From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #75 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 Monday, September 25 2000 Volume 09 : Number 075 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** RE: net surfing Re: Development schedules RE: JSF takes first flight - see video Strategic Oil Reserve RE: Strategic Oil Reserve RE: Strategic Oil Reserve RED HAT Fulcrums Re: RED HAT Fulcrums Whiteman AFB - United States Nuclear Forces Re: Development Schedules DC-10 RE: DC-10 RE: DC-10 *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 19:35:12 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: RE: net surfing At 09:51 AM 9/21/00 -0700, you wrote: >wayne binkley [mailto:wbinkley@hotmail.com] wrote: >> >> i would like to see that over head shot.what are the >> coordinates for DM >> AFB,or the "city". > >Try this url at the TerraServer: > > http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.asp?S=12&T=1&X=645&Y=4446&Z=12&W=2 > >The image is from 12/94 - quite a few B-52s ... > >Erik > > > Heres a 1Meter issue of some of the Herc's http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.asp?S=10&T=1&X=2577&Y=17790&Z=12&W=2 The 96 edition shows much less of the BUFF's and according to the inventory only B-52G's are left. all else have been "sliced" http://www.dm.af.mil/AMARC/inventory.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 02:41:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: 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. > > Please correct me if I'm wrong. Forgive me if I offend anyone, but I am a programmer, systems admin, network admin, network installer, etc., have been working with computers for 15 years and I can personally vouch that software DOES NOT necessarily have to take 20-30 years to develop. We are not talking about a high-level compiler, Unix kernel or operating system here, we are talking about a few thousand or a few million lines of code for a weapons system. Assuming a worst case scenario (commonly accepted in government and industry), a programmer can write 2 lines of fully functional, fully debugged code per day. The JSF is supposed to have 5 million lines of code which would take a single person 2.5 million days to write. If we do the math, it would take 1000 programmers 6.8 years to write that code (again in the worst case scenario), it would take 2000 programmers 3.4 years to write. These figures assume that very primitive languages, compilers or assemblers and development tools and methods are used. If we assume that modern languages, compilers, development tools and methods are used I would estimate a single programmer could write 50-100 (probably even more) lines of fully functional, fully debugged code per day. Therefore, it would take 1000 programmers 50-100 days to write 5 million lines of code. 100 programmers could accomplish the same task in 500-1000 days (1.4 - 2.7 years). Please keep in mind that some Operating systems (typically of huge complexity) with tens of millions of lines of code have been coded and debugged in the recent past within 3-5 years. My company and I (4 programmers [myself included] +1 designer) wrote a game (~100,000 lines of code), admittedly a very modest one, in six months working only part time. That would indicate that we wrote about 100,000 lines of code in less than 3 months with 4 programmers, which means that we wrote an average of over 277 lines of code per day (over 70 lines per person on average). Naturally, we wasted weeks constantly arguing about how to implement certain features, who would do what, partially or totally re-writing code, fixing bugs, etc..., so we would have cranked out a lot more code if we knew what the heck we were doing or if we knew how to program... lol... So please do not blame 20-30 year development times for major weapon systems on programmers!!! Personally, I believe bean counters and others in both parties are largely to blame. Standard disclaimers apply. Sam CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC http://www.darkent.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 03:11:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: RE: JSF takes first flight - see video > You're certainly right about the A-10!! I read recently that someone > predicted the airframes to still be in use until 2030!! > > Is that possible? Yes, it is possible, even though the USAF does not want the A-10 or the CAS mission. Even if the JSF does not get chopped up and sold for scrap there will always be room for the A-10 because of its unique capabilities and survivability. Not many aircraft can take multiple hits from 57mm AAA and return home safely, or lose half the wing and still be able to fly, or be able to take out 22 tanks in a single engagement. I like the JSF but Long live the A-10! Sam CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC http://www.darkent.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: SkyeFire@aol.com [mailto:SkyeFire@aol.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 11:47 AM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re: JSF takes first flight - see video > > > In a message dated 9/19/00 1:30:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > GregWeigold@mynd.com writes: > > > > > There is a story about the Boeing version taking its first flight, on > > Monday, and a short video (about 1:45) > > > > It is an UGLY plane, at least from the front! > > Ugly is good. Ugly planes always last longer, do more, and are harder to > kill. Look at the F-4, the P-47, the A-10, etc. > So an ugly prototype is a good omen. > > > -- > David McMillan, Imagineer at Large. > Chief Systems Analyst and Integration Engineer, Exotic Technologies > Division, > KUKA GmbH. Mecha and Weapons Design Specialist. > "Agent Mulder? My name is Neo. I believe I may be able to show you part of > > the truth you've been searching for. I should warn you, however -- it's not > > what you think." > -- > > > - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:58:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Strategic Oil Reserve The administration has just released an unspecified amount of oil from the strategic oil reserve, suspiciously close to the election, and just as one of our dearest friends abroad is about to start another war, as he is getting quite desperate. This is clearly irresponsible and could compromise our national security and both short term and long term growth and prosperity. I would rather pay $3-5 bucks a gallon for gas rather than tap the strategic oil reserve. The strategic oil reserve is not supposed to be tapped unless we are at war and oil from foreign sources becomes unavailable. Still Grumpy Sam CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC http://www.darkent.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:59:48 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: RE: Strategic Oil Reserve 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_01C024CF.FD08349C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I absolutely agree!! - -----Original Message----- From: Sam Kaltsidis [mailto:skaltsid@mcs.kent.edu] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 03:59 PM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Strategic Oil Reserve The administration has just released an unspecified amount of oil from the strategic oil reserve, suspiciously close to the election, and just as one of our dearest friends abroad is about to start another war, as he is getting quite desperate. This is clearly irresponsible and could compromise our national security and both short term and long term growth and prosperity. I would rather pay $3-5 bucks a gallon for gas rather than tap the strategic oil reserve. The strategic oil reserve is not supposed to be tapped unless we are at war and oil from foreign sources becomes unavailable. Still Grumpy Sam CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC http://www.darkent.com - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C024CF.FD08349C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" RE: Strategic Oil Reserve

I absolutely agree!! 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Kaltsidis [mailto:skaltsid@mcs.kent.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 03:59 PM
To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com
Subject: Strategic Oil Reserve


The administration has just released an unspecified amount of oil from the
strategic oil reserve, suspiciously close to the election, and just as one of
our dearest friends abroad is about to start another war, as he is getting quite
desperate.

This is clearly irresponsible and could compromise our national security and
both short term and long term growth and prosperity.

I would rather pay $3-5 bucks a gallon for gas rather than tap the strategic oil
reserve. The strategic oil reserve is not supposed to be tapped unless we are at
war and oil from foreign sources becomes unavailable.

Still Grumpy Sam

CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC
http://www.darkent.com

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C024CF.FD08349C-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 21:32:35 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: Strategic Oil Reserve In the UK we have no such reserves. In fact the country was just bought to a standstill when protesters stopped the flow of fuel from the oil depots. Assuming 1.4 dollars to the pound we pay about 5 dollars a gallon for petrol on the streets. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com > [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Sam Kaltsidis > Sent: 22 September 2000 20:59 > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Strategic Oil Reserve > > > The administration has just released an unspecified amount of > oil from the > strategic oil reserve, suspiciously close to the election, > and just as one of > our dearest friends abroad is about to start another war, as > he is getting quite > desperate. > > This is clearly irresponsible and could compromise our > national security and > both short term and long term growth and prosperity. > > I would rather pay $3-5 bucks a gallon for gas rather than > tap the strategic oil > reserve. The strategic oil reserve is not supposed to be > tapped unless we are at > war and oil from foreign sources becomes unavailable. > > Still Grumpy Sam > > CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC > http://www.darkent.com > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 21:37:33 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: RED HAT Fulcrums Waaaaay back, when the list was discussing Fulcrums being operated/bought by the US, I had searched all over for this page after seeing it only a few weeks before (with no luck)- and now I've stumbled on it again: http://www.te.hq.af.mil/tez.html I don't know where that is (I'll guess Wright-Pat), but calling AF T&E's public affairs office would probably tell you. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you follow thousands of different threads on the Internet, whip up gourmet feasts using only ingredients from the 24-hour store, and use words like "paradigm" and "orthogonal" in casual conversation. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 08:55:25 -0700 From: "T.Toth" Subject: Re: RED HAT Fulcrums Any new info on eventual (Ukrainian?) SU-27 being used? Timothy Dan Zinngrabe wrote: > Waaaaay back, when the list was discussing Fulcrums being > operated/bought by the US, I had searched all over for this page > after seeing it only a few weeks before (with no luck)- and now I've > stumbled on it again: > http://www.te.hq.af.mil/tez.html > I don't know where that is (I'll guess Wright-Pat), but calling AF > T&E's public affairs office would probably tell you. > > Dan > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > The software you were born with helps > you follow thousands of different > threads on the Internet, whip up gourmet > feasts using only ingredients from > the 24-hour store, and use words > like "paradigm" and "orthogonal" > in casual conversation. It deserves > the operating system designed to work > with it: the MacOS. > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 18:37:48 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Whiteman AFB - United States Nuclear Forces This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C02656.8A5D7F00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mildly interesting -- look to the bottom of the page for a B-2 seen from space. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/facility/whiteman_pir.htm - ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C02656.8A5D7F00 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Whiteman AFB - United States Nuclear Forces.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Whiteman AFB - United States Nuclear Forces.url" [DEFAULT] BASEURL=3Dhttp://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/facility/whiteman_pir.htm [InternetShortcut] URL=3Dhttp://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/facility/whiteman_pir.htm Modified=3D202B4FFD7F26C001FD - ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C02656.8A5D7F00-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 100 06:09:33 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Development Schedules On 9/21/00 10:06AM, in message , David Lednicer wrote: > Art, I'm impressed - your response was excellent. I don't agree > with you totally, but you kept your cool and gave a balanced response (I > can't say that I kept my cool completely). > > One thing to consider regarding "funding bulges". As result of the Reagan > budgets, the US was heavily in debt and the debt was increasing quickly. > Something drastic had to be done. The very fact that we now see surpluses > and an attempt to buy down the debt means that programs of all sorts > (military, social, etc.) had to suffer. Additionally, development costs > have skyrocketed on programs. The inevitable results is that yes, we are > going to stretch-outs. We knew this on Comanche back in the mid 1980s. > > If what you say is true, I think they were gambling that the financial > situation would be better when the bill arrived than it was in the early > 1990s. From what I see, this gamble appears to be working. > > > > Well, thank you. I'm not going to go into what I feel were the reasons for the deficits of the '80s, 'cuase that's outside the scope of this list. Do want to comment a bit on Comanche, though, since as a "stealth" helicopter it falls into the realm here. Comanche suffered in the '80s because the Army never made that good a case for it, and by deliberately excluding Tilt-Rotor from consideration they couldn't make the advanced technology case for the aircraft. As a result, the Army wasn't really willing to fall on its sword for it because they knew they'd lose a serious fight. You can always speed up a program-- it just costs more money. The thing most people overlook is also that you can also slow down a program--it just costs more money. What happened in the the '90s, and the point I've been trying to make here and elsewhere, is that Comanche and many other program were rescheduled so as to not take the political risk of outright cancellation, yet defer their "bulges" until someone else had to pay for them. This was consistent with the priorities, oft expressed, of who was in power at the time. This was not hidden. I believe the Main reason the third Seawolf SSN was funded (and I supported that action) was unfortunately not for (I'm talking about primary reason, not sole reason) its military cost effectiveness. It was simply that given the winding down of the LA class construction, and the gap that would result would essentially eliminate any affordable possibly of ever building another SSN. No Administration, regardless of party would want to be known as the Administration that took the US out of the SSN business. Hence, the support of the JImmy Carter as a "gap bridger", to keep the industrial base intact. I'd like to believe that the deferrals were counting on the economy getting better, but I'm not that trusting. The reason being was that in the projected budgets for the infamous "out years", there never was any planning for funding the rescheduled programs. This was the problem with the QDR of the mid '90s. It came up with a strategy that received the unqualified endorsement of the powers that be, yet there was no move for requesting fund for what the QDR said was to be the plan. This is the "train wreck" that's almost here. There are all these grandiose systems that are over a short period of time going to be needing big money. Yet, even ignoring the costs of restoring readiness, the size of the projected budgets show no plans to request sufficient funding to execute the announced plans. To illustrate, in the next few years there will be rapidly arriving "bulges" for the F-22, V-22, F/A-18E/F, "stealth" ordnance, CVN-77 and the Virginia submarines, followed closely by JSF and Comanche. The presently projected budget requests simply aren't going to cover all these systems. There's talk of their projected costs as individual systems, but when you add them up as part of a whole, along with the rest of the things being developed and supposedly being acquired, and look at the announced sizes of the upcoming budgets, the numbers don't come even close to adding up. Dealing with this will be the problem of the upcoming Administration, no matter who wins. There may be differences in how this is dealt with, but whoever gets inaugurated will have to deal with it. Here's a microcosm of how deferring/rescheduling can bite you. JSF looks like it's going to have at least another half year slippage. The announced reason is that it's due to problems with the STOVL system. Yet only one of the bidders is having serious problems, the other one says it can meet its schedule. Now, if this a competition, the one who says he can stay on track shouldn't be penalized because the other bidder is having a temporary road block. That's what competition is about. The more cynical might say it's because one company is already favored and is being accommodated, but that's (probably) not the reason. Part of the delay was to allow the new Administration to make the decision. Fair enough, since it'll have to live with it. The latest delay may be to bring the new Administration fully up to speed on the program, and this 'll take more than three months. Fair enough again. It might also be that Congress wants to put off actually committing to the program. Whatever the reason, that means that the competitor that ultimately loses is going to have to keep its design team in place for six to eight additional months so that it would have been able to continue if it won. - --Who's going to pay for that? - --'Course if I were King, what I'd do is simple. If they both prove to be cost effective designs, build both of them. Leverage as much commonality form the development so far, but pay the somewhat extra costs involved in building them both so that you keep two fighter/strike houses intact. Take the weight of the Navy model out of the USAF model, reducing costs, and take the provisions for USAF systems out of the Navy model, also reducing costs. Since the Marines' requirement can be met by a STOVL model of either design, they won't be that much of a deciding factor. I'd build Lockheed's model for USAF and produce NAvy and Marine versions of the Boeing design, myself. We could let the two companies compete for the International market. - --But then, I'm not King. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:44:13 -0700 From: David Lednicer Subject: DC-10 Over the weekend, I did some research on the Raytheon DC-10, based upon some info someone pointed me to. The aircraft arrived at Goodyear, AZ in October 16, 1999 (http://www.azstarnet.com/~chisox/gyr-tot.htm) and then was delivered to the AMARC storage area at Davis-Monthan on August 22 of this year (http://www.codacomsystems.com/AMARC/previous/frisep012000.htm). You can find pictures of it at: http://www.aeropacificimages.com/scan337.jpg http://home.interlink.or.jp/~shinora/fanclub/d10/d10lhe_d01.htm http://corsair.flugmodellbau.de/files/sonstige/02550.JPG A also stumbled upon info regarding the aircraft's pilot at: http://www2.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/builders2.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:55:02 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: RE: DC-10 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_01C02711.C8C8AE7A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Interesting stuff... Anybody know what this is? YC-14 72-1874 I don't remember hearing about a C-14...... Greg W - -----Original Message----- From: David Lednicer [mailto:dave@amiwest.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 12:44 PM To: Skunk Works Group Subject: DC-10 Over the weekend, I did some research on the Raytheon DC-10, based upon some info someone pointed me to. The aircraft arrived at Goodyear, AZ in October 16, 1999 (http://www.azstarnet.com/~chisox/gyr-tot.htm) and then was delivered to the AMARC storage area at Davis-Monthan on August 22 of this year (http://www.codacomsystems.com/AMARC/previous/frisep012000.htm). You can find pictures of it at: http://www.aeropacificimages.com/scan337.jpg http://home.interlink.or.jp/~shinora/fanclub/d10/d10lhe_d01.htm http://corsair.flugmodellbau.de/files/sonstige/02550.JPG A also stumbled upon info regarding the aircraft's pilot at: http://www2.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/builders2.html - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C02711.C8C8AE7A Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: DC-10

Interesting stuff...

Anybody know what this is?   YC-14 = 72-1874

I don't remember hearing about a C-14......

Greg W

-----Original Message-----
From: David Lednicer [mailto:dave@amiwest.com]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 12:44 PM
To: Skunk Works Group
Subject: DC-10



Over the weekend, I did some research on the Raytheon = DC-10, based upon
some info someone pointed me to.  The aircraft = arrived at Goodyear, AZ in
October 16, 1999 (http://www.azstarnet.com/~chisox/gyr-tot.htm) and = then
was delivered to the AMARC storage area at = Davis-Monthan on August 22 of
this year (http://www.codacomsystems.com/AMARC/previous/frisep012= 000.htm).
You can find pictures of it at:
http://www.aeropacificimages.com/scan337.jpg
http://home.interlink.or.jp/~shinora/fanclub/d10/d10lh= e_d01.htm
http://corsair.flugmodellbau.de/files/sonstige/02550.J= PG

A also stumbled upon info regarding the aircraft's = pilot at:
http://www2.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/builders2.html<= /FONT>




- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C02711.C8C8AE7A-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 10:02:27 -0700 From: Erik Hoel Subject: RE: DC-10 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_01C02712.6712D65A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The C-14 was an early MD prototype/design study(?) of the C-17. As I recall, the turbofans (2?) were mounted on the top of the wing so as to provide more lift when the flaps were extended. Erik - -----Original Message----- From: Weigold, Greg [mailto:GregWeigold@mynd.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 9:55 AM To: 'skunk-works@netwrx1.com' Subject: RE: DC-10 Interesting stuff... Anybody know what this is? YC-14 72-1874 I don't remember hearing about a C-14...... Greg W - -----Original Message----- From: David Lednicer [ mailto:dave@amiwest.com ] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 12:44 PM To: Skunk Works Group Subject: DC-10 Over the weekend, I did some research on the Raytheon DC-10, based upon some info someone pointed me to. The aircraft arrived at Goodyear, AZ in October 16, 1999 ( http://www.azstarnet.com/~chisox/gyr-tot.htm ) and then was delivered to the AMARC storage area at Davis-Monthan on August 22 of this year ( http://www.codacomsystems.com/AMARC/previous/frisep012000.htm ). You can find pictures of it at: http://www.aeropacificimages.com/scan337.jpg http://home.interlink.or.jp/~shinora/fanclub/d10/d10lhe_d01.htm http://corsair.flugmodellbau.de/files/sonstige/02550.JPG A also stumbled upon info regarding the aircraft's pilot at: http://www2.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/builders2.html - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C02712.6712D65A Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: DC-10
The C-14 was=20 an early MD prototype/design study(?) of the C-17. As I recall, = the=20 turbofans (2?) were mounted on the top of the wing so as to = provide more=20 lift when the flaps were extended.

Erik

-----Original Message-----
From: Weigold, Greg=20 [mailto:GregWeigold@mynd.com]
Sent: Monday, September 25, = 2000 9:55=20 AM
To: 'skunk-works@netwrx1.com'
Subject: RE:=20 DC-10

Interesting stuff...

Anybody know what this is?   YC-14 = 72-1874=20

I don't remember hearing about a C-14...... =

Greg W

-----Original Message-----
From: David=20 Lednicer [mailto:dave@amiwest.com] =
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 12:44 PM
To:=20 Skunk Works Group
Subject: DC-10 =



Over the weekend, I did some research on the = Raytheon DC-10,=20 based upon
some info someone pointed me = to.  The=20 aircraft arrived at Goodyear, AZ in
October = 16, 1999=20 (http://www.azstarn= et.com/~chisox/gyr-tot.htm)=20 and then
was delivered to the AMARC storage = area at=20 Davis-Monthan on August 22 of
this year (h= ttp://www.codacomsystems.com/AMARC/previous/frisep012000.htm).=20
You can find pictures of it at:
http://www.aeropac= ificimages.com/scan337.jpg=20
http://home.interlink.or.jp/~shinora/fanclub/d10/d10lhe_d01.htm=20
http:/= /corsair.flugmodellbau.de/files/sonstige/02550.JPG=20

A also stumbled upon info regarding the aircraft's = pilot=20 at:
http://www2.o= lsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/builders2.html=20




- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C02712.6712D65A-- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #75 ******************************** 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