From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #4 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 Tuesday, January 19 1999 Volume 08 : Number 004 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Supersonic F-4? Re[2]: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom One last stab Re: One last stab sub- super- trans-sonic F4 image RFI: French airfield(?) near Broye Re: One last stab Supersonic F/A-18? Re: Supersonic F/A-18? Re: Supersonic F-4? Re: Supersonic F/A-18? Re: Supersonic F-4? Re: Supersonic F/A-18? Re: Supersonic F-4? Re: Supersonic F-4? Re: Supersonic F-4? Re: Supersonic F/A-18? Re: Supersonic F/A-18? Re: Supersonic F/A-18? Re: Supersonic F/A-18? Re: Supersonic F/A-18? Re: Supersonic F/A-18? Re: Supersonic F/A-18? FWD: (TLCB) U-2/SR-71 observations Last TitanIV goes up with a bang *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:33:02 -0800 From: David Lednicer Subject: Supersonic F-4? The F-4 in that photo is NOT going supersonic. If it were, there would be a shock coming off the nose and another behind the aircraft and that would be all. Instead, it is going transonic. The flow on regions of the aircraft has been accelerated to supersonic speeds and this flow is deccelerating through a shock wave. I would guess that he is doing M=.85 or .9. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Thu, 14 Jan 99 15:30:14 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re[2]: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom Can someone email me this image privately? The darned firewall here at work won't let me into that site. CyberPatrol says its too naughty!!! Thanks Greg W. gregweigold@pmsc.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:44:21 -0800 From: David Lednicer Subject: One last stab One last comment and I will let this drop. Yes, decimeters do exist, but they are not used. If they were in common use, the metric system would be much more useful. Instead, the jump from millimeters to meters (even centimeters aren't commonly used in engineering) makes the system awkward to use. The English system's stepping from inches to feet, despite the awkward 12 inches to a foot, is much more convient. As to: > Objects weighed using the SI *are* measured in newtons. I agree. However, go to the supermarket and ask for a 10 newton package of flour. Despite newtons being the correct unit, the package will be labeled as a 10 kilogram package. The use of "kilograms" implies that it has a mass of 10 kilograms, but it doesn't! Instead, it has a weight of 10 newtons. At least in the English system we use "pounds" quite correctly to label the weight of things. The trouble is, someone decided to also use "pounds-mass" as a mass unit, when they should be using slugs. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 01:50:15 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: One last stab At 12:44 PM 1/14/99 -0800, David wrote: > > >Snip......At least in the English system we use "pounds" quite >correctly to label the weight of things. The trouble is, someone decided >to also use "pounds-mass" as a mass unit, when they should be using slugs. > >------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes but who would want to go to the market and order 10 pounds of slugs? (I'm trying to end this thing!) patrick ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 99 17:14:40 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: sub- super- trans-sonic F4 image OK, I got a copy of the F-4 image. Thanks Paul Keller. Greg W. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:55:53 +0100 From: Frits Westra Subject: RFI: French airfield(?) near Broye > Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 12:50:04 -0700 > From: "Allen Thomson" > >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? Hello Allen & List, I've been a lurker on this interesting list for some time. Finally an opportunity contribute my 2 eurocents. Broyes Les Pesmes (spelled with an m in Pesmes) is indeed a military airport (no civil use) 17 nm east of Dijon Airport. This info according to American DoD maps. It can be found on the DoD maps L-5 and L-9 (Enroute low altitude Europe, North Africa etc). It is in a brown area however, meaning no further FLIP details, alas. Also no info found in British RAF FLIPS. Only details on Broyes mentioned on the DoD maps: Elevation 682 ft MSL, Runway lighting available, length of longest available runway 7700 ft. Broyes is situated in the middle of a circular (0-2900 ft AGL) danger area (LFD75), 6 nm in diameter. In turn this danger area is situated in a larger restricted area (LFR8A) extending from 2900 ft AGL to FL 195. Adjacent to LFR8A are about a dozen other danger and restricted areas. Take into account that the French really love restricted areas, they're everywhere. I also found a not so detailed French high alt navigation map (Nov. 1996). On this, Broyes is shown as an airport as well as high alt reporting point RS 05 (N47.20.1' E05.31.8'). It's not on the low alt section. Hope this helps... If you've further questions please also CC my e-mail address because I'm subscribed to the digest. Best regards from the Netherlands, Frits Westra -- fwestra@hetnet.nl Net-Tamer V 1.11.2 - Registered ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:26:45 -0800 From: jaz5@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: One last stab Patrick wrote, >Yes but who would want to go to the market and order 10 pounds of slugs? > >(I'm trying to end this thing!) > >patrick > > Probably someone in a rural area who wanted to do a lot of shooting... jaz ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:26:41 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Supersonic F/A-18? Taken during "Fleet Week" in Frisco. Golden Gate Bridge is in the background. I say this plane is travelling subsonic. And if so then it is displaying only the effects of vapor condensation and expansion? The pattern is not as tight which may indicate a lower speed than the F-4. Note the ruffled water directly below the aircraft. http://www.airshowaction.com/flw98/flw1.jpg - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --------------- And for those of you with net nanny....You will need your Ovaltine Secret Decoder Wheel. www Put a forward slash after this word airshowaction Put a forward slash after this word com Put a dot after this word flw98 Put a dot after this word flw1 Put a dot after this word followed by the three letters j,p and g ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 99 10:00:38 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re: Supersonic F/A-18? GEEZ! Just cause CyberPatrol thinks Art Bell ranks in the non-viewable like the XXX sites........ I can see this one! Cool shot. But you're right, it doesn't seem as tight. Greg W. net nanny indeed! And its not Ovaltine, its Captain Crunch! ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Supersonic F/A-18? Author: at INTERNET Date: 1/15/99 6:26 PM Taken during "Fleet Week" in Frisco. Golden Gate Bridge is in the background. I say this plane is travelling subsonic. And if so then it is displaying only the effects of vapor condensation and expansion? The pattern is not as tight which may indicate a lower speed than the F-4. Note the ruffled water directly below the aircraft. http://www.airshowaction.com/flw98/flw1.jpg - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --------------- And for those of you with net nanny....You will need your Ovaltine Secret Decoder Wheel. www Put a forward slash after this word airshowaction Put a forward slash after this word com Put a dot after this word flw98 Put a dot after this word flw1 Put a dot after this word followed by the three letters j,p and g ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 09:41:18 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Supersonic F-4? > The F-4 in that photo is NOT going supersonic. If it were, there >would be a shock coming off the nose and another behind the aircraft and >that would be all. Hmmm. So, as I understand you David, what you're saying, is that you believe the condensation areas are compression shocks, not expansion shocks? And therefore, since there is no compression shock at the nose, therefore, this is a classic case of transonic flow? Regards, Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:51:42 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Supersonic F/A-18? Patrick writes: >>Taken during "Fleet Week" in Frisco. ... >>I say this plane is travelling subsonic. ... >>The pattern is not as tight which may indicate a lower speed than the F-4. >>Note the ruffled water directly below the aircraft. Greg W. responds: >I can see this one! Cool shot. But you're right, it doesn't seem as >tight. Yes. Another interesting shot! I agree. Lower speed. I think you're seeing the formation of a compression shock, early in its life. At this point the wave front is not thin enough or strong enough to be called a shock. >>Note the ruffled water directly below the aircraft. Yes! In fact, a physics professor could make another interesting point about this. Notice the fact that there is a visible pressure wave below the FA-18 and not above it. There of course actually IS a pressure wave above the FA-18, but there isn't enough water molecules above it to show. And since the FA-18 is actually over water here, in the SF Bay (I assume), I think we're seeing the interesting physical phenomenon associated with the interface between a gas ad a liquid. The FA-18 seems to be at the correct altitude to show roughly where the transition boundary is between different areas of gas saturation between the air and the water. There is some pretty interesting physics in this area having to do with the pressure of a gas and where it meets a liquid, and the physical effects of that. Regards, Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 22:58:01 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Supersonic F-4? At 09:41 AM 1/15/99 -0800, you wrote: > >> The F-4 in that photo is NOT going supersonic. If it were, there >>would be a shock coming off the nose and another behind the aircraft and >>that would be all. > >Hmmm. > >So, as I understand you David, what you're saying, is that you believe >the condensation areas are compression shocks, not expansion shocks? > >And therefore, since there is no compression shock at the nose, therefore, >this is a classic case of transonic flow? > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I know I am out of my league here but that has never slowed me in the past. And forgive me for stating the obvious. But it seems like a supersonic bow shock and a compressed area causing water vapor to appear are two entirely different phenomena. I think we are seeing the appearance of water vapor only. If a bow shock were in effect due to the plane being supersonic wouldnt it be seen and further if it were even there, but invisible, would it not also confine the condensation to remain in this (bow) cone? All we all saying the same thing? Sorry if I am being redundant once again. patrick ps. Where is that Wei-Jen when you need him? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What do we want? Procrastination! When do we want it? Next week. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:22:18 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Supersonic F/A-18? >And since the FA-18 is actually over water here, in the SF Bay (I assume), >I think we're seeing the interesting physical phenomenon associated >with the interface between a gas ad a liquid. The FA-18 seems to be >at the correct altitude to show roughly where the transition boundary >is This prompts the question, does ground effect feel any different over land than over water (no joke intended!). In other words, if I'm flying in an aircraft, do I feel any difference in lift say, in ground effect, or maybe even near ground effect, but in this gas/liquid transition area, than over land, far enough away from water say, so that there is no such gas/liquid interface? Any Naval Aviators out there? Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:50:23 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Supersonic F-4? >And forgive me for stating the obvious. But it seems like a supersonic >bow shock and a compressed area causing water vapor to appear are two >entirely different phenomena. No they're the same phenomenon. A compression. Your simple compressed area will become a shock if the speed of what's causing the compression goes up to the speed of sound of the air. Air is NOT water. A water wave cannot be compressed beyond what you see rolling across a pond. Air however can be comressed. And the faster you go the more you compress the compression wave (make it thinner), until at the speed of sound of the air (the maximum speed that pressure waves can travel in the air) it can't compress much any more, and you have what is now caused a shock. Which is just a special case of a pressure wave where the pressure wave is as thin as it can basically get. As air flows through that very thin region of a shock wave, it increases in pressure, density and temperature. It also increases entropy, or suffers energy losses, depending on the strength of the shock or the strength of what is causing the compression (is it blunt (strong compression wave) or pointy (weaker compression wave)). Regards, Larry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 02:57:11 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Supersonic F-4? At 11:50 AM 1/15/99 -0800, you wrote: > >>And forgive me for stating the obvious. But it seems like a supersonic >>bow shock and a compressed area causing water vapor to appear are two >>entirely different phenomena. > >No they're the same phenomenon. A compression. Your simple compressed area >will become a shock if the speed of what's causing the compression goes >up to the speed of sound of the air. > Larry- I am splitting hairs (airs?) here. I am saying that when you begin compressing air past an airplane you get first the phenomena of a water vapor turning from a gas into a liquid or cloud type formation. While at increased pressures you have the transonic effect of the gas reaching the limit of comressability. There is no change of state, just behavior. OK Mr. Wizard......a plane is flying Mach 1.4 thru blue sky. Now the pilot steers directly into a big thick Cumulo Nimbus cloud. (for safety's sake we avoided a nearby thunderhead) What happens? I guess I am diffrentiating two different effects caused by ever increasing pressure of air past an airfoil. patrick RE your ground effect......when I used to work as a refueler a crop duster would come in during the summer. He was flying a Cessna Agwagon or Piper Pawnee. He told me it was very common that when flying with a full tank of chemicals he could not get the plane above 150 feet of altitude. Like a boat in water his plane would fly only as high as the compressed air would allow. This didn't seem to concern him in the least as he spent his whole day flying between 0 and 150 feet anyway. Even when he returned to the airport with empty tanks. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:57:57 -0800 (PST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: Supersonic F-4? On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, patrick wrote: > ps. Where is that Wei-Jen when you need him? Abducted by little aliens ;) Sorry that I didn't contribute this part of the debate which is very interesting. But I have a lot de debate already here at school and in the labs. Right now, I am just "scanning" over my e-mails, no time to analize it. Sorry! May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." Albert Einstein ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 99 22:47:27 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Supersonic F/A-18? Having attended a number of Fleet Week shows as well as other Blue Angel performances, I can guarantee you that aircraft is not supersonic. That close to the shore (yes, I know this was shot with a telephoto, but I also know how far out they really are), you would have shattered windows on houses from the Presidio to the Embarcadero, and it would have made news all over the place. To my knowledge a Blue Angel only went supersonic once during a regular show (by accident, having gone wide on a turn and rushing to get into position) and that was with F-4s. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 18:41:16 EST From: kc7vdg@juno.com (CLASSIFIED INFORMATION) Subject: Re: Supersonic F/A-18? You SAW one at a show and you now know the flight characteristics of the aircraft? Kurt Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KK7RC Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB Based In Nevada, United States Of America In use: Kenwood: TM-251A/E, TS-570d, Yaesu: FT-8100R, FT-2500M, FT50rd, Realistic: DX-394, Icom: IC-706MKII, Uniden: BC-200xlt, BC-760xlt, Whistler: CO403DC scanning video reciever 55-806 MHz On Sat, 16 Jan 99 22:47:27 GMT betnal@ns.net writes: >Having attended a number of Fleet Week shows as well as other Blue >Angel >performances, I can guarantee you that aircraft is not supersonic. >That close to >the shore (yes, I know this was shot with a telephoto, but I also know >how far out >they really are), you would have shattered windows on houses from the >Presidio to >the Embarcadero, and it would have made news all over the place. To >my knowledge >a Blue Angel only went supersonic once during a regular show (by >accident, having >gone wide on a turn and rushing to get into position) and that was >with F-4s. > > > Art > > ___________________________________________________________________ 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/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 06:40:55 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Supersonic F/A-18? At 10:47 PM 1/16/99 GMT, Art wrote: >Having attended a number of Fleet Week shows as well as other Blue Angel >performances, I can guarantee you that aircraft is not supersonic. That close to >the shore (yes, I know this was shot with a telephoto, but I also know how far out >they really are), you would have shattered windows on houses from the Presidio to >the Embarcadero, and it would have made news all over the place. To my knowledge >a Blue Angel only went supersonic once during a regular show (by accident, having >gone wide on a turn and rushing to get into position) and that was with F-4s. > Another good reason the Blue Angels should be still flying the fabulous Phantom! Nothing will substitute for an excess of raw power! Smartest thing the AF could do would be to assign the first half dozen F-23's to the Thunderbird's. Think the Navy brass would sit quietly for that??? Ha ha! patrick ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 99 05:06:35 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Supersonic F/A-18? On 1/16/99 3:41PM, in message <19990116.154005.10151.4.KC7VDG@juno.com>, CLASSIFIED INFORMATION wrote: > You SAW one at a show and you now know the flight characteristics of the > aircraft? > > Kurt > > Actually, I've known the characteristics of the F/A-18 for some time, but that's not the point. Having seen the Blues perform a number of times at the exact point where this picture is taken, and having seen this phenomena during the solo's high speed pass, plus noting that the press has not been carrying reports of the Blues getting enormous bills for all the shattered glass there would at Pier 39 and all the expensive homes and offices around there, I feel safe in offering the opinion that the aircraft in question probably is not supersonic On 1/17/99 6:40AM, in message <3.0.1.32.19990117064055.00732ab4@e-z.net>, patrick wrote: >Another good reason the Blue Angels should be still flying the fabulous >Phantom! Nothing will substitute for an excess of raw power! Smartest >thing the AF could do would be to assign the first half dozen F-23's to the >Thunderbird's. Think the Navy brass would sit quietly for that??? Ha ha! >patrick Actually, the F/A-18 has more excess power than the F-4, but the F-4 still put on the most awe-inspiring show of any plane the Blues flew, IMHO. AF would probably love to have the F-22 as the next mount of the Thunderbirds, if they have enough of them to spare (would have to be early development birds). Not much the USN could do about it since all they'll have is the Hornet E/F. My bet is that we'll see the Blues and Thunderbirds flying the same aircraft for the first time since the F-4, and it'll be the JSF. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:28:35 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Supersonic F/A-18? >> You SAW one at a show and you now know the flight characteristics of the >> aircraft? > Well if you consider they practice, practice, practice to perform each manoever identical every time then yes, it is very easy to predict their air show performances. And if you are a true aficionado, then one show is never enuf! >>Another good reason the Blue Angels should be still flying the fabulous >>Phantom! Nothing will substitute for an excess of raw power! Smartest >>thing the AF could do would be to assign the first half dozen F-23's to the >>Thunderbird's. Think the Navy brass would sit quietly for that??? Ha ha! > > > Art:.......Actually, the F/A-18 has more excess power than the F-4, but the F-4 still >put on the most awe-inspiring show of any plane the Blues flew, IMHO....... Yes Art, Rhino's Rule! Freudian slip....I said F-23. Still love the stealthier look of the F-23 over the F-22. I gotta think it was a half step ahead of the F-22. Anybody got a copy of the RCS comparison test? patrick ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:54:28 -0800 From: "Michael J. Poirier" Subject: Re: Supersonic F/A-18? betnal@ns.net wrote: > My bet is that we'll see the Blues and Thunderbirds flying the same aircraft for > the first time since the F-4, and it'll be the JSF. If that turns out to be the case, expect Congress to decide that one military performance team is enough. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 99 05:12:18 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Supersonic F/A-18? On 1/18/99 10:28AM, in message <3.0.1.32.19990118102835.006fc0f8@e-z.net>, patrick wrote: > > > > Yes Art, Rhino's Rule! Freudian slip....I said F-23. Still love the > stealthier look of the F-23 over the F-22. I gotta think it was a half > step ahead of the F-22. Anybody got a copy of the RCS comparison test? > > patrick > That's the only thing that was more classified than the results of the supercruise tests! Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 12:41:57 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD: (TLCB) U-2/SR-71 observations About '66 a U-2 was making flights out of Hickam for a while. The day it came in I was on the top of a maint stand changing the anti-collision light on the tail of a C-124 parked outside Hanger 45. I mean, way up there! When it came in they taxied it right into a hanger and closed the doors and posted guards. Big whoop, no secret. Hickam shares runways with Honolulu International. Half the island saw it come in. When I heard it was leaving I went back up the stand for a good view. Man, wish I had a camera. Another spy plane sighting. First time I saw a SR-71 was at Hill AFB in 68. When it came in they parked it a the far end of the runway. That night we went up on top of a C-124 with a starscope to check it out. Those were the days!!!! Paul Lee - -- 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, 20 Jan 1999 04:43:27 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Last TitanIV goes up with a bang This is going to run into some money the monkey said after he urinated into the cash drawer. PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. (AFPN) -- Electrical shorts likely caused the Titan IVA rocket to self-destruct shortly after launch Aug. 12. According to an Air Force Space Command accident investigation board report, electrical shorts in the Vehicle Power Supply wiring harness most likely caused the vehicle to catastrophically fail 41 seconds into powered flight from Cape Canaveral Air Station, Fla. The shorts originated in the second stage of the core vehicle. The board found evidence that a wire with damaged insulation -- undetected during pre-launch inspections and tests -- intermittently shorted as vehicle vibration increased after liftoff. The shorts within the VPS wiring harness momentarily caused a power outage of the missile guidance computer, resulting in the loss of the synchronization signal to the inertial measurement unit. This electrical interruption caused the rocket to lose its attitude frame of reference. When the intermittent shorting subsided and power was restored, the MGC came back on line, responded to an incorrect attitude reference from the IMU, and issued a pitch down and yaw right command. The resulting pitch caused an aerodynamic angle of attack in excess of the structural design limits. At this point, one of the vehicle's solid rocket motors separated from the core vehicle, leading to vehicle breakup. Once this occurred, the vehicle's self-destruct system activated in order to prevent uncontrolled flight. The booster was the last Titan "A" model scheduled for launch in the Air Force's inventory. The "B" model will continue to provide unmanned heavy lift capability until 2002, when the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle is scheduled to become operational. The cost of the Titan IVA-20 mishap is more than $1 billion. Costs include the launch vehicle, a classified National Reconnaissance Office satellite and range support. The Air Force, in concert with the Space and Missile Systems Center and Lockheed Martin Astronautics, has taken actions to address the findings of the investigation. (Courtesy of Air Force Space Command News Service) ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #4 ******************************* 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