From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V10 #25 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, July 11 2001 Volume 10 : Number 025 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US Re: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US Re: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US Re: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US Re: YF-113 "G" YF-113 "G" Re: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US Re: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US no apology Re: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US RE: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US Re: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US Re: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US (fwd) U-2, refueling, etc. *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 09:58:43 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US Well, Wayne, we was both wrong.. One of the AN-124 with the EP-3 will only stop in Kadena the other goes to Manila, then Hawaii for crew rest, then on to Ga. Also the Photo page of the recovery operation is back online.. http://www.pacom.mil/ep3photos.htm http://www.pacom.mil/ep3.htm http://www.pacom.mil/ http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2001/Jul/03/ln/ln03a.html http://www.pacom.mil/ep3photos.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 10:34:27 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US Taking a close look at the picture here. http://www.pacom.mil/ep3photos/010702partsload2-h.jpg Its going to be a while before that plane flies again. They CUT it apart.... using a gas powered radiac saw. notice the guy standing on the tail secction. http://www.pacom.mil/ep3photos/010625EP-386-h.jpg Course now there are a bunch of P-3's at the boneyard that they can get tail sections from. I count 102 P-3s on the AMARC inventory, including 2 EP-3 airframes ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 16:24:15 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Re: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US thanks for setting me straight.although i spent 20 years in the usaf,and was a C-130 FE for 13 i have been out for over 20 years now.in my mind it seemed a simple job to "crate up" an airplane like the P-3,which is constructed using basically 1950s technology.the photo link and the comments for each made it clear to me that this was a much more complicated job than i thought,and a lot of things that were done i had not thought about,such as draining the fuel and hydraulic systems,removing the flaps from the wings and removing the landing gears,the tail cone,etc.after dismantlement to this degree it makes sense to take it back where it was assembled in the first place.they should have all the "jigs" and any special equipment needed to restore this machine to A1 flying order. wayne"cratemupanflyumout"binkley >From: John Szalay >Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >Subject: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US >Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 09:58:43 -0400 > > > Well, Wayne, we was both wrong.. > > One of the AN-124 with the EP-3 will only stop in Kadena >the other goes to Manila, then Hawaii for crew rest, then on to Ga. > > Also the Photo page of the recovery operation is back online.. > > http://www.pacom.mil/ep3photos.htm > > http://www.pacom.mil/ep3.htm > http://www.pacom.mil/ > http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2001/Jul/03/ln/ln03a.html > > > > http://www.pacom.mil/ep3photos.htm > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 20:12:08 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US At 04:24 PM 7/3/01, you wrote: >thanks for setting me straight. Wayne , FWIW: Its not a case of "setting me straight" as I said, " we was both wrong." I really expected them to transfer the plane to C-5s, and I can see the reason for stopping at Kadena too, to return the Forktruck. I,m a retired machinist myself, and I,ve worked on aircraft, I knew it would be a major job and I was surprised at the timetable. the use of the abrasive saw to remove the wings and tail also came as a surprise, but it also makes sense.. Get the plane the "heck out of Dodge" Fastest.. There are plenty of spare parts at AMARC. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 20:55:00 -0700 (PDT) From: CFA3@webtv.net (C.F.A.3) Subject: Re: YF-113 "G" I Said: "I think Michael Dornhiem is the author" refering to the AW&ST article. I stand corrected, thanks to Peter. Wayne Binkley, not Dornhiem. Sorry Michael. Now...for the real Debate...What was the "G"?? CFA3 http://community.webtv.net/CFA3/GROOMLAKEAUDUBON ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 21:01:18 -0700 (PDT) From: CFA3@webtv.net (C.F.A.3) Subject: YF-113 "G" What am I doing?...I'm going to be apologizing to everyone. Mr. Binkley, I completely misread Peter Merlins account. You posted the article, and that was all, ...not authored it. Sorry. May "safety wire" be driven under my fingernails. CFA3 ...as to my questton about the "G"? http://community.webtv.net/CFA3/GROOMLAKEAUDUBON ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 18:44:08 +0100 From: Art Hanley Subject: Re: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US wayne binkley wrote: > > thanks for setting me straight.although i spent 20 years in the usaf,and was > a C-130 FE for 13 i have been out for over 20 years now.in my mind it seemed > a simple job to "crate up" an airplane like the P-3,which is constructed > using basically 1950s technology.the photo link and the comments for each > made it clear to me that this was a much more complicated job than i > thought,and a lot of things that were done i had not thought about,such as > draining the fuel and hydraulic systems,removing the flaps from the wings > and removing the landing gears,the tail cone,etc.after dismantlement to this > degree it makes sense to take it back where it was assembled in the first > place.they should have all the "jigs" and any special equipment needed to > restore this machine to A1 flying order. > wayne"cratemupanflyumout"binkley > Wayne, Something you mentioned in one of your earlier posts is still true, though. The EP-3 could have (before dismantlement) been restored to flight status in Hainan. The Chinese refused to permit it. AS a coincidental but unrelated aside, there's an AN-124 sitting on the ramp not 5 miles from me at the former Mather AFB (Lord, that plane is BIG!). It was chartered to bring in a load of generators. I guess someone doesn't trust our dingbat Governor and do-nothing Legislature when the say they've turned the corner on California's energy mess... Art ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 16:46:58 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Re: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US John,i did not look at all the pictures that were available,but in my own mind i cannot reach the conclusion that the wings and tail were "cut off".just because of the evidence of a gas powered radial saw in some photos. i cannot accept that as proof,it could have been used to cut through hoses,lines,fairings etc.these are easy to replace.the tail cone could have been cut off,leaving the bolted part still attached to the rear of the fuselage,to be replaced later.the tail cone is more of a fairing than a structural member.unless the Navy is playing games it makes no sense to just cut the plane apart.it is made to be taken apart,and wings and other large structural parts often have to be replaced(cracks or corrosion,etc).why in the hell would we pay the russian AN-124 3-$4,000,000.00 to fly back something good only for making cans.i may be wrong about this to, as i am looking at it from a logical point of view. wayne >From: John Szalay >Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >Subject: Re: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US >Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 20:12:08 -0400 > >At 04:24 PM 7/3/01, you wrote: > >thanks for setting me straight. > > Wayne , FWIW: >Its not a case of "setting me straight" as I said, " we was both wrong." > >I really expected them to transfer the plane to C-5s, and I can see >the reason for stopping at Kadena too, to return the Forktruck. >I,m a retired machinist myself, and I,ve worked on aircraft, I knew >it would be a major job and I was surprised at the timetable. >the use of the abrasive saw to remove the wings and tail also >came as a surprise, but it also makes sense.. >Get the plane the "heck out of Dodge" Fastest.. > > There are plenty of spare parts at AMARC. > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 17:06:43 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: no apology CFA3,from Wayne D.,life's to short to sweat the small stuff,i like to surf the net and post "stuff" that i think is applicable to the subject under discussion. i don't write it or edit it or vouch for it's accuracy.if someone occasionally gets bent out out shape,i just shrug it off, and say to myself"oh well,you can't please every body" but mostly i just ignore the negative stuff(it serves no purpose to reply to a "flame")you don't owe me an apology,but thanks for being a stand up guy.wayne _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 14:58:48 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US At 04:46 PM 7/5/01, you wrote: >John,i did not look at all the pictures that were available,but in my own >mind i cannot reach the conclusion that the wings and tail were "cut >off".just because of the evidence of a gas powered radial saw in some >photos. i cannot accept that as proof,it could have been used to cut through >hoses,lines,fairings etc.these are easy to replace.the tail cone could have >been cut off,leaving the bolted part still attached to the rear of the >fuselage,to be replaced later.the tail cone is more of a fairing than a >structural member.unless the Navy is playing games it makes no sense to just >cut the plane apart.it is made to be taken apart,and wings and other large >structural parts often have to be replaced(cracks or corrosion,etc).why in >the hell would we pay the russian AN-124 3-$4,000,000.00 to fly back >something good only for making cans.i may be wrong about this to, as i am >looking at it from a logical point of view. >wayne > If you look at the pictures, in detail. there are "raw" edges on many of the parts. wiring bundles are sliced, ending at the same point. look at the picture of the rear pressure bulkhead. the sheet metal of the fuselage is uneven , rivets are not removed from the frame. edges are not smooth, no straight lines on the tail section. they ripped the tailcone with a abrasive saw. Look at the 2-3 oclock position of the frame, the saw cut thru the bolts in the frame. http://www.pacom.mil/ep3photos/010703side-h.jpg http://www.pacom.mil/ep3photos/010622tailconeremoval-h.jpg - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In this picture that guy is standing on the tail after using the abrasive saw on the vertical stabilizer, note the uneven edges. http://www.pacom.mil/ep3photos/010625EP-386-h.jpg - ------------------------------------------------------------------- In this picture , you can see the guy with the abrasive saw. and the end of the left tail surface that he has just cut loose the other guy on the far right in the yellow slicker is swinging it out of the way to allow it to fall. http://www.pacom.mil/ep3photos/01062607EP-3-h.jpg - -------------------------------------------------------------------- In this picture the guy is standing on the left wing with the saw in his hands. if you look at the section they are lifting out. you can see the portion of one of the wing spars, its been sliced. and just in the foreground of the wing inline with his feet, look at the hole sliced in the wing. http://www.pacom.mil/ep3photos/010628cell1-h.jpg - --------------------------------------------------------------------- In this picture the parts piles on the pallet are all sliced. wire bundles are cut not unbolted. http://www.pacom.mil/ep3photos/010702partsload-h.jpg - --------------------------------------------------------------- In this picture. the wing and tail sections are sliced into small enough sections for easy handling/packing. normal loading of wings for transport are done on carring frames. look at the left end of the vertical stabilizer. Not straight edges. http://www.pacom.mil/ep3photos/010702partsload2-h.jpg - ----------------------------------------------------------------- BTW: this article sez Lockheed Martin Corp. has selected a P-3 Orion plane which is nearly identical to the damaged spy plane as a ``donor'' for wings and other parts needed for repairs, company spokesman Greg Caires said. http://wire.ap.org/?SLUG=SPY%2dPLANE =================================================================== I agree with you on many points , however they have a limited recovery team, a limited amount of time, and only part of the tools needed to do it "right" . the way I see it, the fuselage itself is intact, 3 engines and props are useable. lower Radome is intact, as is the upper canoe All the rest is trashed.. Btw: I saw a airpowered chisel in one photo as well. they do fast work on tail and wing panels.. the recovery crew flew out in a Gulf Stream IV, so it was not a big team. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 21:48:00 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US I'd imagine they got it out of China in the quickest possible way. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com > [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of John Szalay > Sent: 05 July 2001 19:59 > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US > > > At 04:46 PM 7/5/01, you wrote: > >John,i did not look at all the pictures that were > available,but in my own > >mind i cannot reach the conclusion that the wings and tail were "cut > >off".just because of the evidence of a gas powered radial > saw in some > >photos. i cannot accept that as proof,it could have been > used to cut through > >hoses,lines,fairings etc.these are easy to replace.the tail > cone could have > >been cut off,leaving the bolted part still attached to the > rear of the > >fuselage,to be replaced later.the tail cone is more of a > fairing than a > >structural member.unless the Navy is playing games it makes > no sense to just > >cut the plane apart.it is made to be taken apart,and wings > and other large > >structural parts often have to be replaced(cracks or > corrosion,etc).why in > >the hell would we pay the russian AN-124 3-$4,000,000.00 to fly back > >something good only for making cans.i may be wrong about > this to, as i am > >looking at it from a logical point of view. > >wayne > > > > If you look at the pictures, in detail. there are "raw" edges on many > of the parts. wiring bundles are sliced, ending at the same point. > look at the picture of the rear pressure bulkhead. the sheet metal of > the fuselage is uneven , rivets are not removed from the frame. edges > are not smooth, no straight lines on the tail section. they ripped > the tailcone with a abrasive saw. > Look at the 2-3 oclock position of the frame, the saw cut thru the > bolts in the frame. > > http://www.pacom.mil/ep3photos/010703side-h.jpg > http://www.pacom.mil/ep3photos/010622tailconeremoval-h.jpg > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > --------- > In this picture that guy is standing on the tail after using the > abrasive saw on the vertical stabilizer, note the uneven edges. > > http://www.pacom.mil/ep3photos/010625EP-386-h.jpg > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > In this picture , you can see the guy with the abrasive saw. > and the end of the left tail surface that he has just cut loose > the other guy on the far right in the yellow slicker is swinging it > out of the way to allow it to fall. > > http://www.pacom.mil/ep3photos/01062607EP-3-h.jpg > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > In this picture the guy is standing on the left wing with the saw in > his hands. if you look at the section they are lifting out. you can > see the portion of one of the wing spars, its been sliced. > and just in the foreground of the wing inline with his feet, look at > the hole sliced in the wing. > > http://www.pacom.mil/ep3photos/010628cell1-h.jpg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > In this picture the parts piles on the pallet are all sliced. > wire bundles are cut not unbolted. > > http://www.pacom.mil/ep3photos/010702partsload-h.jpg > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > In this picture. the wing and tail sections are sliced into small > enough sections for easy handling/packing. > normal loading of wings for transport are done on carring frames. > look at the left end of the vertical stabilizer. Not straight edges. > > http://www.pacom.mil/ep3photos/010702partsload2-h.jpg > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > BTW: this article sez > > Lockheed Martin Corp. has selected a P-3 Orion plane > which is nearly identical to the damaged spy plane as a > ``donor'' for wings and other parts needed for repairs, > company spokesman Greg Caires said. > > http://wire.ap.org/?SLUG=SPY%2dPLANE > > =================================================================== > > I agree with you on many points , however they have a limited > recovery team, a limited amount of time, and only part of the > tools needed to do it "right" . > > the way I see it, the fuselage itself is intact, 3 engines and props > are useable. lower Radome is intact, as is the upper canoe > All the rest is trashed.. > > Btw: I saw a airpowered chisel in one photo as well. they do fast > work on tail and wing panels.. > > the recovery crew flew out in a Gulf Stream IV, so it was not a big > team. > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:49:36 EDT From: MELUMAN@aol.com Subject: Re: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US In a message dated 07/05/2001 12:59:55 PM Mountain Daylight Time, john.szalay@postoffice.worldnet.att.net writes: > if you look at the pictures, in detail. there are "raw" edges on many > of the parts. wiring bundles are sliced, ending at the same point. > look at the picture of the rear pressure bulkhead. the sheet metal of > the fuselage is uneven , rivets are not removed from the frame. edges > are not smooth, no straight lines on the tail section. they ripped > the tailcone with a abrasive saw. _____________________________ So you think they can take apart an E3P like an erector set? They had to chop it apart on site, repairing minimal damage later! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 18:26:23 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Re: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US hey art,maybe we could crank up some of those old airplanes out in the arizona desert,parallel the generators and send the power to california wayne >From: Art Hanley >Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >Subject: Re: Antonov AN-124 on the way back to US >Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 18:44:08 +0100 > > > >wayne binkley wrote: > > > > thanks for setting me straight.although i spent 20 years in the usaf,and >was > > a C-130 FE for 13 i have been out for over 20 years now.in my mind it >seemed > > a simple job to "crate up" an airplane like the P-3,which is constructed > > using basically 1950s technology.the photo link and the comments for >each > > made it clear to me that this was a much more complicated job than i > > thought,and a lot of things that were done i had not thought about,such >as > > draining the fuel and hydraulic systems,removing the flaps from the >wings > > and removing the landing gears,the tail cone,etc.after dismantlement to >this > > degree it makes sense to take it back where it was assembled in the >first > > place.they should have all the "jigs" and any special equipment needed >to > > restore this machine to A1 flying order. > > wayne"cratemupanflyumout"binkley > > > > > >Wayne, > > Something you mentioned in one of your earlier posts is still true, >though. The EP-3 could have (before dismantlement) been restored to >flight status in Hainan. The Chinese refused to permit it. > > AS a coincidental but unrelated aside, there's an AN-124 sitting on the >ramp not 5 miles from me at the former Mather AFB (Lord, that plane is >BIG!). It was chartered to bring in a load of generators. I guess >someone doesn't trust our dingbat Governor and do-nothing Legislature >when the say they've turned the corner on California's energy mess... > > > > Art > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:12:36 -0500 From: George R. Kasica Subject: (fwd) U-2, refueling, etc. On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:57:00 -0700, "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: George, Please pass this on to the Skunk-Works list. It is from the TLCB (see below) list. Terry - ----- Well, I for one, can attest to the length of missions WITHOUT IFR capability. But, even though it was 14 years ago (1987), while TDY to Key West testing the Senior Span system (if you've ever seen the U-2 with it's 'polish wing tank' mounted on the top of the fuselage), the U-2 there regularly conducted missions MUCH longer than 8 hours in length. However, I won't say HOW much longer as I believe that is still sensitive info. I've included some data for the U-2 for those interested. U-2 Variant Data U-2A: Basic configuration U-2A-2: Basic "A" with nose mounted air sampler (Tail #6714 to #6718) U-2B: Proposed bomber w/tricycle landing gear, 2 hardpoints under each wing for carrying external weapons and single M60 machine gun in "Q" bay lowered out of bottom of aircraft for self protection. None were built. U-2C: Basic "A" model with J75 engine and bigger intakes. Flight tests were carried out using Tail #6675, #6684, #6691 and a total of 106 flights and 381 hrs., 7 minutes flying time. U-2CT: U-2C converted to 2 place trainer (2 Built). U-2D: Purpose built 2 place a/c (not trainer). Tail #6721, #6954. U-2E: Basic "A" converted with inflight refueling capability (3 aircraft). U-2F: U-2C converted with inflight refueling capabiltiy (5 aircraft). U-2G: U-2C converted for carrier compatibility with arresting hook and accessories, rear fuselage beef-up, 50 degrees of flaps and extended main stoke main and tail landing gear (3 aircraft). U-2H: U-2G converted to inflight-refueling capability, found to be too heavy and converted back to U-2G (2 aircraft) U-2R: Larger version of original U-2. Designed with carrier capability from outset with RX107 Hook Kit installed. TR-1: Tactical Reconnaissance Aircraft (all aircraft redesignated U-2R) TR-1B: 2 place Trainer (redesignated U-2RT) U-2S: Re-engined U-2R with General Electric F118-GE-101 with 18,300 pounds thrust; the F118 engine is 30% lighter and 39 inches shorter and more fuel effect, than the J75-13B, and allows the "S" to cruise 1220 nm farther, and fly 3500 feet higher. It also has a new digital autopilot, and sensor wiring has been standardized. If more info is desired, check out John Stones site at: http://www.blackbirds.net/u2specs.html Cheers, Bob Norway Blackbird Maintenance 1984 - 1989 Beale AFB, CA Howard Hap Wyman wrote: > Terry > > There seem to be a lot of gray area about the early U-2 IFR capabiities. > I've seen several different versions since this discussion got started. > Each source I run across seems to have a slightly different opinion, > although most don't go back to the late 50s or very early 60s. > > I personally believe the following statement covers the reason why > inflight refueling wasn't used very often. The U-2 had decent long > range and loiter time, and just how long would you want to keep a pilot > cramped in the cockpit? They were bear to fly because of the narrow > airspeed window. Most deployments were launched fairly close to the > target area. IFR wasn't a requirement. I know the pilots on my > deployment missions were glad to climb out, walk around and grab a bite > to eat. Edwards to Loring to Upper Heyford, with only a 2 hour > refueling stop at Loring would wear anyone out. > > Operational missions of eight hours over hostile territory would be even > worse. > > I witnessed one fly from Hickum to Anderson, which took it about eight > hours. A RON at Guam. The U-2 always launched before the Tanker and > landed afterward. > > >As Jay Miller has pointed out, the long wing U-2 models have no need > for in-flight refueling as they can carry enough gas to out-last their > pilots.< > > All IMHO, and personal observation as a Tanker troop along for the ride > in the late 60s. > > Hap > > Howard S. "Hap" Wyman > TLCB Membership Committee > Aircraft Radio Maintenance > 56th AEMS ~ 56th Air Commando Wing > Nakhon Phanom RTAFB, 1968-69 > Oxcart Support ~ "Black Shield" Ops > 903rd ARS/KC-135Q ~ Kadena AB, 1967 > 456th AEMS ~ Beale AFB, 1966-68 > Member ~ ACA • TLCB • VFW #10249 > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: FWD (PVT) Re: B-52 and KC-10 (U-2 Question) > Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:33:09 -0700 > From: "Terry W. Colvin" > Organization: Signal Corporation < http://www.signalcorp.com > > To: "tlc-brotherhood@NoPostage.com" > > At 09:58 AM 1/28/01 -0700, you wrote: > >Terry, > > > >I hope this is the one you're requesting. I am forwarding the reply from > >my buddy at Beale. > > > >Bzaza > > > >********************************************************* > >To the best of my knowledge the U2 has never had a successful in air refueling > >capability. They (SKUNK WORKS) tried it on the C model. The system worked > >good > >on the ground but caused too much air turbulence when they tried to refuel in > >the air. From what I learned and pictures that I've seen the two aircraft > >that > >were modified crashed trying to refuel. > > SAC had 4 U-2E IRS-equipped aircraft beginning in about 1962. They > conducted many successful missions using in-flight refueling including Cuba > missions from Del Rio and overseas deployments to the Far East. > > The CIA had a number of U-2F IRS-equipped aircraft. They usually had 3 or 4 > on strength from 1962 till the late 1960s. The Agency also used in-flight > refueling frequently and, just as SAC did, kept its pilots proficient in > the technique. > > One SAC pilot was killed during refueling practice in a CIA aircraft in > March 1962. The other in-flight refueling loss occurred in Feb. 1966 when > another CIA U-2 was over-stressed and broke up as the pilot began his > climbout after successfully refueling. > > As Jay Miller has pointed out, the long wing U-2 models have no need for > in-flight refueling as they can carry enough gas to out-last their pilots. > > >Also note that the early U2s that were used to take photos of foreign > >countries > >did not return to the same base that they departed from. > > A blanket statement which is untrue. Some missions recovered at bases > distinct from their launch points but by no means all. > > Joe Donoghue > > -- > Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > > Alternate: < terry_colvin@hotmail.com > > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * > TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program > ------------ > Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List > TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Allies, CIA/NSA, > and Vietnam veterans welcome] - -- Bob Norway Rockledge, Florida Home Page http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5953/mypage.html ICQ# 3752712 *************************** Blackbird Association Member #1263 *************************** Charter Member #146 TLCB - Thailand, Laos, Cambodia Brotherhood http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org/ Udorn RTAFB Nov'70 - Nov'71 432 AMS/Autopilot *************************** Member Udorn VFW Post 10249 Sawadee Home Page http://www.khonkaen.com/vfw/index.htm *************************** Life Member Air Force Association http://www.afa.org *************************** Life Member Air Force Sergeant Association http://www.afsahq.org/ *************************** SpitList 1976 Triumph Spitfire 1500 FM43376UO - Daily Driver *************************** "Don't Take My Pint Mate, I'm In The Loo!" - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Alternate: < terry_colvin@hotmail.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Vietnam veterans, Allies, and CIA/NSA are welcome] ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 206 374 6482 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com Jackson, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works 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 ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V10 #25 ********************************* 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