From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #116 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, December 1 1999 Volume 08 : Number 116 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Supercruise Re: Detection History Channel program Re: Supercruise Re: Supercruise Re: Supercruise L/D Re: X-44A *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:13:01 -0500 From: Jim Stevenson Subject: Re: Supercruise on 11/29/99 1:21 PM, Brad Hitch at hitch@tda.com wrote: > Jim Stevenson wrote: > >> Supercruise is the ability to fly supersonically for an extended period of >> time. The F-15 can fly supersonically. The issue is for how far. What has >> not been demonstrated to date is that the F-22 can fly as far as the F-15. >> According to Col. Everest Riccioni, who did some of the seminal work on >> supercruise, his back of the envelope calculations indicate that the F-22 >> cannot fly significantly further than the F-15. This follows, according to >> Riccioni, because of the reduced fuel fraction and the higher specific fuel >> consumption. >> > > Actually, supercruise is the ability to fly supersonically without using > the augmentors, which are real gas hogs. Well, actually, not necessarily. Supercruise is not flying supersonically without afterburner if flying without afterburners uses MORE fuel. I agree that such a condition is not normal nor likely. However, Riccioni pointed out to me, there were conditions (altitude and Mach no.) in his analysis at Northrop in which the first stage of burner was more efficient, i.e. used less fuel, than flying without augmentors. (Riccioni is credited by most people as having done the seminal work on supercruise.) >IIRC the F-15 can't do this without being in a dive. I'm unfamiliar with "IIRC" but the F-15 can fly supersonically WITH burner. Now, the question on the table is whether or not the F-22 can fly significantly further than the F-22 however it wants to do it. It's a simple test. I look forward to the results. Remember, the corporate consensus in the Air Force was that the F-16 could not fly as far as the F-15 because it did not have as much fuel. The Air Force took that position because it said "small airplanes can't fly far." It did not understand the significance of fuel fraction. Riccioni did. That is why he has always maintained that 0.38 was ideal for a supercruiser; 0.35 was the minimum acceptable; and the fact that the F-22 has 0.29 (less than an F-8 from 1955) is a major contributor to why it will not fly far. >In a new engine like the F119 I would expect > the engine pressure ratio to be higher than that of the old F100 with > improved compressor and turbine efficiencies, improved combustor and > turbine cooling, improved turbine materials, and adjustment of the > bypass ratio to get better propulsion efficiency at supercruise, thus > yielding lower specific fuel consumption (sfc, lb/hr of fuel flow per lb > of thrust) for the F-22 versus the F-15 at the same flight condition. You are discussing this engine in the subjunctive, when you say, "I would expect, , , ," I would expect it as well, but we don't know. What is rumored by some usually reliable sources is that the engine's SFCs are significantly below specification. > The reason the augmentors have such ghastly sfc is that the pressure is > low where the heat is added to the air flow (about 45 psi at sea level > for an engine like the F100, so pressure ratio PR=3) versus adding heat > in the main combustor (at about 450 psi for a PR=30 engine). The > difference in sfc between these two extremes is about a factor of 2. > The nice thing about augmentors, though, is that you can run them near > stoichiometric with exit gas temperatures up to 4500 F - so you can get > alot of thrust fast. Thanks for the lesson on augmentation. But I thought the stoichiometric temperature was 3,750 degrees? > > Since this was a BOTE estimate it couldn't have been very complex, so > post the numbers Riccioni used and we will see if they make sense. > Details matter. > Since you want details, I'll copy this e-mail to Riccioni and let him provide them. > > Brad Hitch > MSME 1988, Purdue University > Thermal Sciences and Propulsion Center > Engineer, GE Aircraft Engines 1987-1993 > > PS - I highly recommend "Aircraft Engine Design" by Mattingly, Heiser, > and Daley (1987, AIAA Education Series) as a good place to start. Thanks for the recommendation but I've read it. Jim Stevenson Author "A Step Ahead," 1980, a history of the F100 engine published by Pratt & Whitney "The F-14 Tomcat," Aero Publishers, 1975 "The F-15 Eagle," Aero Publishers, 1978 "The Pentagon Paradox," 1993, Naval Institute Press, a history of the development of the F-18 "The $5 Billion Misunderstanding," Naval Institute Press, (forthcoming, 2000) A history of the Navy's A-12 stealth bomber Editor, "Topgun Journal," Navy Fighter Weapons School, 1975-1981 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 08:04:45 -0500 From: Jim Stevenson Subject: Re: Detection on 11/29/99 9:41 PM, Dan Zinngrabe at quellish@gte.net wrote: >> The Air Force claims that the F-22 is built around three pillars: advanced >> avionics, supercruise, and stealth. Now it depends on how you define a >> "prototype" or "demonstrator." But it appears that none of the three pillars >> were demonstrated in the YF-22 or the YF-23. > > Ignoring the "three pillars" PR nonsense.... It's not my nonsense, it's the Air Force's. >> The Air Force's deputy program manager told me that the ATF prototypes did >> not demonstrate supercruise. His words. The avionics are still flying around >> in a 757, and the prototypes were not tested for stealth. > > "Supercruise" has never been fully defined outside of breaking the > sound barrier sans afterburners, which, according to the data I have > somewhere in storage, *was* demonstrated. I beleive even AvWeek > covered it at the time, each demonstrator (YF-23 & YF-22) did it > about a week apart, and previously, in a dive, both F-15 and F-16 > aircraft had as well. I agree that flying supersonically without afterburner sounds like a reasonable definition. Indeed, the deputy program manager for the F-22 said that was the definition. But how tactically significant is that? The early Italian versions of the F-104s were flying supersonically without afterburner. They just were not flying very much past Mach 1. The data supports your supposition that the YF-22 and YF-23 have both flown supersonically without afterburner. They reached Mach 1.4 and 1.6, depending on which engine was used. So that raises the question: why did the same deputy program manager state that the YF-22 did not demonstrate supercruise? I suspect that the true meaning of supercruise is the ability to sustain supersonically flight for a significant, i.e. tactically significant period of time. The Me-262 compared with the P-51 comes to mind. The fact that the original ATF specification called for the ability to fly 400 miles in and 400 miles out supersonically would tend to indicate that a significant distance was an integral part of the definition. According to Col. Riccioni, who did the seminal work on supercruise, his back of the envelope calculation says it may fly 125 miles supersonically. > > >> >> Thus, we have no evidence that the aircraft's avionics will work as >> advertised; none that it can supercruise as advertised (keep in mind that >> the original ATF specification was for a 500 mile radius of action, 400 of >> which was supersonic); and its stealthiness is as problematic as the F-117s. > > Now, I find it kind of odd that Jim cites a lack of testing as > indicating that the F-22/ATF does not meet whatever requirements, > while the F-117 has passed about every test thrown at it, yet it too > is "problematic". Of course, Jim also has contested in the past that > testing itself is flawed. It would seem that kind of thinking is less > than impartial. I did not say that a lack of testing indicates that the F-22 does not meet its requirements. I said there was not evidence that it does. I do not subscribe to the Air Force's "proof by assertion" form of acquisition. They want the taxpayer to foot the bill for production aircraft with only 4 percent of the testing done. That is ridiculous. As to your statement that the F-117 passed all of its tests, I have no way of knowing except by what the Air Force has claimed. Its claims have not been ratified by real-world experience. > A lack of evidence does not indicate a negative value, nor a > positive. It indicates a lack of value. If you ignore testing, > simulation, etc. etc. you're left with only your own opinion, which > probably doesn't matter all that much anyway if you can't back up > your opinion with testing, simulation, etc. data. Real world testing is worthwhile. What you and I are arguing about is the quality of the testing. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 10:45:46 -0500 (EST) From: David Allison Subject: History Channel program Hello, Short notice, but there's a program on History Channel you might wanna see. Here's the info straight from their web site (http://www.historychannel.com/ontv/): - -------------------------------------- 9:00 PM - 10:00 PM Top Speed: Air Air is the ultimate arena in man's quest for speed. While today space travel is routine, once the "need for speed" cost lives. Spectacular footage from Kitty Hawk to the Final Frontier highlights this look at speed demons and their flying machines. We also interview Chuck Yeager, first to break the sound barrier, and SR-71 Blackbird pilots. [TV G] - -------------------------------------- Sincerely, - 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 tm / \ / \ _/ ___ \_ ________/ \_______/V!V\_______/ \_______ \__/ \___/ \__/ www.habu.org The OnLine Blackbird Museum ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 17:33:24 -0500 From: Gunman and Jacks Subject: Re: Supercruise For what its worth, in my 12 years working on and around YF-22/23 and F-22 related hardware, I have only heard "supercruise" used in reference to flying supersonic without afterburner. - ------------------------------------------------ Gunman and Jacks PGP Key Available (see headers) - ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 08:19:33 -0700 From: Brad Hitch Subject: Re: Supercruise > Well, actually, not necessarily. Supercruise is not flying supersonically > without afterburner if flying without afterburners uses MORE fuel. I agree > that such a condition is not normal nor likely. However, Riccioni pointed > out to me, there were conditions (altitude and Mach no.) in his analysis at > Northrop in which the first stage of burner was more efficient, i.e. used > less fuel, than flying without augmentors. (Riccioni is credited by most > people as having done the seminal work on supercruise.) I suppose this could happen due to scheduling of the converging-diverging (CD) nozzle area ratio with engine pressure ratio resulting in a poor thrust coefficient at some points, but I'm guessing. > > >IIRC the F-15 can't do this without being in a dive. > > I'm unfamiliar with "IIRC" but the F-15 can fly supersonically WITH burner. "If I Recall Correctly". Of course the F-15 can fly Mach 2.5+ clean with full augmentor, and the fuel flows are huge - something like 50,000 lbs/hr for each engine at sea level (but you can't hit M2.5 on the deck of course). What the F-15 can't do is level cruise supersonically under military power (no augmentor). On the other hand I believe the F-14D did demonstrate supercruise capability (barely, like M1.04) with the GE F110 engines. > Now, the question on the table is whether or not the F-22 can fly > significantly further than the F-22 however it wants to do it. It's a simple > test. I look forward to the results. > > Remember, the corporate consensus in the Air Force was that the F-16 could > not fly as far as the F-15 because it did not have as much fuel. The Air > Force took that position because it said "small airplanes can't fly far." It > did not understand the significance of fuel fraction. Riccioni did. That is > why he has always maintained that 0.38 was ideal for a supercruiser; 0.35 > was the minimum acceptable; and the fact that the F-22 has 0.29 (less than > an F-8 from 1955) is a major contributor to why it will not fly far. > To say that the Air Force doesn't understand the importance of fuel fraction is ludicrous. OK, maybe the people you talk to don't, but its something that you would see in any engineering undergrad propulsion course. OK, here's my Back Of The Envelope calculation: use the Breguet range equation R = V/C * L/D * ln(1-Wf/W0) where R is the range, V is the flight velocity, C is the specific fuel consumption, L/D is the lift to drag ratio, ln is the natural logarithm, Wf is the fuel mass, and W0 is the takeoff weight you can turn this into a ratio of F-22 range versus F-15 range: R22/R15 = V22/V15 * C15/C22 * (L/D)22 / (L/D)15 * ln(1-Wf/W0)22 / ln(1-Wf/W0)15 (sorry, can't get subscripts) now assume you take both aircraft with just airframe and fuel (no ext. or internal weapons, conformal fuel tanks, etc.) and put them both at the same supercruise flight velocity V22/V15 = 1 based on existing engines, the sfc for the F-22 under military power should be approx. C22=0.8 lb per hr of fuel per lb of thrust, while the F-15 has to be in augmentor mode, though not full A/B so lets give it C15=1.3 per hr instead of 1.6 C15/C22 = 1.3/0.8 = 1.625 lets be pessimistic and assume the aerodynamic efficiency of the F-22 is the same as the "clean" F-15, so (L/D)22 / (L/D)15 is approx. = 1.0 based on what you said above (Wf/W0)22 = 0.29 versus (Wf/W0)15 = 0.32 from Jane's ln(1-Wf/W0)22 / ln(1-Wf/W0)15 = ln(0.71)/ln(0.68) = 0.89 then R22/R15 is approx. = 1 * 1.625 * 1 * 0.89 = 1.44 Which is a 40% improvement in range for the F-22 while maintaining the same time-to-station along the way as the F-15 by dint of the same flight speed. It's not clear if the fuel mass fraction you quoted is for just empty weight + fuel or if it includes weapons (details, details) but if it includes weapons the result would be even better since the Wf/W0 I used for the F-15 does not include any weapons. Also (L/D)22 is probably better than (L/D)15 due to the external stores pylons on the F-15. (any comment Lednicer?) OK, now compare both airframes at Mach=0.8 which will be closer to the best range for the F-15 again, V22/V15 = 1 cruise at M=0.8 for both aircraft would require only partial thrust, so C<0.4 or so but lets be pessimistic and say that the new engine is basically the same as the F100 so C15/C22 = 1 again assume that both airframes are equivalent in terms of L/D (although again I believe that the external stores pylons on the F-15 would have to give the advantage to the F-22) so (L/D)22 / (L/D)15 = 1 then the only difference is in the fuel mass fraction, so that R22/R15 = 1 * 1 * 1 * 0.89 = 0.89 The result is that even if I am pessimistic about some of the performance parameters of the F-22, it shouldn't do any worse than about a 10% deficit in subsonic ferry range, and probably actually will do at least as well. At this level of detail a 10% uncertainty is well within my expectations. On the other hand the F-22 will probably have at least 40% better range than the F-15 would if you flew it in supersonic cruise. Now look at subsonic (ss) versus supercruise (sc) range for the F-22: Rss/Rsc = Vss/Vsc * Csc/Css * (L/D)ss / (L/D)sc * ln(1-Wf/W0)ss / ln(1-Wf/W0)sc where Vss/Vsc = Mach 0.8/Mach 1.5 = 0.53 Csc/Css = 0.8/0.4 = 2 Lift to drag (L/D) should be something like 12 for subsonic versus something like 3 to 4 for supercruise, so (L/D)ss / (L/D)sc = 12/3.5 = 3.42 and obviously the fuel mass fractions are the same for the same aircraft, so Rss/Rsc = 0.53 * 2 * 3.42 * 1 = 3.6 SO you can fly alot further (~260%) subsonic than you can in supercruise, but of course it takes twice as long to get on station along the way. No surprise there. Now, this analysis just used the basic airframes without external conformal or drop tanks, so the F-15 has an advantage if you tack these on, although it is easy to imagine the Air Force will want something like those for the F-22 as well. Besides, possessing a huge range by hauling alot of fuel around forces other tradeoffs that may be pretty unpleasant or insurmountable. There are alot of trade studies done to optimize the vehicle to the mission in the face of other constraints - so is it really SO important that it have exactly the same range? It appears to me that it is indeed likely that the F-22 will perform as advertised, and I have some numbers that support it - something you seem to be incapable of providing to support your positions in general, which is extremely irritating when its really not particularly hard to do it. > > You are discussing this engine in the subjunctive, when you say, "I would > expect, , , ," I would expect it as well, but we don't know. What is rumored > by some usually reliable sources is that the engine's SFCs are significantly > below specification. > BELOW spec is better as far as SFC is concerned. That means it is using less fuel flow to develop the same thrust. > > Thanks for the lesson on augmentation. But I thought the stoichiometric > temperature was 3,750 degrees? Yup, you're right - more like 3500 F than 4500 F. I was wrong. Sorry. > Since you want details, I'll copy this e-mail to Riccioni and let him > provide them. I'm looking forward to the correspondence. > Jim Stevenson > Author > > "A Step Ahead," 1980, a history of the F100 engine published by Pratt & > Whitney > "The F-14 Tomcat," Aero Publishers, 1975 > "The F-15 Eagle," Aero Publishers, 1978 > "The Pentagon Paradox," 1993, Naval Institute Press, a history of the > development of the F-18 > "The $5 Billion Misunderstanding," Naval Institute Press, (forthcoming, > 2000) A history of the Navy's A-12 stealth bomber > > Editor, "Topgun Journal," Navy Fighter Weapons School, 1975-1981 At least you didn't say "Journalist" - those guys never seem to get their facts right. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 08:19:33 -0700 From: Brad Hitch Subject: Re: Supercruise > Well, actually, not necessarily. Supercruise is not flying supersonically > without afterburner if flying without afterburners uses MORE fuel. I agree > that such a condition is not normal nor likely. However, Riccioni pointed > out to me, there were conditions (altitude and Mach no.) in his analysis at > Northrop in which the first stage of burner was more efficient, i.e. used > less fuel, than flying without augmentors. (Riccioni is credited by most > people as having done the seminal work on supercruise.) I suppose this could happen due to scheduling of the converging-diverging (CD) nozzle area ratio with engine pressure ratio resulting in a poor thrust coefficient at some points, but I'm guessing. > > >IIRC the F-15 can't do this without being in a dive. > > I'm unfamiliar with "IIRC" but the F-15 can fly supersonically WITH burner. "If I Recall Correctly". Of course the F-15 can fly Mach 2.5+ clean with full augmentor, and the fuel flows are huge - something like 50,000 lbs/hr for each engine at sea level (but you can't hit M2.5 on the deck of course). What the F-15 can't do is level cruise supersonically under military power (no augmentor). On the other hand I believe the F-14D did demonstrate supercruise capability (barely, like M1.04) with the GE F110 engines. > Now, the question on the table is whether or not the F-22 can fly > significantly further than the F-22 however it wants to do it. It's a simple > test. I look forward to the results. > > Remember, the corporate consensus in the Air Force was that the F-16 could > not fly as far as the F-15 because it did not have as much fuel. The Air > Force took that position because it said "small airplanes can't fly far." It > did not understand the significance of fuel fraction. Riccioni did. That is > why he has always maintained that 0.38 was ideal for a supercruiser; 0.35 > was the minimum acceptable; and the fact that the F-22 has 0.29 (less than > an F-8 from 1955) is a major contributor to why it will not fly far. > To say that the Air Force doesn't understand the importance of fuel fraction is ludicrous. OK, maybe the people you talk to don't, but its something that you would see in any engineering undergrad propulsion course. OK, here's my Back Of The Envelope calculation: use the Breguet range equation R = V/C * L/D * ln(1-Wf/W0) where R is the range, V is the flight velocity, C is the specific fuel consumption, L/D is the lift to drag ratio, ln is the natural logarithm, Wf is the fuel mass, and W0 is the takeoff weight you can turn this into a ratio of F-22 range versus F-15 range: R22/R15 = V22/V15 * C15/C22 * (L/D)22 / (L/D)15 * ln(1-Wf/W0)22 / ln(1-Wf/W0)15 (sorry, can't get subscripts) now assume you take both aircraft with just airframe and fuel (no ext. or internal weapons, conformal fuel tanks, etc.) and put them both at the same supercruise flight velocity V22/V15 = 1 based on existing engines, the sfc for the F-22 under military power should be approx. C22=0.8 lb per hr of fuel per lb of thrust, while the F-15 has to be in augmentor mode, though not full A/B so lets give it C15=1.3 per hr instead of 1.6 C15/C22 = 1.3/0.8 = 1.625 lets be pessimistic and assume the aerodynamic efficiency of the F-22 is the same as the "clean" F-15, so (L/D)22 / (L/D)15 is approx. = 1.0 based on what you said above (Wf/W0)22 = 0.29 versus (Wf/W0)15 = 0.32 from Jane's ln(1-Wf/W0)22 / ln(1-Wf/W0)15 = ln(0.71)/ln(0.68) = 0.89 then R22/R15 is approx. = 1 * 1.625 * 1 * 0.89 = 1.44 Which is a 40% improvement in range for the F-22 while maintaining the same time-to-station along the way as the F-15 by dint of the same flight speed. It's not clear if the fuel mass fraction you quoted is for just empty weight + fuel or if it includes weapons (details, details) but if it includes weapons the result would be even better since the Wf/W0 I used for the F-15 does not include any weapons. Also (L/D)22 is probably better than (L/D)15 due to the external stores pylons on the F-15. (any comment Lednicer?) OK, now compare both airframes at Mach=0.8 which will be closer to the best range for the F-15 again, V22/V15 = 1 cruise at M=0.8 for both aircraft would require only partial thrust, so C<0.4 or so but lets be pessimistic and say that the new engine is basically the same as the F100 so C15/C22 = 1 again assume that both airframes are equivalent in terms of L/D (although again I believe that the external stores pylons on the F-15 would have to give the advantage to the F-22) so (L/D)22 / (L/D)15 = 1 then the only difference is in the fuel mass fraction, so that R22/R15 = 1 * 1 * 1 * 0.89 = 0.89 The result is that even if I am pessimistic about some of the performance parameters of the F-22, it shouldn't do any worse than about a 10% deficit in subsonic ferry range, and probably actually will do at least as well. At this level of detail a 10% uncertainty is well within my expectations. On the other hand the F-22 will probably have at least 40% better range than the F-15 would if you flew it in supersonic cruise. Now look at subsonic (ss) versus supercruise (sc) range for the F-22: Rss/Rsc = Vss/Vsc * Csc/Css * (L/D)ss / (L/D)sc * ln(1-Wf/W0)ss / ln(1-Wf/W0)sc where Vss/Vsc = Mach 0.8/Mach 1.5 = 0.53 Csc/Css = 0.8/0.4 = 2 Lift to drag (L/D) should be something like 12 for subsonic versus something like 3 to 4 for supercruise, so (L/D)ss / (L/D)sc = 12/3.5 = 3.42 and obviously the fuel mass fractions are the same for the same aircraft, so Rss/Rsc = 0.53 * 2 * 3.42 * 1 = 3.6 SO you can fly alot further (~260%) subsonic than you can in supercruise, but of course it takes twice as long to get on station along the way. No surprise there. Now, this analysis just used the basic airframes without external conformal or drop tanks, so the F-15 has an advantage if you tack these on, although it is easy to imagine the Air Force will want something like those for the F-22 as well. Besides, possessing a huge range by hauling alot of fuel around forces other tradeoffs that may be pretty unpleasant or insurmountable. There are alot of trade studies done to optimize the vehicle to the mission in the face of other constraints - so is it really SO important that it have exactly the same range? It appears to me that it is indeed likely that the F-22 will perform as advertised, and I have some numbers that support it - something you seem to be incapable of providing to support your positions in general, which is extremely irritating when its really not particularly hard to do it. > > You are discussing this engine in the subjunctive, when you say, "I would > expect, , , ," I would expect it as well, but we don't know. What is rumored > by some usually reliable sources is that the engine's SFCs are significantly > below specification. > BELOW spec is better as far as SFC is concerned. That means it is using less fuel flow to develop the same thrust. > > Thanks for the lesson on augmentation. But I thought the stoichiometric > temperature was 3,750 degrees? Yup, you're right - more like 3500 F than 4500 F. I was wrong. Sorry. > Since you want details, I'll copy this e-mail to Riccioni and let him > provide them. I'm looking forward to the correspondence. > Jim Stevenson > Author > > "A Step Ahead," 1980, a history of the F100 engine published by Pratt & > Whitney > "The F-14 Tomcat," Aero Publishers, 1975 > "The F-15 Eagle," Aero Publishers, 1978 > "The Pentagon Paradox," 1993, Naval Institute Press, a history of the > development of the F-18 > "The $5 Billion Misunderstanding," Naval Institute Press, (forthcoming, > 2000) A history of the Navy's A-12 stealth bomber > > Editor, "Topgun Journal," Navy Fighter Weapons School, 1975-1981 At least you didn't say "Journalist" - those guys never seem to get their facts right. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 12:09:26 -0800 (PST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: L/D Sorry for the non-skunky question, but anyone know of any type of ship that can have a L/D (Lift to Drag ratio) of 50? Anyone know what is the L/D ratio of those huge Russian ground-effect airplane? Thanks in advance. BTW, this is not for my Senior Citizen design... oppsss... I blew it ;) May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I am the culmination of one man's dream, this is not ego or vanity, but when Dr. Soong created me, he added to the substance of the universe. If by your experiment I am destroyed, something unique, something wonderful will be lost. I can not permit that. I must protect his dream." Mr. Data (ST:TNG) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 20:39:15 -0000 From: "David" Subject: Re: X-44A From: Gunman and Jacks To: Sent: Thursday, November 25, 1999 7:49 PM Subject: Re: X-44A > David wrote: > *snip* > > > > >As the success of this programme is clearly going to be a key factor in the > >X-44a , does anyone have any new info on the status of the F-15 ACTIVE > >programme ? > > > > I haven't seen anything new on the F-15 ACTIVE, but I know there was some > work being done on the F-16 VISTA nozzle (a year ago maybe?), which > should/could rollover to the ACTIVE. But, I'm not sure the funding stayed, > since I haven't seen anything on it recently. Thanks for getting back to me with the info. Sorry for the delay in responding. I'm told the F-15 ACTIVE programme at Dryden has been cancelled recently - which is a crying shame, but the IFCS programme is still up and running. Not sure what the future holds for the ACTIVE, but hopefully it'll be back in the air before too long. Best Dave ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #116 ********************************* 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