From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #11 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, February 9 1999 Volume 08 : Number 011 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Re: Oxcart in A&S Re: Re: Oxcart in A&S Re: Re: Oxcart in A&S NEW RUSSIAN STEALTH FIGHTER USES PLASMA Re: Re: Re: Oxcart in A&S cc:Mail Link to SMTP Undeliverable Message cc:Mail Link to SMTP Undeliverable Message cc:Mail Link to SMTP Undeliverable Message Darkstar RIP Re: Oxcart in A&S DTIC & CIRC as Historical Research Tools Re: XB-70 (was: Pressure recovery in the SR-71 inlet) Re: XB-70 (was: Pressure recovery in the SR-71 inlet) *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 13:22:35 EST From: JNiessen@aol.com Subject: Re: Re: Oxcart in A&S Jim, Thanks for the kind words. To be honest, I wouldn't have wasted the time writing the letter except for the fact Bill Burrows has an undeserved grand reputation as an authority on black programs (his book Deep Black used tons of stuff from my U-2 and SR-71 monographs). I wouldn't mind it so much except for the fact he does only cursory homework and his books are riddled with errors...which the popular press picks up and lays claim to as gospel. Hell, you know what I'm talking about. F100 is Nikon's newest camera body. It's really impressive. Half-way between an N90S and an F-5. It in fact looks a lot like an F5 but does not have the interchangeable pentaprism housing and high-speed motor drive. Also, if I read my poop sheets correctly, it uses the N90S's metering system. Like the F5, it's mostly of metal construction. I played with one yesterday. If both my N90Ss weren't brand new, I'd probably sell them and move up the notch to the F100. Average price will be in the $1300 range. N90Ss, incidentally, have dropped to around $750 on the street. Spent the morning at the airport taking pics. That new 600/4DSW is something else. Only thing that bothers me about it is it's so damned expensive, I'm afraid to step more than three feet away for fear the wind will blow over the tripod or a fly will crap on it or some such. All these toys can become monkeys if one is not careful. Anyway, thanks for the vote of support. Trip for late March is still on and I'll look forward to seeing you then. All the best, Jay ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 13:31:06 EST From: JNiessen@aol.com Subject: Re: Re: Oxcart in A&S Gregory, I have to confess that I didn't. That is ironic, as you say, because it would have helped them a bit with the errors. And if they had really had their ducks in a row, they would have referenced the Skunk Works book. Sorry about Thursday and Friday. Everyone's pulling my chain these days. I hope you got what you needed on Friday, however. If not, give me a call and we'll run from there. Bottom line is, do what you need to do. If you run over the budget a bit, we'll work out something to make sure you get compensated. All the best, Jay ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 01:39:01 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Re: Oxcart in A&S At 01:22 PM 2/7/99 EST, you wrote: >Jim, > >Thanks for the kind words. To be honest, I wouldn't have wasted the time >writing the letter except for the fact Bill Burrows has an undeserved grand >reputation as an authority on black programs (his book Deep Black used tons of >stuff from my U-2 and SR-71 monographs). I wouldn't mind it so much except for >the fact he does only cursory homework and his books are riddled with >errors...which the popular press picks up and lays claim to as gospel. Hell, >you know what I'm talking about. > =-=-=-==-=-==-=-== Jay: Once again, thanks for sharing your "private" posts! They are always enjoyable to read. *Grin* patrick ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 14:59:55 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: NEW RUSSIAN STEALTH FIGHTER USES PLASMA The Keldysh Research Center has developed new technology allowing dramatic decrease in aircraft's' radar observability. Russian approach to low observability (LO) technology is completely different from US Stealth and offers complete surreptitious movement of the protected object at a significantly lower price. An exclusive interview about these technologies was conducted by Nicolai Novichkov, ITAR-TASS with director of the Center, Anatoliy Korteev. As academic explained, American approach to LO (Stealth technology) applied on B-2, F-117A, and fifth generation fighter F-22 "Raptor" is based on designing the airframes and radiation absorbing materials to minimize their radar cross section. The main drawbacks of the Stealth technology are its negative effects on the flight and agility of the stealth aircraft. Russian scientists approach the issue from the other direction. They proposed to create a plasma formation around protected object, which prevents radars from seeing it. Thus, the aerodynamical characteristics of the plane itself does not suffer. An artificially created plasma cloud surrounds the plane and guarantees more than hundred times decrease in its observability. The cloud interacts with electromagnetic waves radiated by enemy radar. First, an absorption of electromagnetic energy occurs in the cloud, since during plasma penetration it interacts with plasma charged particles, pass onto them a portion of its energy, and fades. Second, due to specific physical processes, electromagnetic wave tends to pass around plasma cloud. Both of these phenomena's results in a dramatic decrease of the reflected signal. Static and flight experiments proved the effectiveness of this technology. The first generation devices, produce a plasma field surrounding an aircraft and decrease the reflected signal were created in the Center. Later, a method of creating second generation advanced systems (capable of not only decreasing reflected signal and changing its wavelength, but also producing some false signals) was discovered. Such systems significantly complicate determination of actual aircraft's speed, its location and leads to development of completely new approaches to LO provision, unachievable to conventional Stealth technology. Furthermore, the weight of the systems developed in Russia do not exceed 100 kg, and power consumption ranges from kilowatts to tens of kilowatts. Advances in development of the third generation are on the new MIG 29. Thanks to: Anatoliy Korteev. 26/01/99 (c) ITAR-TASS, Translation by Philip Kaploun. - -- 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 Long Binh, Can Tho, Danang (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: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:25:29 EST From: JNiessen@aol.com Subject: Re: Re: Re: Oxcart in A&S Patrick, In my old age (51), it seems like I always forget to look at the return address...assuming, obviously not correctly, that the person who wrote is the person I'm writing back to! Ah, what the hell! Fortunately, nothing I would take back, anyway! All the best, Jay ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 99 20:29:08 -0500 From: rob_ivey_at_pms-hub@pmsc.com Subject: cc:Mail Link to SMTP Undeliverable Message - --simple boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ACSII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message is undeliverable. Reason: User "gregweigold@cc.pmsc.com" is not found in the cc:Mail Directory. Original text follows: - --------------------- - --simple boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ACSII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: from mail.pmsc.com by cc.pmsc.com (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.00.01) ; Sun, 07 Feb 99 20:28:20 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from seawall.pmsc.com (firewall-user@seawall.pmsc.com [170.30.174.10]) by mail.pmsc.com (8.8.5/8.7.1) with ESMTP id CAA13306 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 02:03:26 -0500 Received: by seawall.pmsc.com; id UAA28785; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:13:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from netwrx1.com(192.41.8.79) by seawall.pmsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma028770; Sun, 7 Feb 99 20:13:10 -0500 Received: (georgek@localhost) by netwrx1.com (8.8.5) id SAA06903; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:26:21 -0700 (MST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by netwrx1.com (8.8.5) id SAA06897; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:26:19 -0700 (MST) From: JNiessen@aol.com Received: from JNiessen@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id LRYAa03538 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:25:29 +1900 (EST) Message-ID: <1720cd43.36be3d09@aol.com> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:25:29 EST To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Oxcart in A&S Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.1 for Mac sub 82 Sender: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Patrick, In my old age (51), it seems like I always forget to look at the return address...assuming, obviously not correctly, that the person who wrote is the person I'm writing back to! Ah, what the hell! Fortunately, nothing I would take back, anyway! All the best, Jay - --simple boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 99 20:42:15 -0500 From: rob_ivey_at_pms-hub@pmsc.com Subject: cc:Mail Link to SMTP Undeliverable Message - --simple boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ACSII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message is undeliverable. Reason: User "gregweigold@cc.pmsc.com" is not found in the cc:Mail Directory. Original text follows: - --------------------- - --simple boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ACSII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from seawall.pmsc.com (firewall-user@seawall.pmsc.com [170.30.174.10]) by mail.pmsc.com (8.8.5/8.7.1) with ESMTP id CAA13338 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 02:06:27 -0500 Received: by seawall.pmsc.com; id UAA28921; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:16:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from netwrx1.com(192.41.8.79) by seawall.pmsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma028903; Sun, 7 Feb 99 20:15:33 -0500 Received: (georgek@localhost) by netwrx1.com (8.8.5) id SAA07163; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:28:42 -0700 (MST) Received: from seawall.pmsc.com (firewall-user@seaspray.pmsc.com [198.78.21.66]) by netwrx1.com (8.8.5) id SAA07142; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:28:38 -0700 (MST) From: rob_ivey_at_pms-hub@pmsc.com X-Authentication-Warning: netwrx1.com: Host firewall-user@seaspray.pmsc.com [198.78.21.66] claimed to be seawall.pmsc.com Received: by seawall.pmsc.com; id UAA28843; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:14:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from cc.pmsc.com(170.30.70.239) by seawall.pmsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma028823; Sun, 7 Feb 99 20:14:22 -0500 Received: from ccMail by cc.pmsc.com (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.00.01) id AA918437348; Sun, 07 Feb 99 20:29:10 -0500 Message-Id: <9902079184.AA918437348@cc.pmsc.com> X-Mailer: ccMail Link to SMTP R8.00.01 Date: Sun, 07 Feb 99 20:29:08 -0500 To: Subject: cc:Mail Link to SMTP Undeliverable Message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="simple boundary" Sender: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com - --simple boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ACSII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message is undeliverable. Reason: User "gregweigold@cc.pmsc.com" is not found in the cc:Mail Directory. Original text follows: - --------------------- - --simple boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ACSII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: from mail.pmsc.com by cc.pmsc.com (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.00.01) ; Sun, 07 Feb 99 20:28:20 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from seawall.pmsc.com (firewall-user@seawall.pmsc.com [170.30.174.10]) by mail.pmsc.com (8.8.5/8.7.1) with ESMTP id CAA13306 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 02:03:26 -0500 Received: by seawall.pmsc.com; id UAA28785; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:13:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from netwrx1.com(192.41.8.79) by seawall.pmsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma028770; Sun, 7 Feb 99 20:13:10 -0500 Received: (georgek@localhost) by netwrx1.com (8.8.5) id SAA06903; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:26:21 -0700 (MST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by netwrx1.com (8.8.5) id SAA06897; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:26:19 -0700 (MST) From: JNiessen@aol.com Received: from JNiessen@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id LRYAa03538 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:25:29 +1900 (EST) Message-ID: <1720cd43.36be3d09@aol.com> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:25:29 EST To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Oxcart in A&S Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.1 for Mac sub 82 Sender: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Patrick, In my old age (51), it seems like I always forget to look at the return address...assuming, obviously not correctly, that the person who wrote is the person I'm writing back to! Ah, what the hell! Fortunately, nothing I would take back, anyway! All the best, Jay - --simple boundary-- - --simple boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Feb 99 20:43:51 -0500 From: rob_ivey_at_pms-hub@pmsc.com Subject: cc:Mail Link to SMTP Undeliverable Message - --simple boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ACSII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message is undeliverable. Reason: User "gregweigold@cc.pmsc.com" is not found in the cc:Mail Directory. Original text follows: - --------------------- - --simple boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ACSII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: from mail.pmsc.com by cc.pmsc.com (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.00.01) ; Sun, 07 Feb 99 20:43:24 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from seawall.pmsc.com (firewall-user@seawall.pmsc.com [170.30.174.10]) by mail.pmsc.com (8.8.5/8.7.1) with ESMTP id CAA13423 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 02:18:31 -0500 Received: by seawall.pmsc.com; id UAA29459; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:28:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from netwrx1.com(192.41.8.79) by seawall.pmsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma029437; Sun, 7 Feb 99 20:28:18 -0500 Received: (georgek@localhost) by netwrx1.com (8.8.5) id SAA08482; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:41:39 -0700 (MST) Received: from seawall.pmsc.com (firewall-user@seaspray.pmsc.com [198.78.21.66]) by netwrx1.com (8.8.5) id SAA08474; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:41:37 -0700 (MST) From: rob_ivey_at_pms-hub@pmsc.com X-Authentication-Warning: netwrx1.com: Host firewall-user@seaspray.pmsc.com [198.78.21.66] claimed to be seawall.pmsc.com Received: by seawall.pmsc.com; id UAA29400; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:27:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from cc.pmsc.com(170.30.70.239) by seawall.pmsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma029389; Sun, 7 Feb 99 20:27:29 -0500 Received: from ccMail by cc.pmsc.com (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.00.01) id AA918438135; Sun, 07 Feb 99 20:42:17 -0500 Message-Id: <9902079184.AA918438135@cc.pmsc.com> X-Mailer: ccMail Link to SMTP R8.00.01 Date: Sun, 07 Feb 99 20:42:15 -0500 To: Subject: cc:Mail Link to SMTP Undeliverable Message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="simple boundary" Sender: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com - --simple boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ACSII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message is undeliverable. Reason: User "gregweigold@cc.pmsc.com" is not found in the cc:Mail Directory. Original text follows: - --------------------- - --simple boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ACSII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from seawall.pmsc.com (firewall-user@seawall.pmsc.com [170.30.174.10]) by mail.pmsc.com (8.8.5/8.7.1) with ESMTP id CAA13338 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 02:06:27 -0500 Received: by seawall.pmsc.com; id UAA28921; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:16:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from netwrx1.com(192.41.8.79) by seawall.pmsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma028903; Sun, 7 Feb 99 20:15:33 -0500 Received: (georgek@localhost) by netwrx1.com (8.8.5) id SAA07163; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:28:42 -0700 (MST) Received: from seawall.pmsc.com (firewall-user@seaspray.pmsc.com [198.78.21.66]) by netwrx1.com (8.8.5) id SAA07142; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:28:38 -0700 (MST) From: rob_ivey_at_pms-hub@pmsc.com X-Authentication-Warning: netwrx1.com: Host firewall-user@seaspray.pmsc.com [198.78.21.66] claimed to be seawall.pmsc.com Received: by seawall.pmsc.com; id UAA28843; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:14:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from cc.pmsc.com(170.30.70.239) by seawall.pmsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma028823; Sun, 7 Feb 99 20:14:22 -0500 Received: from ccMail by cc.pmsc.com (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.00.01) id AA918437348; Sun, 07 Feb 99 20:29:10 -0500 Message-Id: <9902079184.AA918437348@cc.pmsc.com> X-Mailer: ccMail Link to SMTP R8.00.01 Date: Sun, 07 Feb 99 20:29:08 -0500 To: Subject: cc:Mail Link to SMTP Undeliverable Message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="simple boundary" Sender: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com - --simple boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ACSII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message is undeliverable. Reason: User "gregweigold@cc.pmsc.com" is not found in the cc:Mail Directory. Original text follows: - --------------------- - --simple boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ACSII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: from mail.pmsc.com by cc.pmsc.com (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.00.01) ; Sun, 07 Feb 99 20:28:20 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from seawall.pmsc.com (firewall-user@seawall.pmsc.com [170.30.174.10]) by mail.pmsc.com (8.8.5/8.7.1) with ESMTP id CAA13306 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 02:03:26 -0500 Received: by seawall.pmsc.com; id UAA28785; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:13:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from netwrx1.com(192.41.8.79) by seawall.pmsc.com via smap (4.1) id xma028770; Sun, 7 Feb 99 20:13:10 -0500 Received: (georgek@localhost) by netwrx1.com (8.8.5) id SAA06903; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:26:21 -0700 (MST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by netwrx1.com (8.8.5) id SAA06897; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:26:19 -0700 (MST) From: JNiessen@aol.com Received: from JNiessen@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id LRYAa03538 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:25:29 +1900 (EST) Message-ID: <1720cd43.36be3d09@aol.com> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:25:29 EST To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Oxcart in A&S Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.1 for Mac sub 82 Sender: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Patrick, In my old age (51), it seems like I always forget to look at the return address...assuming, obviously not correctly, that the person who wrote is the person I'm writing back to! Ah, what the hell! Fortunately, nothing I would take back, anyway! All the best, Jay - --simple boundary-- - --simple boundary-- - --simple boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 10:19:22 -0800 From: David Lednicer Subject: Darkstar RIP Darkstar is definitely dead - one of the Boeing guys who worked on it called me last Friday, looking for a job. With the financial state Boeing is in, they won't be retaining the engineers who worked on it. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 11:49:52 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Oxcart in A&S >(2) The B-58B was not the Super Hustler (that name officially was reserved for >a follow-on non-derivative which technically had little to do with the B-58 as >we know it). However, two specially modified B-58Bs were to have been utilized >to transport and launch Convair's submission for the CIA's proposed U-2 >replacement, Fish and later, Kingfish. Contrary to Bill's statement that >Kingfish was a derivative of the F-106, it was in fact a totally original >design that had nothing to do with Convair's delta wing fighter family (F-92, >F2Y, F-102, and F-106; Convair's fighters were historically designed and >developed at the company's San Diego, California facility; Fish and Kingfish >were developed at Convair's Ft. Worth, Texas facility). Now HERE is a subject for a WINGS or AIRPOWER or whatever magazine article! I don't know of a subject more worthy. However, the best piece, for history's sake, would take the combined work of several researchers (maybe more). I have some information on these programs, that I'd be willing to contribute to a shared effort, not for any personal gain on my part, but to document the program accurately. It should also be shared to respect the wishes of my primary source - perhaps the editor of the magazine, or just the magazine itself takes credit. I'd be willing to work gratis, to help make this piece happen. I ask for no pay for the article because the information is not mine to give. Digging it up has been a fascinating story in and of itself. The stories of other researcher's efforts in this area, that I have heard, have also been fascinating, and I think deserve to be documented. So, Jay, not to put you on the spot, but you're answering private email publically, would you be willing to work on such a piece? When do you think the time is right for such a thing, from your standpoint? You can wack me on the head later! :) >Additionally, again contrary to Bill's assertion, though some discussion was >held calling for Kingfish to self-launch, virtually all of the final studies >submitted to the Agency for review were air-launched. And finally, Bill's >statement that "ram-jet technology was unproven" is untrue. Ramjet technology >not only was proven, but operational in the form of the Boeing IM-99 Bomarc >and the Lockheed X-7, to name just a few. Even the French were working on >proposed production ramjet-powered fighters including the Leduc interceptor >family and the Trident. Don't forget the Nord Griffon as well! Well, Burrows could have been echoing Kelly's biography, where Kelly himself mentions something about ramjet technology being unproven. I was amused at Kelly's comment about that in his biography. See below. >... > > All further D-21 launches (sixteen, altogether) were undertaken >utilizing the services of two specially modified Boeing B-52Hs. Because the >B-52s were subsonic, a special booster rocket was developed to accelerate the >D-21 up to ramjet ignition speeds. > Yes Jay! I am therefore greatly amused by Kelly's comment about the prematurity of ramjet technology in his comments about the Convair FISH effort, for the following reasons: 1. Kelly, a few years later, created a Mach 3+ ramjet powered recce vehicle himself! 2. Kelly criticised Convair for its B-58 not being able to get the ramjet up to ramjet inlet 'start' speed with its B-58, but later, used a B-52 himself to do the same job! For those who don't understand what I just said, If a rocket booster can do the job on the B-52, a smaller one can do the job on the B-58! No, the real reason the B-58 idea was dropped is due to a different reason. This is for the article of course. In all fairness to Kelly, Kelly used very proven ramjet engine technology in the D-21 drone, namely a derivitive of the RJ43, already being used at that time in the BOMARC missile, whereas Convair was talking about a new ramjet engine design. However Convair's new engine was to be done by the same company that did the RJ43, namely Marquardt. And Roy Marquardt himself was the go-between. Roy's comments about the Convair FISH effort, and the idea about using a B-58 booster, have never been published! Where Kelly was probably coming from was that he was royally pissed that all the work he'd done on ramjet engine technology development with the X-7 PTV, was being used against him by Convair. This is of course open to historical debate. I recall that he even published similar comments along this line later. Perhaps in his Lockheed Horizons piece (not sure). But this wasn't the main argument in the competition between Lockheed and Convair. There were other aspects.to it. Any aerospace history editors out there, we should see what can be done here, to put tohether a good piece on this. Nobody has all the poop. It will take a combined effort! We need a good negotiator editor! Any takers? You see, if Jay says no, your first job is to convince him! Boy, am I hanging out on this one! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 15:10:40 +0000 From: Michael Ravnitzky Subject: DTIC & CIRC as Historical Research Tools Has anyone made use of DTIC materials for historical research purposes? Has anyone made use of CIRC materials for historical research purposes? Michael Ravnitzky mikerav@ix.netcom.com If anyone needs a form letter for either, let me know. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Feb 99 05:08:17 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: XB-70 (was: Pressure recovery in the SR-71 inlet) On 2/7/99 5:58AM, in message <3.0.1.32.19990207055848.0071d340@e-z.net>, patrick wrote: > =---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---=-====-----== > > So Larry....... > > Does this mean the plane was designed to not out run the shockwave or > rather designed to fly slow enough to not cause the shockwave to detach? > What speed are we talking? The XB-70 in one sense "surfed" the shock wave. Its design cruise speed was to be a little over M3.0. > > Did any of this have anything to do with "the accident"? Were the chase > pilots cognizant of this shockwave? No. The accident occurred at subsonic speeds, just after a formation flight for photography for an ad for GE engines. It may have been a misjudging of distance, or the then unfamiliar phenomena of wake turbulence (common to all large aircraft), that brought the F-104 into contact with the XB-70's vertical stabilizer. > > Any other planes ever designed to use this effect? Seems like transport > airport could avail themselves of this technology. The canceled F-108, which in some forms was in many ways a scaled down 2 engine B-70, in some illustrations show it possibly taking advantage of the phenomena. Also, North American's original proposal for their bid for the SST (which was also based on the B-70), rejected in favor of Lockheed and Boeing's bid, also took advantage of it. Otherwise, it pretty much disappeared. Keep in mind that the B-70 was designed during the most significant period of advances in aviation history. When it was first mooted, no one knew how to build an airbreather that could sustain M3. As the A-12/YF-12/SR-71 proved, compression lift wasn't the best way, but that wasn't known at the time. With advances in technology in engines and aerodynamics, compression lift now offers more penalties than benefits at these speeds. > Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 23:03:53 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: XB-70 (was: Pressure recovery in the SR-71 inlet) >> So Larry....... >> >> Does this mean the plane was designed to not out run the shockwave or >> rather designed to fly slow enough to not cause the shockwave to detach? >> What speed are we talking? Art respods: > The XB-70 in one sense "surfed" the shock wave. Its design cruise speed was >to be a little over M3.0. Yes. We are talking cruise speed, or Mach 3+, whatever the designed cruise speed was. A plane doesn't outrun its shock wave, just like a boat doesn't outrun its wake on a pond. But the boat analogy is rather interesting to explore when one thinks of speed boats or seaplanes. But enough of that! A plane causes a shock wave by going supersonic. By going faster that shock wave folds back closer to the aircraft, until at really high speeds, it can be inside the boundary layer, which also grows in thickness with speed. The aircraft can't outrun its shock wave. To eliminate a shock the aircraft has to warn somehow, the air to get out of the way, before the aircraft gets there, or to travel at a velocity lower than the speed of sound of the gas, or to raise the speed of sound of the gas higher than the aircraft's speed. So in the XB-70 case, they designed it say for Mach 3.05 cruise. So they would look at the kind of leading edge curvature they needed for an attached shock at Mach 3.05, basically. >> Any other planes ever designed to use this effect? Seems like transport >> airport could avail themselves of this technology. To use a shock wave, you have to be going supersonic. So there aren't too many transport aircraft that are using this currently (like any). The LOFLYTE waverider project, of a few years ago, was to explore the subsonic aerodynamics and stability and control of a Mach 5 waverider design, using a R/C model aircraft. For Hyper-X, they looked at a waverider design, but the off-design drag was excessive for the off-design performance of the scramjet. So they went to a less draggy design. ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #11 ******************************** 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