From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #73 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 Thursday, September 21 2000 Volume 09 : Number 073 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Development schedules Re: Specific SR-71 Info Good pic Re: Specific SR-71 Info RE: Good pic Re: Good pic Herky Firefighters Crickmore's New Skunkworks Book Re: Crickmore's New Skunkworks Book SR-71 Forum 2000 Good pic Re: net surfing Re: hush hush DC-10 Re: Development schedules Re: Specific SR-71 Info *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:16:05 -0700 From: David Lednicer Subject: Development schedules Art, I realize that you don't like the Clinton administration and you will do anything you can do to bash it, but could you stick to facts? You said: > Of course, it also suffers from spending eight of its years in > development under an Administration that didn't really want to develop > anything and so was restructured so that the major money wouldn't come > do until after said Administration was out of office. This is true of > virtually every other large scale system under development as well, and > this isn't a coincidence. This is not true - ATF development schedules dating back to at least 1989 showed the production aircraft flying when it actually did. I was shocked when I first saw the schedule back then. If you want to see this for your own eyes, look in the the Flight International issue previewing the 1990s, which came out in 1989 or early 1990. Clue - there was a Republican President back then (George W's daddy). As to Comanche - I first worked on it back in 1982. Even then, we were told that the schedule would be long and protracted. Lets see, the President then was... Raygun, er Reagan. It's schedule has slipped under every President since then. How about that DoD secretary that tried killing V-22, a critically needed program ... lets see that would be Cheney - anybody heard of him lately? Now, consider who pushed the stealth programs in the late 1970s. The President was... Carter. And under whose watch did the JSF program get rolling? I think the answer there is Clinton. The bottom line is that the Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty/reponsible for the programs we have witnessed over the last 30 years. From what I have seen, the reason development takes so long these days is software. We have highly integrated, complex, computer driven systems and somebody has to sit down and write the code and then make sure it works. No, I am not a dyed in the wool Democrat. Instead, I have a good memory for aerospace history. All politicans disgust me, but partisan fighters disgust me the most, as the close their eyes to the truth to justify their prejudices. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:11:49 GMT From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Re: Specific SR-71 Info it seems # 962 will be coming back to england(duxford) for more info go to: http://www.habu.org/sr-71/17962.html wayne - ----Original Message Follows---- From: "David" Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: Subject: Specific SR-71 Info Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:33:35 +0100 I'd like to find out some information about a specific SR-71 - #962. Can anyone point me in the direction of a resource ? I believe it set an altitude record in 1976 & was at Det 4 (RAF Mildenhall) for a while. It left Det 1(Kadena AB) for its last flight in Jan '90, and its been in flyable storage at Palmdale since then. Any help or corrections welcome Best David _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:18:55 -0700 From: David Lednicer Subject: Good pic I was going to make all you buy the book (or steal a peek at Border's/B&N/etc). To be a nice guy, I have scanned the picture in and put it in my personal web space. Go to: http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/DC10h.jpg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:15:08 -0400 (EDT) From: David Allison Subject: Re: Specific SR-71 Info > I'd like to find out some information about a specific SR-71 - #962. > Can anyone point me in the direction of a resource ? > > I believe it set an altitude record in 1976 & was at Det 4 (RAF > Mildenhall) for a while. > It left Det 1(Kadena AB) for its last flight in Jan '90, and its been > in flyable storage at Palmdale since then. David: You could also search for "962" on John Stone's timelines: http://www.blackbirds.net/srtl60.html http://www.blackbirds.net/srtl70.html http://www.blackbirds.net/srtl80.html http://www.blackbirds.net/srtl90.html FYI the airframe used for all 3 records in July 1976 was #958. All operational (not including test vehicles and trainers) airframes were rotated between Kadena, Mildenhall and Beale on a regular basis. She is scheduled to be delivered to the museum in Duxford, England before the end of this year; "soon" is the latest estimate I've heard on the arrival date. - 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: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:21:45 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: RE: Good pic This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C02338.5E0FB0E2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" OK, its interesting looking, but what is it? - -----Original Message----- From: David Lednicer [mailto:dave@amiwest.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 03:19 PM To: Skunk Works Group Subject: Good pic I was going to make all you buy the book (or steal a peek at Border's/B&N/etc). To be a nice guy, I have scanned the picture in and put it in my personal web space. Go to: http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/DC10h.jpg - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C02338.5E0FB0E2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" RE: Good pic

OK, its interesting looking, but what is it?

-----Original Message-----
From: David Lednicer [mailto:dave@amiwest.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 03:19 PM
To: Skunk Works Group
Subject: Good pic



        I was going to make all you buy the book (or steal a peek at
Border's/B&N/etc).  To be a nice guy, I have scanned the picture in and
put it in my personal web space.  Go to:

http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/DC10h.jpg





- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C02338.5E0FB0E2-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:29:17 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: Good pic > I was going to make all you buy the book (or steal a peek at > Border's/B&N/etc). To be a nice guy, I have scanned the picture in and > put it in my personal web space. Go to: > > http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/DC10h.jpg > You are a nice guy indeed -- thank you. Obviously, this is Cobra Whale. ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:38:45 -0400 From: "Morris, Andrew" Subject: Herky Firefighters My understanding is that the USAF developed a modular fire retardant tank several years ago that was standardized for carriage in any C-130 then being flown (before Js). It likely did not carry as much retardant as a purposefully rebuilt Herc. The idea was that they could slide in this modular system and go. Andy Morris My favorite is the proposed modified A-10 FireHogs for urban firefighting--go to: http://www.firehogs.com/index.shtml - -----Original Message----- From: wayne binkley [mailto:wbinkley@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 1:45 PM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: net surfing john,i think the "key" word here is "suitability".no one said that C-130s are not available.using C-130s as "water bombers" is very hard on the airframe,especially the center wing box structure.it requires an airframe in excellent condition with little or no corrosion and low overall flying time or one that has been or can be "reworked". a lot of them at DM have out lived there useful flying life,although they could maybe used for less strenuous work than fighting fires.the "J" model production line is behind schedule and probably wont have any for "civilian use for a while,if you could afford the 30-45 million dollar price tag(the"H" line is shut down).if you could find a "B" in good shape they would make a good bomber.maybe an "F".i don't think a "D" would work to good,as it is an "A" with "skis".most of the "Es" are high time and would need extensive work as there center wing torsion box would need major work to take the stress of flying at low level over mountainous terrain with wicked up draft due to fires.i think it was kelly johnson who said"airplanes are like people,the older they get the more they weigh"the "A" model is the lighest,and stripped to bare tanker configuration weighs about 70,000 lbs,with 20,000lbs fuel and 30,000lbs "payload" it takes off at 120,000 lbs and has a stall speed of about 95KTS.allthe other models weigh more and would have a higher stall speed.this is important whem you fly over a mountain and the bottom drops out. wayne - ----Original Message Follows---- From: John Szalay Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: net surfing Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 21:36:23 -0400 At 07:38 PM 9/18/00 GMT, you wrote: >i >recently on some list(?) we were discussing the suitability/probability of >using large jet transports (C-141,C-17s,C-5s)for fire fighting as suitable >C-130s are getting hard to come by. Hard to come by? maybe just locked in red-tape ? But checking the DM inventory list, I see 57 C-130's, 4 LC-130's and 6 AC-130's listed as being in storage at the Boneyard.. 16 A's 13 B's 3 D's 22 E's 2 F's 1 H and the 130 production line is still turning them out. J models, not sure about the H's Not being critical, just curious myself. :-) _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:55:54 -0700 (PDT) From: --TIGGER-- Subject: Crickmore's New Skunkworks Book Does anyone have Crickmore's new Skunk Works Book??? What's the verdict?? F-117A Webmaster __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:04:49 -0400 (EDT) From: David Allison Subject: Re: Crickmore's New Skunkworks Book > Does anyone have Crickmore's new Skunk Works Book??? > > What's the verdict?? > > F-117A Webmaster Kevin: http://www.habu.org/books-videos.html#blackworld-sw I don't want to be too critical of Crickmore's work, because I think he's done a really good job with his previous works. However, this one appears to me more watered down than what we usually see from him. It's still a good book and I don't regret what I paid for it (under $20), and it's 100 times better than the Skunkworks book by Pace. Still, this is more of an introductory work as opposed to the more in- depth works he's done before. It's worth the cover price. 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: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:47:39 -0400 (EDT) From: David Allison Subject: SR-71 Forum 2000 Hello, As long as I'm posting stuff to this list, I'd like to remind everyone of the upcoming SR-71 Forum 2000, which will be held the weekend of this coming October 14 and 15, at the Virginia Aviation Museum in Richmond, VA. So far 20 blackbird pilots, RSOs, flight engineers and crews will be attending. There will be 2 panel forums each day, with different speakers on each panel. Donn Byrnes and Rich Graham will be selling and autographing their books, and visitors can meet the real Habus and get autographs. Demonstrations around the museum's SR-71 are also planned, as well as video presenta- tions in the museum's theater throughout both days. More info here: http://www.habu.org/museums/vam/sr71forum2000.html The official web site, with info on advance ticket sales: http://www.smv.org/SR71Forum2K.html 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: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:45:07 -0700 From: David Lednicer Subject: Good pic Having seen the picture, people will probably as me "what is it?" http://www.bird.ch/bharms/asr_sh00.htm has the following entry: MSN L/N A/C MODEL ENG. MODEL DEL. DATE LAST KNOWN OPERATOR (OWNER) REG. NO. F/N PREV. REG. [COMMENTS] 46524 65 DC10-10 CF6-6K 11/17/72 RAYTHEON CORP. N910SF N124AA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:03:23 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: net surfing At 05:44 PM 9/20/00 GMT, you wrote: >john,i think the "key" word here is "suitability".no one said that C-130s >are not available.using C-130s as "water bombers" is very hard on the >airframe,especially the center wing box structure.i The LC-130 is the ski equipped version and there are 4 of those, but then I took a look at the Terraserver picture of the boneyard, and atleast 12 of those herc's are already in pieces (1996 view) and many are already missing engines so I would expect that out of the the 60+ planes there, probably less than 12 are "available" for use.. so much for that theory.... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 00:32:43 EDT From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: hush hush DC-10 David Lednicer mentioned the DC-10 "hush-hush program that lives a very public existence...the aircraft is kept in a hangar at the west end of LAX" It belongs to Raytheon Corporation, and is the only major aircraft assset that they don't seem to show off on their web page. The large bumps and bulges on the left side and under the forward fuselage make it resemble an Israeli SIGINT platform I once saw a picture of. I have seen the Raytheon DC-10 at Edwards on several occasions. Peter Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 100 07:20:55 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Development schedules On 9/20/00 12:16PM, in message , David Lednicer wrote: > Art, I realize that you don't like the Clinton administration and you will > do anything you can do to bash it, but could you stick to facts? > > You said: > > > Of course, it also suffers from spending eight of its years in > > development under an Administration that didn't really want to develop > > anything and so was restructured so that the major money wouldn't come > > do until after said Administration was out of office. This is true of > > virtually every other large scale system under development as well, and > > this isn't a coincidence. > > This is not true - ATF development schedules dating back to at least 1989 > showed the production aircraft flying when it actually did. I was shocked > when I first saw the schedule back then. If you want to see this for your > own eyes, look in the the Flight International issue previewing the 1990s, > which came out in 1989 or early 1990. Clue - there was a Republican > President back then (George W's daddy). You're missing my point. It's true that the ATF started under the Republicans and like so many other things took longer than things used to. However, what happened post '93 was that the F-22, along with virtually everything else was restructured so that the Big money didn't have to be put forth until after the ADministration was out of office. This is the "train wreck" that so many have been concerned about. Things that were going to hit their funding peaks over a periods of years got restructured so that all those peaks are arriving over a few years post 2000. There simply isn't enough money going to be requested to cover all the programs that will suddenly be needing a major boost in funding at almost the same period. This kind of thing has happened before. Any time you hear of a five or seven year plan for growth in spending on something, but the schedule shows that the vast majority of the growth occurs in the "out" years means that it probably ain't gonna happen, but by then it's hoped everyone will have forgotten. The thing that's different this time is the scale on which it's happened. Look at the original plan for Super Hornet development and then look at what happened when the program was restructered to "match avaialable funding". Remember that the E/F got virtually every penny that was asked for it, but the amounts that were asked for and when were changed, which changed the schedule. The BIG money (production) is happening now instead of as originally planned This happened to the F-22 as well. There isn't a production one flying yet. The first EMD flew more or less according to the original plan but the funding "bulge" was moved, which pout it outside the period of concern, with consequent affect on scheduling, testing and IOC. > > As to Comanche - I first worked on it back in 1982. Even then, we were > told that the schedule would be long and protracted. Lets see, the > President then was... Raygun, er Reagan. It's schedule has slipped under > every President since then. Yes, it was. This was partly because the Army/DoD decided not to push the envelope on the design for various bureaucratic reasons, and so had a hard time making the case for the aircraft. It was never meant to take This long, though; However the funding "bulge" for this a/c also got pushed back until it ran into everyone else's. While it might have made a formidable asset with an IOC of 1995-1997, an IOC of 2005 or beyond is just plain silly; it's been overtaken by events. > > How about that DoD secretary that tried killing V-22, a critically > needed program ... lets see that would be Cheney - anybody heard of him > lately? If you expect me to defend Cheney for that decision, you're sorely mistaken. He (or his staff) also screwed up on the SR-71, F-14D, F/A-18E/F, retiring the battleships, not funding the F110 engine for the F-15, mandating which firm teamed with which on the A-12, and then canceling it at the wrong time (I'm not questioning the cancellation, just the timing). I've read that had Cheney stayed on the plan for the second term was that cuts wouldn't be as deep as what actually happened '93 on, but a far larger percentage of what cuts would have occurred would have come out of Naval Aviation, so relative to the other services it was better off. The V-22 became an ego thing, which in Washington is all-consuming, so Bush Sr. wouldn't reverse the decision until after Cheney was out. In many ways, George Sr. was closer to "Clinton Lite" in many of his actions than he was a continuation of Ronnie (you might note that Bush Sr. would not refer to Reagan by name but rather as ,"My predecessor", until he needed him in 1992). This is not just on Defense. It's true that Clinton and Co. did come out in favor of the V-22, but once again the program was structured so that the serious money wasn't required until after they were out of Office. Even though the program has been wildly successful, the production plan envisioned the Marines taking 25-30 years to equip with it. The acceleration to something approaching normalcy was the result of bipartisan action by Congress to bring it on line an action that is unfortunately all too rare. But then, that would involve taking the heat for a decision, something it is notoriously loathe to do > > Now, consider who pushed the stealth programs in the late 1970s. The > President was... Carter. Actually, the concept was first started under Ford, but the lion's share of the R&D did come under Carter. We'll never know what might have been, but given Carter's record on other developments, it would not be too out of line to speculate that had he been reelected, the program may just have stayed R&D and there probably never would have been a B-2. The plan you'll recall, was to build half as many F-117s as we got, the second group was added by Congress. Given that Jimmy tended to cancel, postpone or cutback almost all land sea and air (except the untouchable Hornet) systems, to assume he would have aggressively deployed stealth is arguable. To use a non-stealth example, one of the prime reasons given for canceling the B-1A (which was a more versatile aircraft than the B-1B) was that cruise missiles could be used in its role. Of course how the cruise missiles were to get in range was never fully explained Some models were shown of 747s and Dc-10s equipped with rotary launchers, but no actual work was done. In fact, this kind of ruise missile development was slowed after the B-1 cancellation. > And under whose watch did the JSF program get > rolling? I think the answer there is Clinton. But only after the A/FX was canceled. The A/FX would have entered service sooner and was arguably a more capable aircraft than JSF, although JSF benefits from later "lock" of the electronic systems. A/FX's funding "bulge" would have come too soon, while JSF's was safely distant. > > The bottom line is that the Republicans and Democrats are equally > guilty/reponsible for the programs we have witnessed over the last 30 > years. I'm not going to go into who may or may not have said or done what. I'm talking about restructuring of when R&D and production is done and how and when it is funded in order to arrange for when we have to pay the bills, which drives the schedules Those schedules have been restructured too many times for it to be coincidence, considering when they're all coming due. We are not unique in this. France could have Rafale in service years ago, buy choser to keep restructinrng the program. That's what's happeneing over here now. > From what I have seen, the reason development takes so long these > days is software. We have highly integrated, complex, computer driven > systems and somebody has to sit down and write the code and then make sure > it works. That's certainly true for many systems, but when and where we do that is controllable. Look at how few flight test hours were requested for Comanche the first couple of yearsof flight test. Heck, look at how they're being requested now! The software has to be written, but it's being written to the schedule requred. Although the AH-1Z is going to be a heck of an aircraft; It could have been here (except for the cockpit displays and a couple of the sensors) years ago if we had structured it so. > > No, I am not a dyed in the wool Democrat. Instead, I have a good memory > for aerospace history. All politicans disgust me, but partisan fighters > disgust me the most, as the close their eyes to the truth to justify their > prejudices. > > Are you referring to moi? What's happening is happening, and it fits in with the announced policy of who's in power. While I clearly do not think it's the right way to go, I must admit that what is happeneing is pretty much what they said they'ed do, so I can't fault 'em for that. If someone else was causing it (re: my notes above on Cheney), I'd disagree with them too but those guy shavne't been running it for a while, and it's not their plan we're running under. I'm also not saying one Party might be better than the next (regardless of what my personal observations may or may not be) in this arena. We are talking about the effects of particular policies of a paricular Executive branch at a particular time in history, and then only as to how they relate to what's going on in a particular area of discussion. That Executive and his policies may belong to a particular party, but that doens't mean he Is that party. Sen John Kerry of Nebraska (a man I deeply respect) is also of that party but there's a world of difference betweern the two. This is getting too specific and off the subject of this list, though. One thing we're going to have to consider, is that with all these funding peaks set to hit in the next few years (I'm not just talkng aircraft, it's also the advanced systems they are to carry as well as other non-aviation but skunky systems, are we Really going to see these systems deployed? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:15:27 +0100 From: "David" Subject: Re: Specific SR-71 Info David Allison writes: I wrote: > > I'd like to find out some information about a specific SR-71 - #962. > > Can anyone point me in the direction of a resource ? > > > > I believe it set an altitude record in 1976 & was at Det 4 (RAF > > Mildenhall) for a while. > > It left Det 1(Kadena AB) for its last flight in Jan '90, and its been > > in flyable storage at Palmdale since then. > You could also search for "962" on John Stone's timelines: > > http://www.blackbirds.net/srtl60.html > http://www.blackbirds.net/srtl70.html > http://www.blackbirds.net/srtl80.html > http://www.blackbirds.net/srtl90.html > > FYI the airframe used for all 3 records in July 1976 was #958. Thanks for the info. I'm a little confused though - as John's site confirms: "28 Jul 1976 SR-71A #962 set an Altitude World Record of 85,068.997 ft, USAF Pilot/RSO: BobHelt/Larry Elliott (LSB; BB) " > > All operational (not including test vehicles and trainers) > airframes were rotated between Kadena, Mildenhall and Beale > on a regular basis. > > She is scheduled to be delivered to the museum in Duxford, > England before the end of this year; "soon" is the latest > estimate I've heard on the arrival date. Hence my interest in #962 in particular. She should be here by the end of the year - and is sure to become a major crowd puller at the already excellent Imperial War Museum site in Duxford. Big thanks to everyone who responded on and off list to my question. David ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #73 ******************************** 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