From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #4 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Wednesday, January 26 2000 Volume 09 : Number 004 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Fwd: CALIFORNIA FIRM SELECTED TO DEVELOP AIRCRAFT TECHNOLOGIES Re: FWD (TLC-Mission) yf12a - new ADC interceptor in mid-1960s Re: FWD (TLC-Mission) yf12a - new ADC interceptor in mid-1960s Missileer designation News item, offered without comment Re: FWD (TLC-Mission) yf12a - new ADC interceptor in mid-1960s ADMIN NOTICE: Logical Disk Volumes Implemented Re: Missileer designation Re: FWD (TLC-Mission) yf12a - new ADC interceptor in mid-1960s RE: FWD (TLC-Mission) yf12a - new ADC interceptor in mid-1960s Re: FWD (TLC-Mission) yf12a - new ADC interceptor in mid-1960s *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 15:48:36 PST From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Fwd: CALIFORNIA FIRM SELECTED TO DEVELOP AIRCRAFT TECHNOLOGIES >From: NASANews@hq.nasa.gov >To: undisclosed-recipients:; >Subject: CALIFORNIA FIRM SELECTED TO DEVELOP AIRCRAFT TECHNOLOGIES >Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 16:10:13 -0500 (EST) > >Michael Braukus >Headquarters, Washington, DC January 24, 2000 >(Phone: 202/358-1979) > >Alan Brown >Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA >(Phone: 661/258-2665) > >RELEASE: 00-11 > >CALIFORNIA FIRM SELECTED TO DEVELOP AIRCRAFT TECHNOLOGIES > > In an effort to increase the research capabilities of high- >altitude Earth science missions, NASA's Dryden Flight Research >Center, Edwards, CA, has selected General Atomics Aeronautical >Systems, Inc., (GA-ASI) San Diego, CA, to begin negotiations to >demonstrate technologies expanding the capabilities of uninhabited >aerial vehicles. > > The task under NASA's Environmental Research Aircraft and >Sensor Technology (ERAST) program jointly sponsored research >agreement is to expand technical performance to meet the >scientific requirements and to demonstrate operational >capabilities required by the emerging uninhabited aerial vehicle >(UAV) industry. GA-ASI will develop the new Predator BŪ series of >UAV, including an enlarged and upgraded version, to meet these >requirements. As joint partners in the project, GA-ASI will >contribute $8 million and NASA's Office of Aero-Space Technology >will invest more than $10 million. > > The ERAST program has operated for approximately six years >with a number of industry partners to develop UAV capabilities. >The program has concentrated on developing aerodynamic propulsion >and control system technologies for future high-altitude, long- >endurance UAVs designed for government or commercial uses. > > GA-ASI was selected from a field of three member firms of the >ERAST Alliance submitting proposals in response to a research >announcement. The other firms included Aurora Flight Sciences of >Manassas, VA and Fairmont, W. Va., and Scaled Composites of >Mojave, CA. > > "Each of the competing company teams had very strong >technical proposals, though with very different approaches," said >Dwain Deets, director of aeronautics research and technology >programs at Dryden. "The quality of these proposals is evidence >of the success of the ERAST Alliance as a mechanism for mutual >support and technical interchange." > > UAV capabilities have grown tremendously under the ERAST >program and all the competitors have demonstrated capabilities to >meet the growing UAV market from both government and industry. >The specific scientific needs now being pursued represent a set of >requirements that significantly expands the demonstrated >performance levels. The required investment in new vehicle >platforms drove the decision to down select to a single company. > > GA-ASI's proposal was selected as being best suited to meet a >stringent set of requirements established by NASA's Office of >Earth Science for the conventionally powered, remotely or >autonomously operated aircraft. Among these requirements was a >mission endurance of 24 to 48 hours at a primary altitude range of >40,000 to 65,000 feet with a payload of at least 300 kg (660 >lbs.). > > The selected aircraft will serve as a testbed to demonstrate >technologies required by the UAV industry to support a broad range >of potential science, government and commercial missions. A key >requirement is to develop capabilities and operational procedures >to allow operations from conventional airports without conflict >with piloted aircraft. In addition, the program will have to >demonstrate "over-the-horizon" command and control beyond line-of- >sight radio capability via a satellite link, "see-and-avoid" >operation in unrestricted airspace and be able to communicate with >Federal Aviation Administration controllers. > > To meet those requirements, GA-ASI proposed development of an >"enhanced" Predator B, a 7,000-lb. gross weight aircraft capable >of carrying a 700 lb. payload at altitudes of 40,000 to 52,000 >feet for up to 32 hours. The aircraft is an enlarged, turboprop- >powered version of the Predator surveillance UAV now operated by >the U.S. Air Force. > > GA-ASI plans to use three versions of the Predator B in the >development program. The first aircraft, currently in >development, will be the turboprop-powered baseline Predator B >design. This version will be capable of operation in the 40,000 >to 50,000-ft. altitude range for up to 25 hours. > > A second aircraft, modified with a Williams FJ44-2A turbofan >engine, will validate an expanded flight envelope and is scheduled >to begin flight testing in 2001. This jet version is expected to >have a flight endurance of more than 12 hours in the 50,000 to >60,000-ft. altitude range. > > A third flight-test Predator B, powered by the Allied Signal >TPE-331-10T turboprop engine, will perform flight tests of >advanced subsystems beginning in 2002. These systems would >include over-the-horizon satellite communication-based command and >control, a redundant flight control system to improve operational >reliability, "see and avoid" capability, and voice relay so air >traffic controllers can communicate directly with the ground-based >pilot at extreme ranges. > > - end - > > * * * > >NASA press releases and other information are available automatically >by sending an Internet electronic mail message to domo@hq.nasa.gov. >In the body of the message (not the subject line) users should type >the words "subscribe press-release" (no quotes). The system will >reply with a confirmation via E-mail of each subscription. A second >automatic message will include additional information on the service. >NASA releases also are available via CompuServe using the command >GO NASA. To unsubscribe from this mailing list, address an E-mail >message to domo@hq.nasa.gov, leave the subject blank, and type only >"unsubscribe press-release" (no quotes) in the body of the message. > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 100 06:51:13 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: FWD (TLC-Mission) yf12a - new ADC interceptor in mid-1960s On 1/23/00 7:08PM, in message <388BC224.6502DED@frontiernet.net>, "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: > In l965 or 66 When i was weapons controller in air defense command we > received a TS briefing on the aircraft which test bed was designated yf12a > and was being touted as the new interceptor for the ADC. Equally impressive > was its fire control system. min requirements was that it be able to fly > 1200 miles, engage hostiles for 45min and return. fire control system could > lock onto and fire on 12 different targets at different times and > altitudes. up to that time each interceptor could only only lock onto and > fire on one target at the time. that was the reason for such weapons as the > MB1 which was a low yield nuke designed to take out a massed bomber raid. I > later heard, when McNamarow deteremined it was too expensive, the fire > control system was installed in the F111. not sure if all of this is exact > and some of you may know better, but that is what i recall from 35 years ago. > > -- > The YF-12 was an impressive interceptor, but I doubt if it had a 45 min on-station time. With its speed it wouldn't need it. It was funded for a production version, the F-12B. However, McNamara bitterly opposed the Blackbirds because they didn't fall under his Total Package Procurement and Fixed Price Development Contract lunacies, and were an embarrassment to him because unlike most of his concepts, the Blackbirds worked. So, he not only blocked the F-12B, he later ordered all tooling for the Blackbirds destroyed. The F-12's fire control was actually derived from the system originally planned for the F-6D Missileer and went on to become the AWG-9. The AWG-9 was fitted into the F-11B, another one of McNamara's consistent failures. The AIM-47 of the F-12 went on to serve as the basis for the AIM-54 Phoenix. When the F-111B died its deserved death, the AWG-9 was given a major makeover with much increased capability and was made into the AWG-9 of the F-14 A/B. A number of its components were updated in the late '80s and combined with parts of the APG-70 from the F-15E to become the APG-71 of the F-14D, still the most powerful and capable fire control in any fighter in service. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 100 07:20:03 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: FWD (TLC-Mission) yf12a - new ADC interceptor in mid-1960s On 1/24/00 1:24PM, in message <388CC31D.5D85@worldnet.att.net>, "Albert H. Dobyns" wrote: > > "12 different targets..."? I thought the YF-12A had > room for 3 missiles initially but could be changed to > hold 4 of them. Was the number 12 the maximum number > that the fire control system could handle even in the > plane carried fewer than 12? > Al The F-12 originally carried three AIM-47s. This is because part of the electronics for its fire control had to occupy what would have been the fourth bay. It was hoped that as the a/c was developed in later versions the area in the chine could be freed up for a fourth missile. This probably would have happened if later F-12s used the AWG-9 from the F-14, combined with giving up some of the slightly larger fuel load of the proposed F-12B. This of course died when McNamara killed the concept. The fire control could hold tracks on more targets than it had missiles for, the actual ones that posed the greatest threats would be the ones actually fired on. The others would continue to be tracked until another F-12 could acquire them. In the F-14 this was enhanced. It could hold 24 tracks initially, and could electronically transfer them to other F-14s. It could also guide AIM-54s launched by other F-14s against its tracks. Further, it could "store" its tracks on an E-2, along with data on the Tomcat's remaining armament and fuel load, freeing its memory up for up to 24 more tracks. These sets could be "traded" with the Hawkeye as needed, and the Hawkeye could also "give the Tomcats new tracks. Of course, all this assumed everything was working. Had the F-12 continued it is likely some of this capability would be back fitted into the fire controls of later F-12s, though not the track exchange since the Air Force didn't like off-fighter sensors and was at least a decade behind the Navy in the use of datalink. The F-12 would have a couple of advantages over the F-14. Its great altitude would give its radar more range as the horizon would be further away. The altitude and launch speed would also allow the AIM-47s to carry proportionally less fuel than an AIM-54 to get comparable speed and range. The F-12 would also almost always be firing downwards, which would mean that it could refresh its picture more often. On an F-14 the antenna has to slew through the whole vertical plane, because its targets could be at any altitude relative to it. On the F-12, the targets would normally be below it, so less antenna movement would be needed, allowing the antenna to revisit a target sooner. On the other hand, the F-14's AWG-9 was much more versatile than its Blackbird parent's. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 08:28:39 -0500 From: Jim Stevenson Subject: Missileer designation Art, When you wrote: > The F-12's fire control was actually derived from the system originally > planned for the F-6D Missileer I am sure you offended some Navy purists who would tell you the Missileer was designated F6D with no hyphen. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:53:22 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: News item, offered without comment News item, October 15, 1938... Secretary of War Woodring, speaking at the site of the Great Salt Plains Dam, Cherokee, Okla., October 11, expressed a hope that future arms limitations conferences would outlaw the airplane as an instrument of war. "It is my hope," Mr. Woodring declared, "that there may be advanced at the conference tables of future international agreements completely stripping aircraft of all armament and death-dealing devices -- yes, the complete outlawry of the plane as an instrument of war. What a long humanitarian stride would be taken could world-wide agreement be reached demanding that the plane be employed only as a means of commercial intercourse! What a load lifted from the shoulders of a fearful world!" (from Armed Forces Journal International, December 1999) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 16:05:50 -0600 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: FWD (TLC-Mission) yf12a - new ADC interceptor in mid-1960s betnal@ns.net wrote: > > On 1/24/00 1:24PM, in message <388CC31D.5D85@worldnet.att.net>, "Albert H. > Dobyns" wrote: > > > > > "12 different targets..."? I thought the YF-12A had > > room for 3 missiles initially but could be changed to > > hold 4 of them. Was the number 12 the maximum number > > that the fire control system could handle even in the > > plane carried fewer than 12? > > Al > > The F-12 originally carried three AIM-47s. This is because part of the > electronics for its fire control had to occupy what would have been the fourth > bay. It was hoped that as the a/c was developed in later versions the area in > the chine could be freed up for a fourth missile. This probably would have > happened if later F-12s used the AWG-9 from the F-14, combined with giving up > some of the slightly larger fuel load of the proposed F-12B. This of course > died when McNamara killed the concept. > > The fire control could hold tracks on more targets than it had missiles > for, the actual ones that posed the greatest threats would be the ones actually > fired on. The others would continue to be tracked until another F-12 could > acquire them. In the F-14 this was enhanced. It could hold 24 tracks > initially, and could electronically transfer them to other F-14s. It could > also guide AIM-54s launched by other F-14s against its tracks. Further, it > could "store" its tracks on an E-2, along with data on the Tomcat's remaining > armament and fuel load, freeing its memory up for up to 24 more tracks. These > sets could be "traded" with the Hawkeye as needed, and the Hawkeye could also > "give the Tomcats new tracks. Of course, all this assumed everything was > working. Had the F-12 continued it is likely some of this capability would be > back fitted into the fire controls of later F-12s, though not the track > exchange since the Air Force didn't like off-fighter sensors and was at least a > decade behind the Navy in the use of datalink. > > The F-12 would have a couple of advantages over the F-14. Its great > altitude would give its radar more range as the horizon would be further away. > The altitude and launch speed would also allow the AIM-47s to carry > proportionally less fuel than an AIM-54 to get comparable speed and range. The > F-12 would also almost always be firing downwards, which would mean that it > could refresh its picture more often. On an F-14 the antenna has to slew > through the whole vertical plane, because its targets could be at any altitude > relative to it. On the F-12, the targets would normally be below it, so less > antenna movement would be needed, allowing the antenna to revisit a target > sooner. On the other hand, the F-14's AWG-9 was much more versatile than its > Blackbird parent's. > > Art Are you the person who wrote a terrific article about what was really behind the retirements of the SR-71? If so, that was a great article! McNamara sure had a knack for picking the wrong path. From what I remember the Air Force and Navy didn't want the F-111. The Navy managed not to get stuck with any but I suppose the AF got enough changes in the design to make it useful in the end. I heard/read a story by a former B-52 BN that back in the 70's there was sort of a fly-off with the YF-12A and the F-111. (For some reason I think one of the XB-70's was there but I'm not sure.) Anyway the F-111 took off and the YF-12A took off in a shorter run and did a steep climb. I think the F-111 was barely off the ground (parallel runways used I hope!). Mac was extremely pissed off about this even and ordered that the YF-12A would be grounded for the remainder of the review by the top brass. I don't know if Kelly Johnson was there or not. I would assume that if Kelly wasn't there, then Ben Rich was. Al ps: did you see Terry Colvin's other post about an SR-71 being fired up on short notice for some guy who wanted to go Mach 2? And after they were at Mach 2 they ran into a sonic wave created by another SR-71 who just happened to going Mach 4 at 100,000'. This sounds too farfetched to believe. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 21:34:36 -0600 From: "George R. Kasica" Subject: ADMIN NOTICE: Logical Disk Volumes Implemented Hello: Just a quick note to inform you that as of 1/25/00 the server has been reconfigured with Logical Volumes. What this allows is for future expansion by simply adding hard disk units and they will be added to one large "logical disk" rather than having to physically replace hardware and backup and restore data to and from tape. Ultimately this means less down time and more flexibility as the needs for disk space grows. If you want to know the ugly technical details just ask. And another reminder...as of 1/10/00 Netwrx Consulting Inc. has been authorized as a Independent Reseller for Excel Telecommunications. As a result of this we are able to offer you the ability to possibly save SIGNIFICANT amounts on your long-distance, paging and Internet Access charges. If you can't or don't need this please pass it around to anyone you know that might be able to. If you'd like more information on this and other items please go to: http://www.excelir.com/netwrx1 If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you, ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 513 8503 President +1 206 374 6482 FAX Netwrx Consulting Inc. Waukesha, WI USA http://www.netwrx1.com georgek@netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 100 05:22:04 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Missileer designation On 1/25/00 5:28AM, in message , Jim Stevenson wrote: > Art, > > When you wrote: > > > The F-12's fire control was actually derived from the system originally > > planned for the F-6D Missileer > > I am sure you offended some Navy purists who would tell you the Missileer > was designated F6D with no hyphen. > > Jim > Touche! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 100 06:07:14 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: FWD (TLC-Mission) yf12a - new ADC interceptor in mid-1960s On 1/25/00 2:05PM, in message <388E1E3E.7E88@worldnet.att.net>, "Albert H. Dobyns" wrote: > > Are you the person who wrote a terrific article about > what was really behind the retirements of the SR-71? > If so, that was a great article! I've written a few times about it, both on the net and in print. If it's one of mine you're referring to, thanks! > McNamara sure had a > knack for picking the wrong path. From what I remember > the Air Force and Navy didn't want the F-111. Air Force was looking for a supersonic on the deck medium range strike aircraft. Navy was looking for a long endurance "Missile Slinger" to complement the F-4. Speed wasn't important, endurance and an enormous radar was. McNamara combined them and then selected the wrong contractor. > The Navy > managed not to get stuck with any but I suppose the AF > got enough changes in the design to make it useful in > the end. Navy version was absolutely worthless, couldn't be fixed. In the words of ADM Tom Conally testifying before Congress regarding McNamara's lie that more thrust could cure F-11B problems, "...There isn't enough thrust in all of Christendom to turn this plane into a fighter". This killed the F-111, but effectively ended his career as McNamara took revenge. F-14 is named the Tomcat in his honor. Air Force F-111 became an effective plane in its later years (the main production version, the F-111A never became combat capable), although it never met its original specs. > I heard/read a story by a former B-52 BN that back in > the 70's there was sort of a fly-off with the YF-12A > and the F-111. (For some reason I think one of the > XB-70's was there but I'm not sure.) Not even remotely true. There might be some confusion between the role of the F-111 and a proposed strike version of the Blackbird, the B-12. This version never saw the light of day because Kelly Johnson promised USAF he wouldn't promote it while there was even a glimmer that the B-70 might be resurrected. McNamara also was against it because it might be a rival for his beloved F-111 in the precision strike role. It never got beyond the drawing board, but the airframe design formed the basis for the SR-71. Some speculate that fear that it might resurface after he was gone was what motivated McNamara to order Blackbird tooling destroyed. > Anyway the F-111 > took off and the YF-12A took off in a shorter run and > did a steep climb. I think the F-111 was barely off > the ground (parallel runways used I hope!). F-111 has shorter ground roll than YF-12. There would be no point in a comparison like this. > Mac was > extremely pissed off about this even and ordered that > the YF-12A would be grounded for the remainder of the > review by the top brass. I don't know if Kelly > Johnson was there or not. I would assume that if > Kelly wasn't there, then Ben Rich was. > Al Again, not much point in doing this. F-12 would be a pure interceptor. F-111 was a long range strike aircraft. They wouldn't be competitors, even for funding, since Congress funded the F-12 production program without touching F-111 money. However, F-12 production would cause embarrassment to McNamara since he had gone on record opposing new fighters. Avoiding to appear wrong (again) was his prime and possibly only motivation, so he blocked expenditure of F-12 funds. > > ps: did you see Terry Colvin's other post about an > SR-71 being fired up on short notice for some guy > who wanted to go Mach 2? And after they were at > Mach 2 they ran into a sonic wave created by another > SR-71 who just happened to going Mach 4 at 100,000'. > This sounds too farfetched to believe. I don't think Terry was saying that an SR was fired up for this incident. Although he didn't state what type it was, judging by where the incident might have taken place, it was probably an F-4. A SR can not go Mach 4 itself, by the way, but with a tail wind at altitude it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for the ground speed to be that high. Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:33:42 -0800 From: Erik Hoel Subject: RE: FWD (TLC-Mission) yf12a - new ADC interceptor in mid-1960s Art writes in reply to Albert: > > ps: did you see Terry Colvin's other post about an > > SR-71 being fired up on short notice for some guy > > who wanted to go Mach 2? And after they were at > > Mach 2 they ran into a sonic wave created by another > > SR-71 who just happened to going Mach 4 at 100,000'. > > This sounds too farfetched to believe. > > I don't think Terry was saying that an SR was fired up > for this incident. > Although he didn't state what type it was, judging by where > the incident might > have taken place, it was probably an F-4. A SR can not go > Mach 4 itself, by > the way, but with a tail wind at altitude it wouldn't be out > of the ordinary > for the ground speed to be that high. Interesting. I was unaware that there are significant winds at the altitude that the Blackbird operates at. I was under the impression that these winds only occurred at the levels where commercial airliners flew. Is this really the case? 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, 26 Jan 2000 17:00:37 -0600 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: FWD (TLC-Mission) yf12a - new ADC interceptor in mid-1960s betnal@ns.net wrote: > > On 1/25/00 2:05PM, in message <388E1E3E.7E88@worldnet.att.net>, "Albert H. > Dobyns" wrote: > ... > > I've written a few times about it, both on the net and in print. If it's > one of mine you're referring to, thanks! > > > McNamara sure had a > > knack for picking the wrong path. From what I remember > > the Air Force and Navy didn't want the F-111. > > Air Force was looking for a supersonic on the deck medium range strike > aircraft. Navy was looking for a long endurance "Missile Slinger" to > complement the F-4. Speed wasn't important, endurance and an enormous radar > was. McNamara combined them and then selected the wrong contractor. > > > The Navy > > managed not to get stuck with any but I suppose the AF > > got enough changes in the design to make it useful in > > the end. > > Navy version was absolutely worthless, couldn't be fixed. In the words of > ADM Tom Conally testifying before Congress regarding McNamara's lie that more > thrust could cure F-11B problems, "...There isn't enough thrust in all of > Christendom to turn this plane into a fighter". This killed the F-111, but > effectively ended his career as McNamara took revenge. F-14 is named the > Tomcat in his honor. > > Air Force F-111 became an effective plane in its later years (the main > production version, the F-111A never became combat capable), although it never > met its original specs. > > > I heard/read a story by a former B-52 BN that back in > > the 70's there was sort of a fly-off with the YF-12A > > and the F-111. (For some reason I think one of the > > XB-70's was there but I'm not sure.) > > Not even remotely true. There might be some confusion between the role of > the F-111 and a proposed strike version of the Blackbird, the B-12. This > version never saw the light of day because Kelly Johnson promised USAF he > wouldn't promote it while there was even a glimmer that the B-70 might be > resurrected. McNamara also was against it because it might be a rival for his > beloved F-111 in the precision strike role. It never got beyond the drawing > board, but the airframe design formed the basis for the SR-71. Some speculate > that fear that it might resurface after he was gone was what motivated McNamara > to order Blackbird tooling destroyed. > > > Anyway the F-111 > > took off and the YF-12A took off in a shorter run and > > did a steep climb. I think the F-111 was barely off > > the ground (parallel runways used I hope!). > > F-111 has shorter ground roll than YF-12. There would be no point in a > comparison like this. > > > Mac was > > extremely pissed off about this even and ordered that > > the YF-12A would be grounded for the remainder of the > > review by the top brass. I don't know if Kelly > > Johnson was there or not. I would assume that if > > Kelly wasn't there, then Ben Rich was. > > Al > > Again, not much > point in doing this. F-12 would be a pure interceptor. F-111 was a long range > strike aircraft. They wouldn't be competitors, even for funding, since > Congress funded the F-12 production program without touching F-111 money. > However, F-12 production would cause embarrassment to McNamara since he had > gone on record opposing new fighters. Avoiding to appear wrong (again) was his > prime and possibly only motivation, so he blocked expenditure of F-12 funds. > > > > > ps: did you see Terry Colvin's other post about an > > SR-71 being fired up on short notice for some guy > > who wanted to go Mach 2? And after they were at > > Mach 2 they ran into a sonic wave created by another > > SR-71 who just happened to going Mach 4 at 100,000'. > > This sounds too farfetched to believe. > > I don't think Terry was saying that an SR was fired up for this incident. > Although he didn't state what type it was, judging by where the incident might > have taken place, it was probably an F-4. A SR can not go Mach 4 itself, by > the way, but with a tail wind at altitude it wouldn't be out of the ordinary > for the ground speed to be that high. > > Art It didn't occur to me to ask if you are Art Hanly/Hanley?! That would have reduced the confusion a bit. A friend game me a copy of the Sept 97 issue of Airpower. That's the issue that had all kinds of great rebuttals to all the junk about retiring a miraculous airplane!. Al ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #4 ******************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "majordomo@netwrx1.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to georgek@netwrx1.com. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works/ If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner