend to confirm that we are really looking at expansion shock fans as they are all in the correct place. >I think the aircraft is transonic as there is no strong bow shock >viisible yet, at the tip of the radome I'm probably WRONG about that. Since we're seeing condensation ONLY due to espansion shocks cooling wator vapor to a liquid, there aren't any expansion areas on the nose, save for the one under the radome I mentioned above. And it looks like there are expansion shock trains there. So, we are seeing expansion shock trains, but not any compression shocks, so I don't think I can say the aircraft is subsonic. Comments? Larry ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #3 ******************************* 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