From owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Wed Aug 8 00:50:08 2001 Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 21:55:01 -0500 From: skunk-works-digest Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V10 #30 skunk-works-digest Tuesday, August 7 2001 Volume 10 : Number 030 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: SR Manual on-line Re: SR-71 Flight Manual Re: Pico Rivera B-2 info? Re: skunk-works-digest V10 #29 Re: SR-71 Flight Manual Re: SR-71 Flight Manual Recall: Habu Habu Space Arms Article "Futuristic Space Bomber"... Re: Space Arms Article "Futuristic Space Bomber"... Re: Space Arms Article "Futuristic Space Bomber"... Re: Space Arms Article "Futuristic Space Bomber"... Re: Habu Re: Space Arms Article "Futuristic Space Bomber"... Re: Habu RE: Space Arms Article "Futuristic Space Bomber"... upcoming SR-71 forums Re: U-2 over Iraq Re: U-2 over Iraq Re: U-2 over Iraq NB-52B // B-52H Re: SR-71 Flight Manual Re: NB-52B // B-52H Re: U-2 over Iraq *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 10:04:41 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: Re: SR Manual on-line 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_01C11A92.EE190DB2 Content-Type: text/plain That properties stuff will getcha everytime!! Thanks George & Greg for doing this.... Greg W - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C11A92.EE190DB2 Content-Type: text/html Re: SR Manual on-line

That properties stuff will getcha everytime!!

Thanks George & Greg for doing this....

Greg W



- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C11A92.EE190DB2-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 13:01:14 -0500 From: George R. Kasica Subject: Re: SR-71 Flight Manual On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 13:36:09 -0400, you wrote: >George, >I uploaded the SR-71 flight manual to the incomiing directory on your >ftp server. It took almost an hour (I guess my cable provider really >does throttle the upload bandwidth). After the file completed >uploading, I did not see any files listed. That may be a setting that >you have made, but it should be there. The file is: sr71flt.pdf. > >Greg Greg: Thanks! Its moved :) It can be found at: ftp://ftp.netwrx1.com/pub/skunk-works/sr71flt.pdf George ===[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 ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 2001 12:57:54 -0700 From: gregd@habu2.net Subject: Re: Pico Rivera B-2 info? On Wed, 01 August 2001, "David" wrote: > The old Ford plant at Pico Rivera CA was bought by Northrop as a base for > the B-2 project. They built the first full sacle engineering mock up there > in the mid 80s. ('86 from memory.) Is this the building that had a paved area that roughly resembled the B-2 platform? I recall seeing an aerial view, and the paved area was already there when Northrop bought and/or moved in to the bldg. Just a coincidence, I'm sure... :) > Someone is supposed to have climbed onto the roof and written something > obscene in Russian that was big enough for the Soviet spy sats to read. A good story, but (1) I can't imagine anyone being allowed access to the roof and (2) wouldn't this have attracted unwanted attention to the facility??? "Hey Ivanov, look at this!!!" GregD ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 14:34:16 -0700 (PDT) From: --TIGGER-- Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V10 #29 - --- skunk-works-digest wrote: >Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 08:08:57 +0100 >From: "David" >Subject: Re: Pico Rivera B-2 info? >> Greetings! >> I picked up a patch at a recent airshow, >> it says "Pico Rivera - Birthplace of The B-2"... >The old Ford plant at Pico Rivera CA was bought by Northrop as a base >for the B-2 project. They built the first full sacle engineering mock > up there in the mid 80s. ('86 from memory.) Also, don't forget the then VERY classified YF-23 and Tacit Blue demonstrator, as well as any other classified aircraft that may have developed from the Tacit Blue, which I have heard rumblings that there were more than a couple. Thay all came out of that Pico Rivera complex. Kevin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 22:29:59 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: SR-71 Flight Manual At 01:01 PM 8/1/01 -0500, you wrote: > > >Thanks! Its moved :) > >It can be found at: > >ftp://ftp.netwrx1.com/pub/skunk-works/sr71flt.pdf > >George > Oh Lord 108 Meg.... got to get a cable modem... \\ ~ ~ // ( @ @ ) -----------oOOo-(_)-oOOo---------- | john.szalay@att.net | ------------------Oooo.----------- .oooO ( ) ( ) ) / \ ( (_/ \_) I yam whaddIyam. No trees were harmed in the transmission of this message, However, A rather large number of electrons were temporarily inconvenienced. Friends, don't let friends do AOL! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 21:47:20 +0100 From: Art Hanley Subject: Re: SR-71 Flight Manual John Szalay wrote: > > > Oh Lord 108 Meg.... got to get a cable modem... > > Finally got one, took 15 minutes for the entire download. It's times like this that you're willing to put up with the hassles of dealing with the company that runs the service. Art ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:55:21 -0400 From: "Greg Meland" Subject: Recall: Habu Greg Meland would like to recall the message, "Habu". ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:54:56 -0400 From: "Greg Meland" Subject: Habu Kevin, Your CD with the SR-71 flight manual went out in the mail today. You should have it early next week. Greg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:26:37 -0500 (CDT) From: Todd Madson Subject: Space Arms Article "Futuristic Space Bomber"... Check this article out. They mention a "futuristic space bomber" being contemplated by planners. Could they be referring to a variant of the "brilliant buzzard" aircraft or is this some pie in the sky fantasy? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17889-2001Aug1.html - -- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:54:37 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: Space Arms Article "Futuristic Space Bomber"... > Check this article out. They mention a "futuristic space bomber" > being contemplated by planners. Could they be referring to a > variant of the "brilliant buzzard" aircraft or is this some pie in > the sky fantasy? > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17889-2001Aug1.html There was sort of a precursor to this story in the LA Times a couple of days ago that said there is some interest in reviving LockMart's X-33 in this role: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-072801bomber.story I suspect that such a thing is far, far in the future, if it ever happens at all. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 18:57:27 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Re: Space Arms Article "Futuristic Space Bomber"... you don't sound like you red the whole article wayne d.binkley But the actual deployment of space weapons may still be decades away. A report by the nonprofit Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments concluded in February that the U.S. military would most likely continue using space only for communications, reconnaissance, intelligence and guidance of precision munitions until at least 2020. For the next two decades, space will not be "an arena of overt military competition, much less an actual battleground," it predicted. >From: "Allen Thomson" >Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >To: >Subject: Re: Space Arms Article "Futuristic Space Bomber"... >Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:54:37 -0500 > > > > > Check this article out. They mention a "futuristic space bomber" > > being contemplated by planners. Could they be referring to a > > variant of the "brilliant buzzard" aircraft or is this some pie in > > the sky fantasy? > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17889-2001Aug1.html > > > >There was sort of a precursor to this story in the LA Times a couple of >days >ago that said there is some interest in reviving LockMart's X-33 in this >role: > >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-072801bomber.story > >I suspect that such a thing is far, far in the future, if it ever happens >at >all. > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 19:00:43 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Re: Space Arms Article "Futuristic Space Bomber"... read wayne d.binkley _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 22:29:59 -0700 From: "calcity@as.net" Subject: Re: Habu Greg, This is Dwight in California. Is there a Kevin, also? Greg Meland wrote: > Kevin, > Your CD with the SR-71 flight manual went out in the mail today. You > should have it early next week. > > Greg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Aug 101 10:29:51 EDT From: keller@eos.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Space Arms Article "Futuristic Space Bomber"... Allen Thomson wrote, in reponse to Todd Madson: >> Check this article out. They mention a "futuristic space bomber" >> being contemplated by planners. Could they be referring to a >> variant of the "brilliant buzzard" aircraft or is this some pie in >> the sky fantasy? >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17889-2001Aug1.html >There was sort of a precursor to this story in the LA Times a couple of days >ago that said there is some interest in reviving LockMart's X-33 in this >role: >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-072801bomber.story >I suspect that such a thing is far, far in the future, if it ever happens at >all. After reading both of these articles, the WP article is insubstantive. The LA Times article has more to it, but in response to the hype of "being able to reach any place on earth in 30 minutes" I can only think that we already have delivery vehicles that can reach anyplace on earth in 30 minutes: They're called ICBMs. Now, as John Pike pointed out in the LA Times article, there might be hidden agenda there: The real targets may not be on earth, but rather satellites. In the meantime, as a US taxpayer, I'd say that the Pentagon needs to come up with a better justification for this, even just for research on these sorts of toys. - --Paul Keller ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 08:42:04 -0700 From: "Jon Price (PJ)" Subject: Re: Habu There is also me. PJ - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 22:29 Subject: Re: Habu > Greg, > > This is Dwight in California. Is there a Kevin, also? > > Greg Meland wrote: > > > Kevin, > > Your CD with the SR-71 flight manual went out in the mail today. You > > should have it early next week. > > > > Greg > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 18:58:21 -0400 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: RE: Space Arms Article "Futuristic Space Bomber"... The X-33 was cancelled because of problems with its (carbon fiber?) fuel tank. Before the cancellation of the X-33, it had already been decided that the full-size Venture Star shuttle replacement would use more conventional tanks. If, as I assume, the Venture Star is just the public prototype of a parallel 'black' program (which like the Venture Star presumably would not use the exotic tank used in the X-33), the failure of the X-33 would not prevent LM from continuing work on the black project. Indeed, the cancellation of the X-33 and the implied abandonment of the Venture Star project serves to distract attention to the ongoing parallel military project. All that the X-33 project proved was that it could not be built with the tanks that were specified for it. The engines, while not flight tested, should work. The aerodynamics should work. The heat absorption tiles should work. The X-33 prototype for the 'black' military version of the Venture Star was a nice luxury but its failure does not provide any reason to believe that the full-scale spacecraft cannot be built. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com] On Behalf Of keller@eos.ncsu.edu Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Cc: keller@eos.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Space Arms Article "Futuristic Space Bomber"... Allen Thomson wrote, in reponse to Todd Madson: >> Check this article out. They mention a "futuristic space bomber" >> being contemplated by planners. Could they be referring to a >> variant of the "brilliant buzzard" aircraft or is this some pie in >> the sky fantasy? >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17889-2001Aug1.html >There was sort of a precursor to this story in the LA Times a couple of days >ago that said there is some interest in reviving LockMart's X-33 in this >role: >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-072801bomber.story >I suspect that such a thing is far, far in the future, if it ever happens at >all. After reading both of these articles, the WP article is insubstantive. The LA Times article has more to it, but in response to the hype of "being able to reach any place on earth in 30 minutes" I can only think that we already have delivery vehicles that can reach anyplace on earth in 30 minutes: They're called ICBMs. Now, as John Pike pointed out in the LA Times article, there might be hidden agenda there: The real targets may not be on earth, but rather satellites. In the meantime, as a US taxpayer, I'd say that the Pentagon needs to come up with a better justification for this, even just for research on these sorts of toys. - --Paul Keller ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:24:37 -0400 (EDT) From: "D. Allison" Subject: upcoming SR-71 forums Hello, There are 2 SR-71 forums scheduled in the next few months: Sat. Sep. 15, 2001 Museum of Flight, Seattle WA Sat. Oct. 6, 2001 Virginia Aviation Museum, Richmond VA Both of these are similar to the SR-71 symposiums held at the Pima Air & Space museum on alternate Februarys. They're expecting as many as 10 blackbird crews in Seattle, and about 8 in Richmond. These forums are a great way to hear first-hand accounts of what it was like to fly these remarkable machines. Rich Graham, author of "SR-71 Blackbird Revealed: The Inside Story" (www.habu.org/graham/) and Donn Byrnes, co-author of "Blackbird Rising" (www.sagemesa.com/Pages/bbr.html) will both be at the Richmond event, and will be signing their books as well as participating in the panel discussions. Those who attended last year's forum in Richmond got to hear Lou Schalk talk about the very first blackbird flight, and about the check ride he gave Kelly Johnson in the A-12 trainer. John Storrie told about Sen. Barry Goldwater's checkride in the SR-71 trainer, and how Goldwater did most of the flying! Dewain Vick recounted the marathon flight he and Tom Estes made on April 26, 1971 when they flew the museum's blackbird (#968) 15,000 miles in 10 1/2 hours, and how that led to an awards presentation at the White House with President Nixon. Ed Yeilding shared his recollection of delivering #972 to the Smithsonian and shattering the coast-to-coast speed record in the process. These are only some of the memories shared by the 19 crews who participated in last year's event. The Richmond forum is included with the regular museum admission price. For more info send an email to vamfeedback@smv.mus.va.us or call them at 804-236-3622. For more information on the Seattle event, contact Craig O'Neill at coneill@museumofflight.org, or call 206-768-7150. Sincerely, - D - David Allison webmaster@habu.org S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T tm / \ / \ _/ ___ \_ ________/ \_______/V!V\_______/ \_______ \__/ \___/ \__/ www.habu.org The OnLine Blackbird Museum ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:08:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: U-2 over Iraq On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Art Hanley wrote: > Pat Griffith wrote: > > > > >Looks like a job for the obsolete 40 year old SR. > Basic difference: U-2, good as it is, is not cabbala of performing > defensive maneuvering to change course and put a significant distance > between it and an unguided SAM. SR is. At cruise, the SR can't pull as many g as the average airliner. If everyone will turn to page 5-8 in their Dash-1s, the load factor limits, which are shown in fig. 5-5, are summarized as -0.1 to 1.5 g (straight and level equals 1 g, because this is a_n, not -a_z, just to keep things straight). A half-g turn isn't exactly winding it up. While it will put the airplane somewhere it wouldn't be if it hadn't turned, it won't put it very far away in the sort of times that are involved. Remember that looking at a SAM can be deceptive, with the tiny windows and helmet visors introducing distortion. It would be unfortunate to turn into the SAM's path, for example. I like the idea of everyone here having a Dash-1 that's a copy identical to mine (I checked the cover page). Now all I have to do is give a page number and you each can crank through those three-graph interpolations that I used to have to do. As long as we start from the same assumptions, we'll all get the same answer. Er, the download does include the half-inch-plus of hand-plotted tables in the Appendices, doesn't it? Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 15:20:36 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: U-2 over Iraq Mary.... A question : I sent a email to the Dryden/NASA PAO, but never got an answer... Now that NASA is getting a B-52H, what are the plans for 008 once the H model goes on-line. I know the H is supposed to go to Tinker in the near future.. I know you can,t speak for NASA, but could you atleast kick the PAO folks to read their email... :-) John Szalay ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:22:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: U-2 over Iraq On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, John Szalay wrote: > A question : I sent a email to the Dryden/NASA PAO, but never got > an answer... > Now that NASA is getting a B-52H, what are the plans for 008 > once the H model goes on-line. I know the H is supposed to go > to Tinker in the near future.. I think we're keeping it. I know we'll be operating both until the H gets a structural upgrade, because it can only carry 2500 lb at first but some of the things to be launched weigh about twice that. The final structural upgrade will take it to 7500 lb (both numbers may be off by an order of magnitude, because I read this in the local rag last week and I don't have a great memory for numbers--I might have confused the initial weight with the number of hours that 008 has, which is not quite 2400). Anyway, the local rag said that the B would eventually be put on display somewhere, implication here. A former Chief Engineer, Milt Thompson, tried to stop Dryden from giving away all its interesting aircraft to museums in the east, saying that we were giving away our history. The policy of not doing this any more seems to be working, with two lifting bodies, two F-8s, a TF-104G, an X-29, and the LLRV still here on display, not to mention the X-15 mockup that the Sheet Metal Shop made in idle time and lunch hours. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the NB-52B stay here, on display. > I know you can,t speak for NASA, but could you atleast kick > the PAO folks to read their email... :-) Nope. I've asked them to support a workshop I'm putting on in January (Handling Qualities and Flight Safety), so I'm not going to say a word to them that they might not want to hear. Someone has to come up with a task order for designing and making badges and programs, as well as notifying the trade magazines, and right now it's them. I'm unwilling to disturb the equilibrium at this point. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 18:48:57 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: NB-52B // B-52H At 04:22 PM 8/7/01 -0400, you wrote: > >I think we're keeping it. I know we'll be operating both until the H >gets a structural upgrade, >Anyway, the local rag said that the B would eventually be put on display >somewhere, implication here. A former Chief Engineer, Milt Thompson, >tried to stop Dryden from giving away all its interesting aircraft to >museums in the east, saying that we were giving away our history. Thats great to hear, even if the information came from the local fish wrapper. There is a lot of history in that bird. I looked for pictures of the "mission marks" on the side for a long time and finally found a good selection, not all marks showing, but I look to one day get out that way , and take a series of my own pictures. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the >NB-52B stay here, on display. I was wondering about that, I'm going to check and see how many B-52's are on display, Since IIRC: by the Start treatys only 20 "former heavy bombers" are allowed to be kept on static display. > >> I know you can,t speak for NASA, but could you atleast kick >> the PAO folks to read their email... :-) > >Nope. I've asked them to support a workshop I'm putting on in January >(Handling Qualities and Flight Safety), so I'm not going to say a word >to them that they might not want to hear. Someone has to come up with a >task order for designing and making badges and programs, as well as >notifying the trade magazines, and right now it's them. I'm unwilling >to disturb the equilibrium at this point. > >Regards, >Mary > Makes sense to me, Thank you. That news article you had answered 99.9% of my question. I'll continue to wait for the "offical word" from the paper pushers. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 19:00:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: SR-71 Flight Manual You know, it's just occurred to me, in looking through all my back messages, trying to weed out a few hundred, that this posted version appeared very soon after someone on the mailing list announced that Jim Goodall was putting out a new version of the SR-71 Dash-1, with forty extra pages. Does the posted version have those forty pages? If so, has this just wiped out the market for Goodall's second edition? What about the e-bay market? Should I put the two volumes of The Researcher's Guide to the SR-71 up on the Web in .pdf format? I've requested an extra copy for a certain mailing list moderator, but I could probably cut his Vol. 2 apart at the spine (Vol 2 is perfect-bound, I think, but little Vol 1 is saddle-stapled) to make the scanning easy and then send him the loose sheets. Would he forgive me if I did this? The Researcher's Guide copyright status isn't quite as clear as the Dash-1 copyright status. It was produced by Lockheed for NASA. I think this makes it public domain, as a government document. I don't believe there is a copyright claim in it, which would indicate that Lockheed thinks the same way I do, but I have to admit I haven't looked very closely. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 19:21:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: NB-52B // B-52H On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, John Szalay wrote: > >I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the > >NB-52B stay here, on display. > > I was wondering about that, I'm going to check and see how many > B-52's are on display, Since IIRC: by the Start treatys only 20 > "former heavy bombers" are allowed to be kept on static display. Ah, but the NB-52B isn't a "former heavy bomber". It's a former research aircraft that was totally unable to drop bombs, making it a former former heavy bomber, and it was specifically exempted, by tail number, from the limits in the arms reduction treaty. That's why it's silver, to show that it's not the real thing. I'm told that the H will be silver too, after the mods are made, partly to indicate its status and partly to keep it slightly cooler on the ramp on hot summer days. It too will be exempted by tail or N number from the limits in the treaty, through an amendment. I believe that 003, the NB-52A on display at the Pima Air Museum, is also silver and also specifically exempted. Mind you, none of this is confirmed or anything, but the guy who told me should know, considering his lofty position in Dryden management. At the ceremony accepting the B-52H, Gary Krier, Deputy Director of the Center, remarked that this was truly a case of beating swords into plowshares. More confirmation of the change in status of the airplane, from weapon system to research tool. Incidentally, if you want to see a recent photo of me, go to the gallery at www.dfrc.nasa.gov and look at the latest group photo of Dryden personnel. I'm the brunette woman in the bright red shirt, about a quarter or a third of the way from the left end of the front row. The silver-haired gentleman standing next to me is Kevin Petersen, our Center Director, who stood by me on the theory that he'd be able to find himself easily that way. That red shirt really shows up well, so it was a good tactic for both of us. It's the first group photo I could truly identify myself in since the one that had me standing next to my husband in his wheelchair, which must have been taken back in the '70s. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 19:53:26 +0100 From: Art Hanley Subject: Re: U-2 over Iraq Mary Shafer wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Art Hanley wrote: > > > Pat Griffith wrote: > > > > > > >Looks like a job for the obsolete 40 year old SR. > > > Basic difference: U-2, good as it is, is not cabbala of performing > > defensive maneuvering to change course and put a significant distance > > between it and an unguided SAM. SR is. > > At cruise, the SR can't pull as many g as the average airliner. If > everyone will turn to page 5-8 in their Dash-1s, the load factor limits, > which are shown in fig. 5-5, are summarized as -0.1 to 1.5 g (straight > and level equals 1 g, because this is a_n, not -a_z, just to keep things > straight). A half-g turn isn't exactly winding it up. While it will > put the airplane somewhere it wouldn't be if it hadn't turned, it won't > put it very far away in the sort of times that are involved. > > Remember that looking at a SAM can be deceptive, with the tiny windows > and helmet visors introducing distortion. It would be unfortunate to > turn into the SAM's path, for example. It's not that the SR dodges through great agility like you see fighters do on macho TV shows. It's that the combination of its speed, plus its altitude, plus the time it takes a missile to get to its altitude, plus the change in intercept vector that results from the course changes that an SR is capable of means it has an avoidance capability that the U-2 lacks. There is also the situation that at the altitudes the SR flies, SAMs don't have much turning capability or SEP. Insufficient to counter an SR's course change if begun early enough, but more than enough to counter a U-2's. Add in the DEF, and this is why a number of U-2s have been shot down, but an SR hasn't no matter what's been thrown against it. It was, of course, possible to build a system capable of bringing down SRs by the late '80s, but given that there were so few of them and they were unarmed, it just wasn't worth the enormous expense involved to the few nations that had the capability. Even if they had built the system, it would have been a difficult shot. Art ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V10 #30 ********************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest 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 skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest 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