From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #9 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, February 3 1999 Volume 08 : Number 009 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Russian plasma stealth ? Re: skunk-works-digest V8 #5 Upcoming Air & Space article on Oxcart Re: Russian plasma stealth ? Re: Russian Plasma Stealth Mexican Navy links Re: Mexican Navy links Re: Upcoming Air & Space article on Oxcart Re: Russian plasma stealth ? Re: Upcoming Air & Space article on Oxcart Re: Upcoming Air & Space article on Oxcart Re: Russian plasma stealth ? What was used in Desert Fox Re: Upcoming Air & Space article on Oxcart Re: What was used in Desert Fox Pressure recovery in the SR-71 inlet Re: Pressure recovery in the SR-71 inlet Re: What was used in Desert Fox Re: Upcoming Air & Space article on Oxcart Re: Russian plasma stealth ? Re: Pressure recovery in the SR-71 inlet Re: Pressure recovery in the SR-71 inlet Re: Re: Upcoming Air & Space article on Oxcart Re: Russian plasma stealth ? *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 01:24:26 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Russian plasma stealth ? At 03:57 PM 1/29/99 +0100, you wrote: >In attachment is an alleged Russian ITAR-TASS >agency release about a new way of obtaining >stealthiness, via the use of "plasma". They >say that it's or will be far better than the >US Lockheed Skunk Works or Northrop way. > - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-----=-=---=====--- It works great. Now if they can just figure out how to perfect aerial refueling without creating that "second sun" effect in the sky. I think this report was originally filed by Natasha and Boris Badenoff. We better notify "Rocket J. Squirrel" and his faithful moose companion "Bullwinkle." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:15:21 -0500 From: "JAMES WATT" Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V8 #5 At 1999.01.22 14:08--0700, you wrote: > > The German were in fact developing nuclear bomb during WWII. There > is some evidence about this. Like the heavy water industry based in > Finland or some of those countries during WWII. I heard that the Jewish > that work for the nazis to develop nuclear bomb passed vital informations > to the American during WWII. Also, the scientist were really to used the > nuclear bomb (probably the target was England) but Hitler back up... But, > I don't have any hard evidence of these. +------- The country was Norway. There was a book "But For These Men..." and I think a movie sometime in the 80s. I'm travelling so don't have the book details at hand. - -james ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:34:50 -0800 From: "Paul A. Suhler" Subject: Upcoming Air & Space article on Oxcart The upcoming February-March 1999 issue of Air & Space Magazine will have an article by Burrows on the development of the Blackbird. Here's the abstract from their web site: The Oxcart Cometh by William E. Burrows And goeth at Mach 3.2. On May 1, 1960, Soviet air defense missiles downed a U-2 flown by Francis Gary Powers, and, with 24 missions flown, overflights of the Soviet Union were halted. America's first purpose-built spyplane had, until that day, avoided such a fate by flying extremely high, but the U-2 was slow, and U.S. officials had always known its days were numbered. If the airplane's follow-on was to be less vulnerable, and assuming the high-altitude requirement persisted, as it had to, then only one area of performance remained: speed. Under a project code-named Gusto, the Lockheed Skunk Works, headed by the legendary Kelly Johnson, completed a design for a successor to the U-2 in the summer of 1959. The Skunk Works entry, which had evolved from A-1 (for "Archangel") to A-11 and then A-12, in turn evolved into the U.S. Air Force's SR-71. Abstract of an article by William E. Burrows, originally published in Air & Space/Smithsonian, February/March 1999. All rights reserved. While you can't read the article on-line, there is an article on the Blackbird inlet system at http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/mag/supp/fm99/oxcart.html. As of tonight, the January issue (with Burrows's U-2 article) is still in the bookstores. Enjoy, Paul Suhler ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 16:57:44 +0100 (MET) From: pharabod@in2p3.fr Subject: Re: Russian plasma stealth ? The text I sent in attachment came from http://www.tc.umn.edu/~kapl0040/infos/rusLO_ENG.html I found the above web address in a message to sci.physics posted by somebody called Venik last Friday (January 29). I never heard of that story before. J. Pharabod ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 12:01:38 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Russian Plasma Stealth >Wayne Busse raised a few interesting issues about this. Yes. Good questions Wayne. >If anyone knows the target radar >frequencies we're intested in defeating, I can calculate the required >electron densities. They're probably horrendous. Cool! I'll get that to you. I'd be interested in knowing more about this. Thanks for your input too Paul! Seeding the plasma would be one way to bump its ionization, although I don't know the level of that which would be required. Another problem for such a vehicle cruising in that mode would be the tail. The tail on such a vehicle would be rather detectable. There is a company that has developed technology in this area that has been discussed in AW&ST. Of course, warhead carrier vehicles might be interested in this if ABM technology was at a higher state of development. I would suspect it would apply more to a maneuvering carrier, and perhaps a self-propelled one at that, something that would need to fly longer. Or more generally, hypersonic cruise attack vehicles might be interested in that. One thing that has intrigued me over the years is the difference that natural balls of plasma seem to have in their physics here. Of course this has not been studied very well yet. I think many scientists are starting to warm up to a very interesting phenomenon here that needs further study. I suspect that the force that holds these balls together precludes a vary large tail. And these balls have been observed at VERY large mach numbers. >You're not going to put a plasma sheet across the engine inlets, ... For a traditional engine, I agree. But, if one were going to have a vehicle naturally surrounded by a plasma, one would attempt to take advantage of that. Like Myrabo's E/M powered designs that use slipstream MHD acceleration for propulsion at higher mach numbers. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 99 20:15:49 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Mexican Navy links Anyone on here know where I can find some links that have images from the Mexican Navy?? I'm not even sure how many ships (if any) they have!! Thanks, in advance. Greg W. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 20:40:44 -0700 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: Mexican Navy links gregweigold@pmsc.com asked, >Anyone on here know where I can find some links that have images from the >Mexican Navy?? I'm not even sure how many ships (if any) they have!! For some background information, see http://www.uss-salem.org/worldnav/americas/mexico.htm Also Jane's Fighting Ships 1998-99 Hardcover 101th edition Jane's Information Group; ISBN: 071061795X But the really skunkish question is, "How many hypersonic and/or stealth aircraft does the Mexican Navy have, and what are their characteristics?" (Please, no "Cessna" nominations.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Feb 99 05:36:46 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Upcoming Air & Space article on Oxcart It'll be interesting to see what they claim is the reason for retirement ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 10:27:55 +0100 (MET) From: pharabod@in2p3.fr Subject: Re: Russian plasma stealth ? The following message was posted to rec.aviation.military by Philip Kaploun last Saturday (January 30). J. Pharabod > Just read in "AeroKosmichekie Novosti" > - Aerospace News: > > Mig-29SMT is equiped with plasma stealth > system. It was already tested in RuAF > (probably that first machine upgraded > recently). > > Phil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 23:11:04 -0500 From: Jeff Clark Subject: Re: Upcoming Air & Space article on Oxcart On Tue, 02 Feb 99 05:36:46 GMT betnal@ns.net writes: >It'll be interesting to see what they claim is the reason for >retirement They don't mention it. The story is more about the technical problems that were faced during development. The whole retirement affair is mentioned only in one sentence in the next-to-last paragraph: "With what remained of the 15 A-12s mothballed, and with World War III averted, the 31 expensive SR-71's were put on regular reconaissance duty until they were finally retired in January 1990, only to be revived again in on-again, off- again directives from Congress." The story also has two errors that I could find: They called the drone-carrying A-12 variant the M-12, instead of M-21; and they identify a picutre of lineup of A-12s as being taken at Nellis AFB instead of Groom Lake. ___________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 23:15:58 +0000 From: Michael Ravnitzky Subject: Re: Upcoming Air & Space article on Oxcart Have any of you guys ever heard of any of the SR-71 family of aircraft designated as an quote F-12 unquote? I've located a USAF motion picture film called quote the F-12 unquote which might be of interest, but I don't know. Michael Ravnitzky mikerav@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:29:04 +0100 (MET) From: pharabod@in2p3.fr Subject: Re: Russian plasma stealth ? Using dejanews, I managed to find a message about this "plasma" story posted on June 17, 1998. It appears that Jane's Defense Weekly already knew something. J. Pharabod > Russian Plasma Aerodynamics: JDW article > Author: sanjeevk > Date: 1998/06/17 > Forum: rec.aviation.military > > Hi all, > In the latest 'Janes Defense Weekly > online news briefs' ( which I subscribe to), > there is a brief mention of 'Plasma Aerodynamics' > advances reportedly made in the former soviet > union. The article claims that such innovations > could revolutionize aircraft design. > > Can anyone here supply more details > about 'Plasma Aerodynamics' ? The term itself > looks vague to me - Does it refer to > interaction of an aircrafts control surfaces > with hot plasma, or is it referring to a > totally new form of aircraft propulsion? > > Is it possibly a spinoff from Russias > space program? > > Maybe the soviets have already > incorporated this advance into their 1.42 > fighter ( just kidding). > > thanks, > > Sanjeev. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:14:44 -0000 From: Gavin Payne Subject: What was used in Desert Fox I read on the USAF news list that AF are getting $52million to replace the 90 cruise missiles used. It also says they're going to replace two test missiles used. Does anyone know what these are?? Still I suppose having Saddam there was a good opportunity to test some new ideas! Gavin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:19:47 -0500 (EST) From: David Allison Subject: Re: Upcoming Air & Space article on Oxcart Michael: If the USAF had gone ahead with the YF-12 program, the production interceptor would have been called the F-12. It never made it past the test phase, even though the missile firings had a 90+% hit rate at Mach 3 from 150 miles out. The problem was that this Mach 3 interceptor takes between 12 and 26 hours to pre-flight. Not exactly easy to put one in the sky at a moment's notice. The A-12 and SR-71 didn't have this problem, since SR-71 flights required a lot of pre-planning. The aircraft was being prepped while the mission profile was being firmed up. - D - David Allison webmaster@habu.org S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T / \ / \ _/ ___ \_ ________/ \_______/V^V\_______/ \_______ \__/ \___/ \__/ www.habu.org The OnLine Blackbird Museum On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Michael Ravnitzky wrote: > Have any of you guys ever heard of any of the SR-71 family of aircraft > designated as an quote F-12 unquote? I've located a USAF motion picture > film called quote the F-12 unquote which might be of interest, but I > don't know. > > Michael Ravnitzky > mikerav@ix.netcom.com > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 08:39:36 -0600 From: Dave Bethke Subject: Re: What was used in Desert Fox Gavin Payne wrote: > > I read on the USAF news list that AF are getting $52million to replace the > 90 cruise missiles used. That's about 580,000 each, a real bargain from what is usually quoted. > It also says they're going to replace two test missiles used. Practice, and/or checking out the launch system. - -- Dave ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 08:37:10 -0800 From: Erik Hoel Subject: Pressure recovery in the SR-71 inlet In the online article on the Blackbird's engine inlet design: http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/mag/supp/fm99/oxcart.html at the Air & Space Magazine site, the final paragraph contains some remarks that I do not understand related to how thrust is produced. The paragraph states "At Mach 3, the inlet itself produces 54% of total thrust through pressure recovery, the engine contributing only 17% and the ejector system 29%. The compression ratio at cruise is 40 to 1." Could someone knowledgeable in such matters explain (in layman's terms if at all possible), how the inlet can produce thrust through pressure recovery. Also, am I correct in assuming that the ejector system produces thrust via the afterburner? Thanks, 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, 03 Feb 99 12:40:28 EST From: keller@eos.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Pressure recovery in the SR-71 inlet Erik Hoel asked: >In the online article on the Blackbird's engine inlet design: > http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/mag/supp/fm99/oxcart.html >at the Air & Space Magazine site, the final paragraph contains some remarks >that I do not understand related to how thrust is produced. The paragraph >states "At Mach 3, the inlet itself produces 54% of total thrust through >pressure recovery, the engine contributing only 17% and the ejector system >29%. The compression ratio at cruise is 40 to 1." >Could someone knowledgeable in such matters explain (in layman's terms if at >all possible), how the inlet can produce thrust through pressure recovery. >Also, am I correct in assuming that the ejector system produces thrust via >the afterburner? I'll add a tougher followup question to this: I've read this claim before that the SR-71 actually gets most of its thrust in high mach flight from the engine inlets, however, would someone care to explain how an inlet can produce net thrust at all, when there isn't any heat (energy) being added? Or is this a matter of terminology, with the reality being that most of the engine pressure _ratio_, at least the compression end it, being produced by the inlet? The way I see the thermodynamics of it, without adding any heat from combusting fuel, compressing the inlet air flow & then expanding it through a nozzle will produce net thrust of exactly zero even with perfect pressure recovery & expansion. In practicality, the second law of thermodynamics will rear its ugly head, and you don't get back what you started with, so, without adding heat, the net thrust would actually be negative. What gives? - --Paul Keller ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 13:05:09 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: What was used in Desert Fox > Gavin Payne wrote: >> >> I read on the USAF news list that AF are getting $52million to replace the >> 90 cruise missiles used. > > That's about 580,000 each, a real bargain from what is usually quoted. > >> It also says they're going to replace two test missiles used. > > Practice, and/or checking out the launch system. > > -- > Dave > You need to factor in the non-recurring costs to get the real cost. - ----------------------------- James P. Stevenson (301) 254-9000 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 13:08:33 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Upcoming Air & Space article on Oxcart All missile tests have a 90+ percent success rate. Jim Stevenson > Michael: > > If the USAF had gone ahead with the YF-12 program, the production > interceptor would have been called the F-12. > > It never made it past the test phase, even though the missile > firings had a 90+% hit rate at Mach 3 from 150 miles out. The > problem was that this Mach 3 interceptor takes between 12 and > 26 hours to pre-flight. Not exactly easy to put one in the sky > at a moment's notice. > > The A-12 and SR-71 didn't have this problem, since SR-71 flights > required a lot of pre-planning. The aircraft was being prepped > while the mission profile was being firmed up. > > - D - > > David Allison > webmaster@habu.org > > S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T > > / \ > / \ > _/ ___ \_ > ________/ \_______/V^V\_______/ \_______ > \__/ \___/ \__/ > > www.habu.org > The OnLine Blackbird Museum > > On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Michael Ravnitzky wrote: > >> Have any of you guys ever heard of any of the SR-71 family of aircraft >> designated as an quote F-12 unquote? I've located a USAF motion picture >> film called quote the F-12 unquote which might be of interest, but I >> don't know. >> >> Michael Ravnitzky >> mikerav@ix.netcom.com >> > > - ----------------------------- James P. Stevenson (301) 254-9000 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:39:46 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Russian plasma stealth ? >> Can anyone here supply more details >> about 'Plasma Aerodynamics' ? The term itself >> looks vague to me - Does it refer to >> interaction of an aircrafts control surfaces >> with hot plasma, or is it referring to a >> totally new form of aircraft propulsion? Someone can inform Sanjeev. Plasma Aerodynamics is normal aerodynamics with the physics of ionized gases thrown in. So yes to both. It involves the flow over the fuselage including the wing, tail, and control surfaces, and it can involve propulsion as well if propulsion injests or works on the ionized flow, in some other way (like with a magnetic field buried inside the aircraft which reaches out and accelerates the ions and free electrons (the free electrons were stripped off the air atoms ionizing some of the air atoms)). As far as CFD is concerned, you add Maxwell's equations to the standard CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) equations of conservation of mass, momentum, and energy. If there's a magnetic field generated inside the vehicle that is designed to effect the ionized external flow, then you add the Lorenz Force or Body Force eauation as well. So as far as aerodynamics is concerned, it is standard aerodynamics with additional equations. The results can be quite spectacular and unusual because you now have a medium, namely the ionized air, that can support two kinds of discontinuities, or two different kinds of shock waves, namely the normal shock waves of standard supersonic aerodynamics when the local speed of sound is exceeded and magnetic shocks. It creates some very strange effects when the speed of sound in the gas is lower than the speed of magnetic shock propogation. You can get vehicle wakes that go FORWARD from the stern of the vehicle instead of backward from the bow!! Pretty cool eh? Definitely alien technlogy ... just kidding!! There was a lot of work done on this back in the 50's when they were starting to play with reentry vehicle technology. Creating a gas that was ionized enough was a problem back then. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 13:10:49 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Pressure recovery in the SR-71 inlet Erik Hoel asked: >>at the Air & Space Magazine site, the final paragraph contains some remarks >>that I do not understand related to how thrust is produced. The paragraph >>states "At Mach 3, the inlet itself produces 54% of total thrust through >>pressure recovery, the engine contributing only 17% and the ejector system >>29%. The compression ratio at cruise is 40 to 1." >> >>Could someone knowledgeable in such matters explain (in layman's terms if at >>all possible), how the inlet can produce thrust through pressure recovery. >>Also, am I correct in assuming that the ejector system produces thrust via >>the afterburner? Every jet, from airbreathers to rockets (yes, rockets are considered jets), pressurize their propellants before combustion. It increases the efficiency of the combustion by getting the O2 molecules closer together (from air for an airbreather like the SR, or the oxidizer for a rocket) so that the fuel molecules can find them, micromix, and cause the oxidation reaction which is the basis of combustion. Higher pressure also increases the static temperature of the O2 source (air or a rocket's oxidizer) which promotes faster chemical reactions or catalysis, and, it bumps the energy available for expansion in the nozzle. Higher pressure inlets give higher static temperatures. The pressure recovery phrase is important, but it applies to the quality of the compression. It basically means that the compression is done in a manner to reduce energy losses which show up as a loss of something called total pressure, which you can think of as a loss of potential energy in the flow after it is slowed from Mach 3+ to around Mach 0.2 for combustion (in this case). So the SR-71's inlet, which does both supersonic compresion (externally with the spike and internally with the cowl lip and duct up to the throat) and subsonic compression (done with an internal duct area increase downstream of the throat) adds a pretty large total 40-to-1 compression ratio to the air as it flows into one of two burner paths. I believe this is larger than a turbofan adds, for example, with its rotating compressor and inlet, for the air on a turbofans high pressure path. There are 2 burner paths in the SR. The most heavily used, at Mach 3+, is the J58 core bypass path that takes the inlet air around most of the J58, and injects it into the J58's afterburner. This flow, in the afterburner, merges with the other burner path, which goes through the J58 core, and therefore the J58's burner, and then through the J58's turbine, where mechanical work is extracted to turn the J58's modest 12-to-1 pressure ratio compressure (we need a lower pressure ratio here in the J58's high pressure compressor because we have a flow already at 40-to-1, and high static temperature. A higher pressure ratio here, like a normal turbojet, would increase the static temperature to too high a level. This is a characteristic of HIGH MACH NUMBER turbomachines in fact. Due to the high pressure ratio of the inlets, due to the high freestream speeds, the static temperatures are too high for high pressure ratio fans or compressors. NOTE: the confidential P&W Air-core enhanced Turbo-Ramjet (AceTR) engine used in the Mach 10 McDD GLOBAL REACH study is reported to have such a property. To answer your last question, the ejector system adds thrust by accelerating two additional flows, besides the one coming out of the afterburner. Thrust is generated by accelerating a flow to a higher velocity. The afterburner flow, is being accelerated via the nozzle. What an ejector nozzle does, it ENTRAINS an additional gas flow from somewhere else, usually a flow that is surrounding the outside of the nozzle. What ENTRAINMENT is, is the action of mixing this afterburner flow with this other flow. In the act of mixing, the other flow is accelerated too, producing thrust in that flow. The other flow on the A-12 and SR-71 comes from another bypass flow from some bypass ducts near the front of the inlet and an outside air source caused by some suck-in doors on the back of the SR-71's nacelle, just upstream of the nuzzle. You see these doors open when the SR is in burner. So the flow is actually a tertiary or 3-source flow, the afterburner, the bypass flow from the front of the inlet, and the outside source near the back of the nacelle that suck in external air. Paul Keller writes: >I'll add a tougher followup question to this: I've read this claim >before that the SR-71 actually gets most of its thrust in high mach >flight from the engine inlets, however, would someone care to explain >how an inlet can produce net thrust at all, when there isn't any heat >(energy) being added? Or is this a matter of terminology, with the >reality being that most of the engine pressure _ratio_, at least the >compression end it, being produced by the inlet? ... >you don't get back what you started with, so, without adding heat, >the net thrust would actually be negative. What gives? Correct Paul. No magic here. They were talking of the effects of a high pressure ratio. Yes there are losses in compression and friction in the duct. If you just expanded a pressurized flow, you wouldn't end up on the plus side of the ledger, in terms of thrust. However, there are many ways to add heat, right? If you run this high pressure flow by a hotter surface, you'll transfer some heat via convection, for example. That may not be enough heat however to end up with positive thrust. The real answer to what a high pressure inlet provides, beyond what I wrote above for Erik, can be seen in a T-S diagram. If T or static temperature is the vertical axis, and S or Entropy is the horizontal axis, and if we draw constant pressure curves across the inside of the diagram that slope upward (these curves are isobars or constant pressure along each curve). So lower pressure isobars are at lower T and higher pressure isobars are at higher T. A high pressure inlet will stick you way up at a higher isobar. Then as you add heat at constant pressure, you travel upward on that isobar to an even higher temperature. Then, you are ready for the nozzle function which is hopefully low loss or close to isentropic (constant entropy). Since a higher pressure inlet has you higher on the energy available for expansion, than the lower pressure inlet, where you would be at a lower pressure, the higher pressure inlet has the potential to add more thrust, or acceleration of the mach 0.2 combustion products, than a lower pressure inlet. Larry' ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 15:26:22 +0000 From: Michael Ravnitzky Subject: Re: Pressure recovery in the SR-71 inlet Something really confusing (and I worked as an aeronautical engineer) is how the XB-70 Valkyrie Mach 3 bomber achieved its lift and its aerodynamic characteristics at high mach numbers. Anyone care to explain, if it isn't too off base? Did the XB-70 and SR-71 have any common roots or genealogy, even indirectly? Mike Ravnitzky mikerav@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 17:33:02 EST From: JNiessen@aol.com Subject: Re: Re: Upcoming Air & Space article on Oxcart To all on this list, I've taken the liberty of writing Air & Space a three-page letter outlining all the many errors in Bill Burrows' piece on the A-12. I'll post it on the list this weekend. In summary, however, suffice it to say Burrows should have taken his assignment a little more seriously. Jay Miller ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:43:46 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Russian plasma stealth ? >There was a lot of work done on this back in the 50's when they >were starting to play with reentry vehicle technology. Creating >a gas that was ionized enough was a problem back then. Several points I forgot to mention. Regarding Plasma Aerodynamics adding Maxwell's Equations to the existing equations solved for in traditional CFD. Of course, the term Maxwell's Equations shouldn't be completely unfamiliar to anyone today, reading about stealth technology, for example. These equations are already involved today, in the design of stealth aircraft. Another interesting point. One of the leaders of Plasma Aerodynamics, while he was a professor at Cornell University, back in the 50's (and 60's I think), was a guy named Sears (I think it was William J. Sears). Does his name ring a bell with anyone? Larry ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #9 ******************************* 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