From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #108 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, October 13 1999 Volume 08 : Number 108 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Death of Former CINCSAC Pulse Det Wave (web site) Re: SR-71 flights end Re: Perseus B Crashes Edwards AFB Open House and Mach 3 flyby Returned eMail: User Unknown Re: Edwards AF Airshow Re: Edwards AF Airshow Re: Edwards AF Airshow Re: Edwards AF Airshow Re: Edwards AF Airshow Re: Edwards AF Airshow Thoughts on USAF vs NASA techniques Re: Edwards AF Airshow Edwards Airshow -- Sunday Re: Edwards AF Airshow Why Global Hawk became an earth-mover Re: Edwards AF Airshow World Air Power Journal Re: Edwards AF Airshow Re: Edwards AF Airshow Re: Edwards AF Airshow *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 11:13:33 -0500 From: "Robert S. Hopkins, III, PhD" Subject: Death of Former CINCSAC General Holloway was the second CINC of a command that included the SR-71. If my fading memory serves me, he was also the first CINCSAC to fly in the SR-71. DrBob p.s. Please forgive the all-caps----this is a memo and I was too lazy to retype it. >Subject: DEATH OF GENERAL BRUCE K. HOLLOWAY, USAF, RETIRED > >Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 16:33:41 -0600 >Importance: low >X-Priority: 5 > > > PRIORITY > > > > P 011554Z OCT 99 > > > > FM AFGOMO WASHINGTON DC > > > > TO AIG 8119 > > > > INFO AFGOMO WASHINGTON DC > > HQ USAF WASHINGTON DC//XOOC// > > > > UNCLAS > > FOR CC, DP, AND J-1, HQ USAF FOR ALL DEPUTIES, DIRECTORS, AND CHIEFS > > OF COMPARABLE OFFICES > > > > SUBJECT: DEATH OF GENERAL BRUCE K. HOLLOWAY, USAF, RETIRED > > MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION C > > FROM: AFGOMO > > > > SUBJECT: DEATH OF GENERAL BRUCE K. HOLLOWAY, USAF (RETIRED) > > > > 1. GENERAL BRUCE K. HOLLOWAY DIED OF HEART FAILURE ON SEPTEMBER 30, > > 1999 IN ORLANDO FL. HE IS SURVIVED BY HIS SPOUSE, MRS. FRANCIS P. > > HOLLOWAY. THERE WILL BE NO FUNERAL SERVICES. CONDOLENCE LETTERS MAY > > BE SENT TO THE FAMILY AT 5124 BELLEVILLE AVENUE, ORLANDO FL 32812. > > > > 2. GEN HOLLOWAY STUDIED ENGINEERING FOR TWO YEARS AT THE UNIVERSITY > > OF TENNESSEE BEFORE ENTERING THE U.S. MILITARY ACADEMY, WHERE HE > > GRADUATED IN 1937. AFTER RECEIVING HIS PILOT WINGS AT KELLY FIELD, > > SAN ANTONIO TX,IN 1938, HE SERVED FOR TWO YEARS WITH THE 6TH PURSUIT > > SQUADRON AND 18TH PURSUIT GROUP IN HAWAII BEFORE TAKING A > > POSTGRADUATE COURSE IN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING AT THE CALIFORNIA > > INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. > > > > 3. SHORTLY AFTER THE UNITED STATES ENTERED WORLD WAR II, HE WENT TO > > CHUNGKING, CHINA, TO BEGIN HIS COMBAT EXPERIENCE AS A FIGHTER PILOT > > WITH THE FAMED "FLYING TIGERS" OF THE AMERICAN VOLUNTEER GROUP. > > REMAINING WITH THAT GROUP AFTER IT WAS ACTIVATED AS THE ARMY AIR > > FORCE'S 23D FIGHTER GROUP, HE BECAME ITS COMMANDER BEFORE RETURNING > > TO THE UNITED STATES IN 1944. DURING THAT TOUR IN CHINA, GENERAL > > HOLLOWAY EARNED STATUS AS A FIGHTER ACE, SHOOTING DOWN 13 JAPANESE > > PLANES. > > > > 4. AS COMMANDER OF THE AIR FORCE'S FIRST JET-EQUIPPED FIGHTER GROUP > > IN 1946, THE GENERAL PERFORMED PIONEER SERVICE IN THIS NEW FIELD OF > > TACTICAL JET AIR OPERATIONS. > > > > 5. AFTER GRADUATION FROM THE NATIONAL WAR COLLEGE IN 1951, GEN > > HOLLOWAY PROGRESSED THROUGH KEY STAFF ASSIGNMENTS IN BOTH OPERATIONS > > AND DEVELOPMENT FIELDS AT HEADQUARTERS U.S. AIR FORCE. LATER, AS > > DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS, HE PLAYED A KEY ROLE IN > > PREPARING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS FOR MANY OF OUR PRESENT AIRCRAFT > > AND MISSILES. > > > > 6. GEN HOLLOWAY SPENT FOUR YEARS IN TACTICAL AIR COMMAND AS DEPUTY > > COMMANDER OF BOTH THE 9TH AND 12TH AIR FORCES; AND IN 1961 HE WAS > > NAMED DEPUTY COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE U.S. STRIKE COMMAND AT MACDILL > > AIR FORCE BASE FL. LATER IN THAT ASSIGNMENT, HE ALSO FULFILLED > > ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AS DEPUTY COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE > > MIDDLE EAST/SOUTHERN ASIA AND AFRICA SOUTH OF THE SAHARA COMMAND. > > > > 7. HE ASSUMED COMMAND OF THE U.S. AIR FORCES IN EUROPE IN JULY 1965, > > SERVING IN THAT CAPACITY UNTIL HIS APPOINTMENT AS VICE CHIEF OF STAFF > > OF THE U.S. AIR FORCE AUGUST 1, 1966. > > 9. GEN HOLLOWAY WAS APPOINTED COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE STRATEGIC AIR > > COMMAND ON AUGUST 1, 1968. HE RETIRED MAY 1, 1972 AFTER 35 YEARS OF > > ACTIVE SERVICE. > > 10. HIS DECORATIONS INCLUDE THE ARMY DISTINGUISHED SERVICE MEDAL, AIR > > FORCE DISTINGUISHED SERVICE MEDAL, SILVER STAR, LEGION OF MERIT, > > DISTINGUISHED FLYING CROSS, AIR MEDAL, AND SEVERAL FOREIGN > > DECORATIONS WHICH INCLUDE THE ORDER OF THE SACRED TRIPOD (CHINA), > > CHINESE ORDER OF THE CLOUD, CHINESE AIR FORCE PILOT WINGS, THE GRAND > > CROSS OF THE ORDER OF MERIT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY WITH > > STAR AND SASH, GERMAN AIR FORCE COMMAND PILOT WINGS, THE MOST NOBLE > > ORDER OF THE CROWN OF THAILAND-FIRST CLASS--KNIGHT GRAND CROSS, > > HONORARY ROYAL THAI AIR FORCE WINGS, THE ORDER OF AERONAUTICAL MERIT > > (BRAZIL), AND FRENCH LEGION OF HONOR - ORDER OF COMMANDER. > > 11. AFGOMO POC: CAPT ANGELA NICHOLS, DSN 224-4676. > > > > BT > > NNNN > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 13:22:46 EDT From: MELUMAN@aol.com Subject: Pulse Det Wave (web site) To: all those interested Short page on hypersonic propulsion (Pulse Detonation Wave) - see below: http://advancedprojects.com/white1.html ("Ah-ha" inspired by an old newsreel with WWII "buzz-bombs" over London.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Oct 99 05:09:53 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SR-71 flights end Just getting back from a trip... I was there for that flight, and what I want to know is how Mary knew weeks in advance that the tanker was going to break on the 23rd and that they'd have to reschedule the flight for the 27th! Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Oct 99 05:12:01 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Perseus B Crashes While I was at Edwards last trip, we got to watch Persus B come in. Interestingly, when a UAV is operating, they make you stay about twice as far from the runway as when a manned aircraft is operating, even though the manned aircraft are much bigger and faster. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 12:54:20 -0700 From: Erik Hoel Subject: Edwards AFB Open House and Mach 3 flyby It looks like from the current official show schedule that there will be a Mach 3 flyby of one of NASA's SR-71s: http://afftc.edwards.af.mil/oh99/event-info_index.html 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: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 22:02:42 -0500 (CDT) From: Bouncer@one800.net Subject: Returned eMail: User Unknown This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. - --0-OUTPOST-DIVIDER Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Your Mail has been bounced from the OutPost/1.800eMail Server Because "jetguy1@one800.net" is not a valid username Original message, less any attachments, follows: ==================================================================== - --0-OUTPOST-DIVIDER Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, Oct 05, 1999 20:58:13 CST From: Brent Clark To: jetguy1@one800.net Subject: [Fwd: Edwards AFB Open House and Mach 3 flyby] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Erik Hoel To: "Skunk Works (E-mail)" Subject: Edwards AFB Open House and Mach 3 flyby Date: Tue, Oct 05, 1999 12:54:20 CST Sender: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com It looks like from the current official show schedule that there will be a Mach 3 flyby of one of NASA's SR-71s: http://afftc.edwards.af.mil/oh99/event-info_index.html 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 - --0-OUTPOST-DIVIDER-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 22:12:31 -0400 From: "Martin Hurst" Subject: Re: Edwards AF Airshow I'd show up just to see and hear the Mach 3.0 pass of the SR-71 !!!!!!! WOW, and subsequent fly-by of it with the F16 chaser plane. I would presume the SR-71 Mach fly-by's are done at over 60,000 feet. I wonder at what altitude the F-15 and the SR-71will do that? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 21:14:44 -0700 From: INFORMATION RESTRICTED Subject: Re: Edwards AF Airshow Last year it was above 80,000' according to the commentator. I couldn't believe how quiet the SR-71 is. It did a T&G not more than 500' from us, full afterburners, you could see the shock diamonds, and a lick of flame so long it was still hitting the ground at 45 º when it went back up, and you could talk over it! Try doing that with a stealth bomber at 2 miles!! Kurt Martin Hurst wrote: > > I'd show up just to see and hear the Mach 3.0 pass of the SR-71 !!!!!!! WOW, > and > subsequent fly-by of it with the F16 chaser plane. > I would presume the SR-71 Mach fly-by's are done at over 60,000 feet. > > I wonder at what altitude the F-15 and the SR-71will do that? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 09:24:39 PDT From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Re: Edwards AF Airshow >Last year it was above 80,000' according to the commentator. I couldn't >believe how quiet the SR-71 is. It did a T&G not more than 500' from >us, full afterburners, you could see the shock diamonds, and a lick of >flame so long it was still hitting the ground at 45 º when it went back >up, and you could talk over it! Try doing that with a stealth bomber at >2 miles!! > >Kurt > >Martin Hurst wrote: > > > > I'd show up just to see and hear the Mach 3.0 pass of the SR-71 !!!!!!! >WOW, > > and > > subsequent fly-by of it with the F16 chaser plane. > > I would presume the SR-71 Mach fly-by's are done at over 60,000 feet. > > > > I wonder at what altitude the F-15 and the SR-71will do that? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxwhat can you see from 60-80,ooo ft? wayne d.binkley ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 13:12:19 -0700 From: INFORMATION RESTRICTED Subject: Re: Edwards AF Airshow I seem to re-call only seeing the vapour trail. I wasn't impressed with the sonic boom, I expected it to blow me on my ass! Sounded more like a little fire-cracker! Kurt > can you see from 60-80,ooo ft? > > wayne d.binkley ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 14:35:18 PDT From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Re: Edwards AF Airshow >From: INFORMATION RESTRICTED >Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >Subject: Re: Edwards AF Airshow >Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 13:12:19 -0700 > >I seem to re-call only seeing the vapour trail. I wasn't impressed with >the sonic boom, I expected it to blow me on my ass! Sounded more like a >little fire-cracker! > >Kurt > > > can you see from 60-80,ooo ft? > > > > wayne d.binkley > TKS WDB ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 99 02:11:56 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Edwards AF Airshow I went to Saturday's show and enjoyed myself immensely. It was great seeing the SR on public display again and watching it dump fuel to make a trail and then hearing her distinctive double boom was kind of nostalgic (the last one I heard was in '97). It made three passes, which surprised the announcer (the announcer this year seemed to behind the power curve a lot on aircraft this year, although he repeatedly informed us of the exact count of wastebaskets available). I was also kind of nice to see it taxi right by the crowd, especially considering how secret it was for most of its life. It's kind of sad that this may very well be its last public appearance. The B-2 flew some passes and its nice to see that it can finally has a radius of turn that can remain within the same time zone. Either envelope expansion has improved or they're less afraid of breaking one. The F-22 was a disappointment. Its flight was billed as the first public "demonstration". Although nobody expected serious aerobatics with so few flight hours on the aircraft (although the Russians and French would have done some), it only flew by once and then did two touch and goes at least a mile or more from the crowd, flying downwind on the opposite side of the runway, putting it probably three miles or more away. People who are familiar with aircraft capability would be able to see the enormous potential there, but to most of the public it was, "What's so special about that"? I think an opportunity was missed here because it had been quite hyped and there was a lot of anticipation. Some observations on the F-22's performance based on the few flights I've observed: This plane is going to be quite a performer. It's pattern work and departures are really impressive if you know what you're looking at. Its low speed maneuverability clearly exceeds the F-16's and matches that of the F-14 B/D, yet it never has to use afterburner to do it. The engines are totally smokeless, which gives it an advantage over some F-16s in that you see the F100's smoke well before you see the F-16 and before you'd see a "non-smoking" F-22. On the other hand, the physical size of the F-22 is such that you see its airframe itself before you'd see an F-16's. My guess is that the E/O system on the F-14 would probably track it at AIM-120 range or better. No, I'm not getting into an F-14 cheering fest. I'm just pointing out that it isn't as stealthy in the non-radar spectrum as some would hope. Possibly deceptive lighting would help, but that's not being looked at, far as I know. It comes over the threshold at a preyty high angle of attack. Easy to see why there would have been such a dramatic design change for the NATF. Forward visibility would be totally unacceptable for shipboard use. F-22 is the first plane I've seen that seems to fly effortlessly, with seemingly limitless power and aerodynamic control available. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 99 03:08:32 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Thoughts on USAF vs NASA techniques Having seen a number of USAF and NASA SR flights over the years and now having finally seen a NASA SR-71 public demonstration, here are a few subjective observations, for what they're worth. Keep in mind that when USAF was flying the Blackbird, they were flying many more hours than NASA was which may have some bearing on the differences. This was also why USAF seemed to have such a lower hourly cost. They had more hours over which to amortize the fixed costs. USAF is more ceremonious and takes longer from engine start to actually get the SR airborne. On the other hand, USAF let you get to closer to the aircraft. USAF liked to use compressed air to turn the J58s in later years, NASA uses the car engines (I always thought the car engines were cooler). USAF more punctual on launch time, NASA more flexible in how they do it. NASA launches tend to be more consistently flown, USAF more exuberant. On public demonstrations, USAF tended to maneuver the a/c more. It's no F-16, but it turns tighter and can bank more than what I saw Saturday. NASA, on the other hand was much more willing to let the a/c get "up close and personal" with the crowd taxiing in, which was really heartening to see. Surprisingly, NASA was Much better at the "Jet Jackson hero-waves" to the crowd. In fact, they were best I've ever seen with the exception of F-15 pilots. But then, F-15 drivers adjust all their mirrors so that they can check out what's Inside the cockpit. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:44:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: Edwards AF Airshow On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 betnal@ns.net wrote: > I went to Saturday's show and enjoyed myself immensely. It was great seeing Cool Art! I was in the airshow on Saturday also. The airshow was awesome! > the SR on public display again and watching it dump fuel to make a trail and then > hearing her distinctive double boom was kind of nostalgic (the last one I heard > was in '97). It made three passes, which surprised the announcer (the announcer > this year seemed to behind the power curve a lot on aircraft this year, although > he repeatedly informed us of the exact count of wastebaskets available). I was Yes, was amazing the Mach 3.2 80,000 ft fly of the SR-71. Everybody waited long to heard the double boom after the airplane passed by. I got a pretty good picture shoot of the airplane using my 300 mm. zoom camera. You can see the shape of the airplane from the picture. I agree with you about the announcer, he made a couple of mistakes. > also kind of nice to see it taxi right by the crowd, especially considering how > secret it was for most of its life. It's kind of sad that this may very well be > its last public appearance. My only hope is that is not going to be the last fly of the Habu. > The F-22 was a disappointment. Its flight was billed as the first public > "demonstration". Although nobody expected serious aerobatics with so few flight Well, I was expecting the low performance fly of the F-22 for the show... But I was still impressed, the low speed turn of the F-22 after it took off, man, I thought it was going to stall! I was wondering why it flew so far away from public. Maybe they don't want to revealed the infrared signature of the airplane, or how the controls surfaces work (I still saw the 2D nozzle working). Or maybe for safety reason to the public. Anyway, I got some pretty impressive shoots from the airshow, incluiding one with the F-22 on ground and F-117 fly by on top of her. After seeing F-22 flying and others impressived airplanes like SR-71, I can now die in peace ;) May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Here were gulls who thought as he thought, for each of them, the most important thing in living was to reach out and touch perfection in that which they most loved to do, and that was to fly." Richard Bach (Jonathan Livingston Seagull) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:59:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Kathy Rages Subject: Edwards Airshow -- Sunday I didn't get down to Edwards until Sunday. They seem to have really slacked off from Saturday. No F-22. No B-2. And no (!@#%) SR-71. The reason given for the SR-71's absence was "fuel leak". One can only assume this meant it was leaking fuel from a point at which it doesn't normally leak fuel. Kathy Rages ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 99 02:21:33 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Edwards AF Airshow On 10/12/99 1:44AM, in message , Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > My only hope is that is not going to be the last fly of the Habu. The thing I consistently hear from those folks I;ve talked to at NASA is that this was the last Public display of the SR for years, if ever. They still say there will be a few flights this FY, but flying and productive work isn't thought to be picking up until FY2001. The gentleman who was with NASA 831 said essentially the same thing. > > > > I was wondering why it flew so far away from public. Maybe they > don't want to revealed the infrared signature of the airplane, or how the > controls surfaces work (I still saw the 2D nozzle working). Or maybe for > safety reason to the public. I think you give them too much credit. Possibly they blew a great PR opportunity (which is unlike USAF, but possible), or they figured funding for the plane was secure for the next year now, so why do anything special for the attendees? > Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 99 02:40:45 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Why Global Hawk became an earth-mover Apparently the reason for Global Hawk's head on collision with the Earth last March has been determined. It was responding to a test abort signal sent to another UAV 140 nm away. Continuing the proud engineer's tradition of, "Why do something the simple way when you can make it hideously complex?", Global Hawk has a rather "sophisticated" method for aborting. First, it constantly receives a tone that essentially tells it "Don't return to base". Should it lose this tone, it returns to base. Then, there's another signal that can be sent that it interprets as, "Crash into the ground unless I tell you not to". This is the abort code. However, there's a constant third tone that is sent that says, "Notyetnotyetnotyetnotyetnotyet...". When the folks sent the test abort code for their UAV program, Global Hawk heard it and got itself ready to plummet. It was making a bank at the time, so its antenna was blocked from receiving the "Notyet" signal. Once Global Hawk begins its anvil-simulation flight profile, it is programmed to ignore any new commands that say "OOPs", or "Strike that", or "Wait a minute, everything's OK after all". This is how you produce $15 million holes in the desert. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:08:50 -0500 From: G&G Subject: Re: Edwards AF Airshow betnal@ns.net wrote: > > I think you give them too much credit. Possibly they blew a great PR > opportunity (which is unlike USAF, but possible), or they figured funding for the > plane was secure for the next year now, so why do anything special for the > attendees? > The poop on r.m.s. (okay, not the most reliable source)(Mary's posts excepted) is that the F-22 was on a test flight and the "fly-bys" were not so much for the crowd as they were just a part of the test profile for that flight... dunno, just passing it on. Greg - -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% %% Reality is for People Who %% %% Can't Handle Simulation %% %% %% %% habu@airmail.net %% %% habu@cyberramp.net %% %% srcrown@flash.net %% %% gdfieser@hti.com %% %% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:16:29 -0500 From: G&G Subject: World Air Power Journal Has anyone who subscribes to World Air Power Journal received the latest issue (Volume 38)? Mine is 'overdue' and, coupled with the fact that Airtime Publishing Ltd. has cancelled it's planned books on the Tornado and the F-16 (tangential Skunk Works reference), I'm wondering if this otherwise fine publication is possibly having some kind of difficulty, maybe even going down the tubes altogether... :( Greg - -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% %% Reality is for People Who %% %% Can't Handle Simulation %% %% %% %% habu@airmail.net %% %% habu@cyberramp.net %% %% srcrown@flash.net %% %% gdfieser@hti.com %% %% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 99 05:30:52 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Edwards AF Airshow On 10/12/99 9:08PM, in message <380405D2.7D86140A@airmail.net>, G&G wrote: > > The poop on r.m.s. (okay, not the most reliable source)(Mary's posts > excepted) > is that the F-22 was on a test flight and the "fly-bys" were not so much for > the > crowd as they were just a part of the test profile for that flight... dunno, > just passing it on. > > Greg Oh, there was no question the F-22 was on a test flight. The thing is, they billed repeatedly that this was to be the first public demonstration of the F-22 prior to and during the show. A few passes and some turns by the crowd would not have affected the test program. My Personal opinion was that this was originally planned to generate some favorable publicity for the program a few weeks ago when next year's funding was in doubt. I believe this makes sense, if you think about it. Given the glacial nature of the test program, is it really credible that there was something so critical that they absolutely Had to schedule a test flight In The Middle Of The Annual Air Show? I don't fault USAF for this, it makes good sense. However, by the time of the show it was pretty clear that funding for four to six F-22s was going to be in the budget after all. Without that budget pressure, I suspect USAF decided to wait for a more auspicious time and place to give the first "real" demo of the F-22. Edwards is not an "operational" base. Barring something like budget pressure, it would be more politically astute for the "coming out" of the F-22 to take place at Nellis or Wright Patt or even Langley. However, had the Edwards show taken place three to four weeks sooner, I'd bet money that you'd have seen repeated passes in front of the crowd and some demonstration of turns. Nothing approaching the current envelope limits, but certainly closer than three miles away. Just my opinion. Forgot to mention that as usual, the B-1 put on the best bomber show. It was subdued from past places I've seen the B-1 put through its paces, or even doing pattern work, but it's still remarkable to see how that big boy flew. Also, what I passed on about future SR ops depend on expected funding and programs showing up. At this point, that's firm as jello. NASA isn't all that interesting to the Administration, so things can change overnight. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:47:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: Edwards AF Airshow Back to the airshow, I forgot to ask why there is a F-117 with the tail squadron from Edwards (ED)? You know, the F-117 next to the F-22 has the tail ED! As I understand, all F-117 squadron is based in Holloman (HO). Also, I heard from the military that the Mach 3.2 fly of the SR-71 cost 100,000 dollars... Is that true? May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Here were gulls who thought as he thought, for each of them, the most important thing in living was to reach out and touch perfection in that which they most loved to do, and that was to fly." Richard Bach (Jonathan Livingston Seagull) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:38:08 -0700 From: F-117A Webmaster Subject: Re: Edwards AF Airshow All OPERATIONAL Air Combat Command (ACC) F-117A squadrons are based at Holloman. The F-117A you saw belonged to the 410th Flight Test Squadron based at Plant 42 (Skunk Works basically) and assigned to the 412th Test Wing at Edwards. The squadron is assigned to AF Material Command and tests over the Edwards ranges. There is one other F-117A detachment.......Det 1, 53rd TEG assigned to Eglin but based at Holloman. (Wears an Eglin "OT" tail code) This is one single F- 117A and they are known as the "Dragon Test Team". Read it all and more on my website. NEW URL !!!!!!!!! Allied Force Info !!!! Never before published Bandit #'s "The Best F-117A On The Web" F-117A: Aircraft Defense Information Center http://members.xoom.com/goatsucker _ _ _ \\ /_\ // \\ // \\ // \//___\\/ ______/ /|\ \______ /[[/[[/ / | \ \]]\]]\ __________________/[[/[[/ /..| .\ \]]\]]\__________________ - ------------------------------------------------------------- \_/|\_/ (_)|(_) / \ / \ On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Wei-Jen Su wrote: > Back to the airshow, I forgot to ask why there is a F-117 with the > tail squadron from Edwards (ED)? You know, the F-117 next to the F-22 has > the tail ED! As I understand, all F-117 squadron is based in Holloman > (HO). > May the Force be with you > Wei-Jen Su > E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu ______________________________________________________ Get your free web-based email at http://www.xoom.com Birthday? Anniversary? Send FREE animated greeting cards for any occasion at http://greetings.xoom.com ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #108 ********************************* 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