From owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Thu Aug 8 12:03:58 2002 Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 08:22:10 -0500 From: skunk-works-digest Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V11 #4 skunk-works-digest Thursday, August 8 2002 Volume 11 : Number 004 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: NASA Select. Re: NASA Select. Re: NASA Select. Re: NASA Select. Re: NASA Select. To Peter Merlin Overhead pix of Dryden RE: Overhead pix of Dryden RE: Overhead pix of Dryden B-X bomber Probably nothing, but as it's quiet Re: Probably nothing, but as it's quiet Re: Probably nothing, but as it's quiet Re: Probably nothing, but as it's quiet Pumpkin seed Re: Probably nothing, but as it's quiet Re: Probably nothing, but as it's quiet Re: Probably nothing, but as it's quiet Channel 4 Comet Programme Toxic suits *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:37:56 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: Re: NASA Select. I'm in the SE (South Carolina)... I have alot of property and those big dishes are all over the place... people jsut beg for someone to come take them away... FREE! And many people give away the receivers too, since they're enamoured of the DBS stuff .... I guess I'll just have to do this, since I won't pay $39.99 per month for 150 channels of which I'll use maybe 12... and there's no cable out where I am.... Greg W ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:39:35 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: NASA Select. At 02:55 PM 5/14/02 -0400, you wrote: > I'd rather have a dedicated C-band dish and receiver so I don't have >to fight with the kids (or wife) for the satellite controller.... > Is NASA Select broadcast "in the open" on the C-band sats? > Greg W > I leave the C-band Dish aimed at NASA Select all the time.. [don't think I could move now, probably frozen in place] and yes, its in the open.. NASA TV is broadcast on GE-2 Satellite, transponder 9C, C-Band, located at 85 degrees West longitude. The frequency is 3880.0 MHz. Polarization is vertical and audio is monaural at 6.8 MHz. FWIW: transponder 5 is the NASA contract channel during shuttle ops. and while audio is always scrambled, (and some times the video too.) there are times that the video feed switches between all the remote cameras, all 100+ so you get to see camera angles of the pad that only NASA sees. For info and schedules on NASA Select... http://www.nasa.gov/ntv/ \\ ~ ~ // ( @ @ ) -----------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: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:45:36 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: NASA Select. At 03:37 PM 5/14/02 -0400, you wrote: >I'm in the SE (South Carolina)... I have alot of property and those big >dishes are all over the place... people jsut beg for someone to come take >them away... FREE! Thats what I did, got a 12ft dish and receiver guy just wanted it out of his yard.. only thing I had to buy was some new cable to run to the back of the property. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:55:43 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: Re: NASA Select. Cool! Thanks.... Greg W NASA TV is broadcast on GE-2 Satellite, transponder 9C, C-Band, located at 85 degrees West longitude. The frequency is 3880.0 MHz. Polarization is vertical and audio is monaural at 6.8 MHz. FWIW: transponder 5 is the NASA contract channel during shuttle ops. and while audio is always scrambled, (and some times the video too.) there are times that the video feed switches between all the remote cameras, all 100+ so you get to see camera angles of the pad that only NASA sees. For info and schedules on NASA Select... http://www.nasa.gov/ntv/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 13:52:55 -0700 From: Tony Dinkel Subject: Re: NASA Select. >I'm in the SE (South Carolina)... I have alot of property and those big >dishes are all over the place... people jsut beg for someone to come take >them away... FREE! Then it will be very high in your sky, probably a little east of due south. So local obstructions will be less of a problem. Don't know what the footprint looks like but it should be hot. > >And many people give away the receivers too, since they're enamoured of the >DBS stuff .... At least yours wont fade in a rain storm. Actually you are lucky folks are giving them away...in some areas of the midwest I have traveled in, I see folks using their c band dishes as the mounts for their direct tv dishes. Just drilled right into the fiberglass. Probably pretty solid too since every thing has rusted and jammed! td ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 22:31:20 -0700 From: Art Hanley Subject: To Peter Merlin Peter, I can't find what I did with your e-mail address. Please e-mail me at csgn@attbi.com. I think I have those pages you wanted that we talked about at Blackbird Airpark. Art Hanley ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 11:46:26 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Overhead pix of Dryden FWIW: http://cryptome.org/eafb-eyeball.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 10:33:50 -0700 From: Erik Hoel Subject: RE: Overhead pix of Dryden Pretty cool. Thanks Allen. There appear to be three blackbirds in the high resolution image. Am I correct here? Erik > -----Original Message----- > From: Allen Thomson [mailto:thomsona@flash.net] > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:46 AM > To: Skunk Works List > Subject: Overhead pix of Dryden > > > FWIW: > > http://cryptome.org/eafb-eyeball.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 16:18:52 -0400 (EDT) From: "D. Allison" Subject: RE: Overhead pix of Dryden Erik: You are correct, sir. Looking L-R, they are 980 (NASA 844), the B-model, and 971 is sitting all by its lonesome at the end of the ramp. As of a month ago, 971 had been moved back next to the B. - 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 On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Erik Hoel wrote: > Pretty cool. Thanks Allen. > > There appear to be three blackbirds in the high resolution image. Am I > correct here? > > Erik > > > > http://cryptome.org/eafb-eyeball.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 12:56:56 -0700 From: Erik Hoel Subject: B-X bomber Did anyone else notice the article in the May 6th edition of AW&ST (p. 28) that discussed R&D projects that could help give rise to what is being termed the B-X bomber? Apparently, DARPA selected Lockheed and Northrop to "refine their work on a quiet supersonic airplane". They mention this in the context of the B-X bomber which they expect to enter service in the 2037 (!) timeframe. The article states that the two integration contracts are focused on designing an aircraft with the following specs (Concorde for comparison purposes): Concorde gross takeoff weight 100,000 lbs. 400,000 lbs. cruise speed Mach 2.0 - 2.4 Mach 2.0 unrefueled range 6,000 n. m. 3,550 n. m. payload fraction 20% 7% sonic boom force < 0.3 lbs./sq.ft. Erik ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:37:19 +0100 From: Adrian Mann Subject: Probably nothing, but as it's quiet Hi all, Just had this in, which you may (or may not) find interesting... >Hey, ran across your site tonight . Have a little info. >When I was about 7 or so (1986-1987ish) my dad had a friend who worked at >mcdonald Douglas, and he got me a manila folder full of pictures of various >aircraft.. in those pictures were 3 or 4 artist concept drawings that match the >Aurora perfectly. Unfortunatly I no longer have these pictures as I was young >and stupid when I received them but when I first saw people debating the >existence of the aurora project on TLC one day, I about freaked out, I >recognized the plane immediately.. it definitely exists, or was at least >attempted at some point. (my site is at www.aemann.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk by the way - go to 'aircraft' then 'black projects' for the interesting stuff!) Well, not much, but I was interested to hear McDonnel Douglas mentioned. I know there were a *lot* of concepts going around at that time too. So it probably doesn't mean anything. Also had this, from a guy in Vancouver, BC, Canada, who saw and photo'd an interesting contrail. (Photo Attached). He'd sent me the photo, so I asked for more info and pointed out I'd seen similar trails from commercial aircraft: >I'm very familiar with aircraft with winglets and understand their purpose >- I live under the westerly heading landing approach to Vancouver >airport. The aircraft are low enough to be interesting but high enough to >not be a bother. Also my office is adjacent to the airport. This contrail >was made by a very fast and very high-flying aircraft. Usually I can make >out the aircraft even if at cruise altitude, 30k+, but not this time. It >went horizon to horizon in about 30 seconds. Now I haven't tried to >calculate the speed but it was so impressive that it drew my >attention. The "donuts" in the contrail made me jump into my briefcase for >my camera. I really have no evidence of anything other than an unusual >vapour trail. If you think the photo might be of interest to others please >feel free to show it. And this - same guy: >Further to my previous reply ahead of this: >Standing outside with my watch, 30 seconds seems perhaps too short a time >but the craft passed horizon to horizon certainly in no more than 60 >seconds. Northwest to southeast at great altitude. No sound, no visible >craft. The sky has daily contrails but as I said before it was the speed >that drew my attention to this particular set. >A few weeks back some other contrails were also very interesting. There >were multiple trails around and around each other as if there had been a >very high altitude dogfight between many aircraft. A real "hairball" I >think is the term. Very reminiscent of the photos of the "Battle of >Britain" dogfights. In Canada our airforce doesn't have the budget to do >much of this and any time NORAD has an exercise on it is usually announced. >Not this time. Interesting. Any thoughts, anyone? Adrian Mann [demime 0.98e removed an attachment of type image/jpeg which had a name of contrail1.JPG"; x-mac-creator="4A565752"; x-mac-type="4A504547] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:49:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Kathy Rages Subject: Re: Probably nothing, but as it's quiet > >Standing outside with my watch, 30 seconds seems perhaps too short a time > >but the craft passed horizon to horizon certainly in no more than 60 > >seconds. Northwest to southeast at great altitude. "Time flies when you're having fun", and I think that must be the case here. I did the numbers, assuming "horizon" means 10 degrees above the horizon and the craft passed directly overhead so "horizon to horizon" means 180 degrees in azimuth. For an altitude of 10 km (~33,000 ft), the "horizon" is 56 km away, and "horizon to horizon" is 112 km / 60 s = almost 2 km/s, and it gets worse rapidly as the altitude increases. If the "horizon" was really at a higher elevation angle or the craft actually passed to one side rather than going right overhead the numbers will drop, but they don't drop a lot until it's well to one side or fades out at considerably higher elevation, so I think it really must have taken longer. - -- Kathy Rages ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:48:35 +0100 From: Adrian Mann Subject: Re: Probably nothing, but as it's quiet Blast - attachment removed! Probably a good thing... If you'd like to see the image, you'll find it at: http://www.aemann.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/aircraft/black/black.html Then go Aurora -> The "Donuts on a rope" contrail -> contrail 2 Cheers Adrian ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:17:26 +0100 From: Adrian Mann Subject: Re: Probably nothing, but as it's quiet Thanks Kathy, If in doubt, do the maths! I make that out at 4,200mph. I remember seeing something where people were asked to indicate how long they thought a minute was, and all were short, sometimes by 30 seconds. Very difficult to estimate time accurately without a watch I guess. How about the reverse? Assume a conventional jet at 33,000ft, at say, 500mph? How long horizon-to-horizon for that? Sorry for getting you to 'do the numbers' - I've had a long day and my calculations say it takes 428 years... Adrian Mann On 12/6/02 8:49 pm, "Kathy Rages" wrote: >>> Standing outside with my watch, 30 seconds seems perhaps too short a time >>> but the craft passed horizon to horizon certainly in no more than 60 >>> seconds. Northwest to southeast at great altitude. > > "Time flies when you're having fun", and I think that must be the case here. > I did the numbers, assuming "horizon" means 10 degrees above the horizon and > the craft passed directly overhead so "horizon to horizon" means 180 degrees > in azimuth. For an altitude of 10 km (~33,000 ft), the "horizon" is 56 km > away, and "horizon to horizon" is 112 km / 60 s = almost 2 km/s, and it gets > worse rapidly as the altitude increases. > > If the "horizon" was really at a higher elevation angle or the craft actually > passed to one side rather than going right overhead the numbers will drop, but > they don't drop a lot until it's well to one side or fades out at considerably > higher elevation, so I think it really must have taken longer. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:24:25 +0100 From: Adrian Mann Subject: Pumpkin seed On an unrelated topic, I've finally got round to starting a 3D model of the notorious "Pumpkin Seed" - flattened football, covered in tiles, scorched etc. etc - you know the one. I was wondering if anyone has, or knows the whereabouts of, any info relating to it. Anything would be gratefully received. I'd really like to finaly "capture" this thing. A photo of it would be great! Adrian Mann ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:36:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Kathy Rages Subject: Re: Probably nothing, but as it's quiet > How about the reverse? Assume a conventional jet at 33,000ft, at say, > 500mph? How long horizon-to-horizon for that? Sorry for getting you to 'do > the numbers' - I've had a long day and my calculations say it takes 428 > years... Well, "horizon-to-horizon" is still 112 km = 70 miles, so at 500 mph it will take 0.14 hours = 8.4 minutes. - -- Kathy Rages ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:01:49 -0700 From: "Mr. K. Rudolph" Subject: Re: Probably nothing, but as it's quiet I suppose that could only be topped by myself and several friends watching the Aurora test flights from Mount Wilson one thursday night in late '90/'91... All the while the USGS tracing its precise flight path through sensors of a type I later installed, calibrated and serviced. Small world!!! Kurt - --- Ross Technologies Signals Intelligence Division Rosetta Proving Grounds (775) 629-0831 ext. 406 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:37:54 +0100 From: Adrian Mann Subject: Re: Probably nothing, but as it's quiet I'm afraid you can't just say "watching Aurora test flights" and leave it at that! I'd really appreciate more detail on this! You can reach me at aemann@blueyonder.co.uk or aemann@mac.com if need be. Regards Adrian Mann On 13/6/02 3:01 am, "Mr. K. Rudolph" wrote: > I suppose that could only be topped by myself and several friends watching > the Aurora test flights from Mount Wilson one thursday night in late > '90/'91... All the while the USGS tracing its precise flight path through > sensors of a type I later installed, calibrated and serviced. Small > world!!! > > Kurt > > --- > Ross Technologies Signals Intelligence Division > Rosetta Proving Grounds > (775) 629-0831 ext. 406 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 07:35:49 +0000 From: Robin Hill Subject: Channel 4 Comet Programme - ---------------------- Forwarded by Robin Hill/Technical/MAA/BAe on 24/06/2002 07: 29 --------------------------- Alan Hill 21/06/2002 14:16 abcd To: Robin Hill/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Ian D Jones/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA cc: Paper Mail: Subject: Channel 4 Comet Programme - ---------------------- Forwarded by Alan Hill/Technical/MAA/BAe on 21/06/2002 14:09 - --------------------------- Katharine Wykes 21/06/2002 14:05 To: Ian Forestier-Walker/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Neil Hamilton/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Dave Hogg/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Fiona Sturrock/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Calvin Dawson/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, David W Harrison/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Mike Hubble/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Edmond Ridge/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Russell Porter/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Dee Gahir/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Mark W Potter/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Alan Hill/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Peter Walmsley/Personnel/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA cc: Paper Mail: Subject: Channel 4 Comet Programme - ---------------------- Forwarded by Katharine Wykes/Technical/MAA/BAe on 21/06/2002 14:01 --------------------------- Gerald Wilson 21/06/2002 13:39 abcd To: Chris Gilroy/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Dave Clough/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Martin R Wilkinson/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, David Allison/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Allan Shimmin/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Peter Wain/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Frank Neat/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Charlie Bond/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Maureen McCue/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Richard A Orme/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Paul Grady/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Andrew Blake/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Steve Sharples/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Steve Norris/Projects/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, John-1 Turner/Flight Operations/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Trevor Piercy/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Anthony Clarke/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Katharine Wykes/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Clive Heavens/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Ali Malek/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Bill Crooks/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Graham Flewker-Barker/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, John S Hunt/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Angela Aspinwall/Production/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Wyn Griffiths/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Fiona Poulton/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Roger Moss/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Dave Sudds/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA cc: Paper Mail: Subject: Channel 4 Comet Programme - ---------------------- Forwarded by Gerald Wilson/Technical/MAA/BAe on 21/06/2002 13:35 --------------------------- Andrew Stewart 21/06/2002 13:04 abcd To: Gerald Wilson/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA cc: Paper Mail: Subject: Channel 4 Comet programme - ---------------------- Forwarded by Andrew Stewart/Technical/MAA/BAe on 21/06/2002 13:00 --------------------------- From: Ged Terry on 21/06/2002 12:21 To: James Cam/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, David Coldbeck/PWK/RA/BAe, Andy D Dickson/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Kevin Fisher/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, jcgibson@argonet.co.uk @ internet, Michael Greenhalgh/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, david.lidgley@ntlworld.com@INTERNET@wtgw @ BAEEHUB, John McHarrie/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, drukin@btinternet.com@internet, Richard1 Sadler/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Phillip Steer/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, PStev84095@aol.com @ internet, Andrew Stewart/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Bob Tierney/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Andy Wishart/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA cc: Paper Mail: Subject: Channel 4 Comet programme - ---------------------- Forwarded by Ged Terry/Technical/MAA/BAe on 21/06/2002 12:16 - --------------------------- Mike J Higginbottom 21/06/2002 10:58 abcd To: Ged Terry/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA cc: Paper Mail: Subject: Channel 4 Comet programme This may be of interest - ---------------------- Forwarded by Mike J Higginbottom/Customer Support/MAA/BAe on 21/06/2002 10:54 --------------------------- John Maydew 21/06/2002 10:43 abcd To: Ian Hammel/WFD/RA/BAe@BAeMAA, Peter Petherbridge/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Mike J Higginbottom/Customer Support/MAA/BAe cc: Paper Mail: Subject: Channel 4 Comet programme - ---------------------- Forwarded by John Maydew/WFD/RA/BAe on 21/06/2002 10:41 - --------------------------- Ivor Williams 21/06/2002 10:34 abcd To: Alan Green/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Martin Stamper/WFD/RA/BAe@BAeMAA, Bruce Taylor/WFD/RA/BAe@BAeMAA, Paul Holtappel/WFD/RA/BAe@BAeMAA, Nick Livings/WFD/RA/BAe@BAeMAA, James Bennett/WFD/RA/BAe@BAeMAA, Mike Bayley/WFD/RA/BAe@BAeMAA, James Beale/WFD/RA/BAe@BAeMAA, Ken Haynes/WFD/RA/BAe@BAeMAA, Dick Keall/WFD/RA/BAe@BAeMAA, Dave Langdale/WFD/RA/BAe@BAeMAA, Brian Statham/WFD/RA/BAe@BAeMAA, John Maydew/WFD/RA/BAe@BAeMAA, Allan Shimmin/Technical/MAA/BAe@BAeMAA, Michael Chadwick/WFD/RA/BAe@BAeMAA, IandI@nabclose.freeserve.co.uk cc: Paper Mail: Subject: Channel 4 Comet programme - ---------------------- Forwarded by Ivor Williams/WFD/RA/BAe on 21/06/2002 10:30 - --------------------------- roger@demercado.demon.co.uk on 20/06/2002 21:59:01 To: tim.bartup@baesystems.com@INTERNET@wtgw, ivor.williams@baesystems. com@INTERNET@wtgw, billjames@onetel.net.uk@INTERNET@wtgw, alan.vincent@virgin. net@INTERNET@wtgw, lomasbarry@hotmail.com@INTERNET@wtgw, tonynewton1@compuserve. com@INTERNET@wtgw, GeorgeAEllis@compuserve.com@INTERNET@wtgw, robbyrobinson10@hotmail.com@INTERNET@wtgw cc: Paper Mail: Subject: Channel 4 Comet programme *** WARNING *** This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an external partner or the Global Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message. Hello chaps You may have seen, or heard about, a "Secret History" programme on Channel 4 on 13th June. It was entitled "Comet Cover-up" and included interviews with John Cunningham, Ralph Hare, Mike Ramsden and John Wilson - all of whom had been invited to take part in a programme "to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Comet's entry to passenger service". The final production purported to show a sinister plot on the part of DH to get the Comet into service regardless of adequate testing. Mike Ramsden has written the following letter for as wide as possible circulation to put the record straight. It was sent to me via the DH Tech School Old Boys Association email list. I don't know how or where Mike Ramsden intends to get it published but I thought you all might be interested. Tony Fairbrother was told that the programme's producer was changed late on in production, which may account for the change in slant. I can't imagine those interviewed were aware how their comments were going to be used! Dick Bishop can't have been too pleased with what was virtually a character assassination of his father. Did you see Peter Sedgwick's letter in Flight this week? He was responding to someones claim that the 1-11 was Britain's best-selling jet and should have featured on the recent set of stamps. Peter points out that the best selling jet was the 125, also that the 146 outsold the 1-11. Very fair from a BAC graduate apprentice! - ----------------------------------------------------------- 18 June 2002 Comet Cover-Up As one of the ex de Havilland people who appeared in the Secret History TV programme about the Comet 1 disasters (Channel 4, 13 June) I would like the truth to be known. Disasters they were, as we shall not forget. But to accuse de Havilland and its chief designer R. E. Bishop of avoiding fatigue tests is outrageous. "Secret letters" are cited in support of this allegation. Secret letters from whom, dated when, saying what exactly? Can we have copies? Fleeting glimpses of old files containing the word "fatigue", accompanied by doom-laden music and voice commentary, do not prove anything. In 1952-53 we built two full-scale test sections of the Comet 1 fuselage including windows, and tested them in the Hatfield water tank. They were intended to prove singIe-overload bursting strength arid repeated-load fatigue strength. Professional structural engineering opinion at the time was that fatigue strength could be demonstrated by "static" strength. Thus we pumped up one test section to twice normal working pressure (P). If it had failed at less than 2P, which it didn't, we would have been back to the drawing board. We believed we had demonstrated the Comet 1's fatigue and static strength. Chief designer R.E. Bishop went further. He said "show me 2.5P". We did that too. He then ordered a fatigue test: 16,000 repeat loadings of 1.25P. That test, a world first, went beyond the call of airworthiness requirements. Bishop went even further and ordered the repeat-loading of individual windows to 2P. As an apprentice in the structural test department in 1949 I remember these tests personally. My job was to polish the windows each morning with "Ajax" to see whether any loss of thickness from window-cleaning in airline service would affect the transparency's strength. Far-fetched, but a measure of Bishop's conscientiousness. I explained all this in filmed interviews with the Channel 4 programme makers, Steve Ruggi and David Coward. Too technical and boring, perhaps. They edited it all out. But to state as fact that de Havilland refused to fatigue-rest the Comet 1 is just wilful untruthfulness. It makes you wonder how much you can believe of any Channel 4 documentary. Yes, the Comet 1 windows failed catastrophically from fatigue. No excuses. But there were reasons - reasons which were established and published by the inquiry and which advanced the science of structural design, inspection and testing. The Comet 1 windows failed because the production window-cutout reinforcing plates were riveted - and very poorly riveted - instead of being glued (Reduxed) as in the test section. And the test section may have been toughened by the 2.5P load applied to it before the 16,000 x I 25P fatigue cycles. These were mistakes. But they were honest mistakes, made in the course of pioneering unknown structural territory, and they were exposed by a public inquiry. Bishop accepted responsibility, even though a lesser man would have blamed the production or structures departments, or both. - Engineers who try to do things which have never been done before will get some things wrong, but besmirching their reputations by representing their honest mistakes as conspiracies is just cheap. The TV programme makers and editors concerned got much else wrong, too much to elaborate here and some of it ridiculous - for example, that the Comet 1's skin thickness was determined by the choice of de Havilland Ghost rather than Rolls-Royce Avon engines. Incidentally, Principal films told me and the de Havilland colleagues who appeared in the programme (and lent personal film, photos and documents) that it was to celebrate the 50th anniversary of jet transport. Was that an honest mistake? J.M. (Mike) Ramsden - ------------------------------------------------------ - -- Roger de Mercado ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 08:19:58 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Toxic suits Hmm... I wonder if this will have any effect on Area 51 toxic exposure suits. WASHINGTON IN BRIEF The Washington Post Thursday, August 8, 2002; Page A04 U.S. Alters Policy on Cold War-Era Claims http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57442-2002Aug7.html Under pressure from Congress, the Bush administration has decided to reverse policy and quit fighting illness compensation claims from Cold War-era nuclear weapons workers exposed to toxic chemicals. Final Energy Department regulations, expected to be issued today, instruct contractors not to contest the findings of medical panels that workers' illnesses are related to job exposure. The new rules reverse a decades-old policy and differ from a draft proposal circulated earlier this year that would have allowed contractors to contest such findings and even said that the Energy Department would help pay for appeals. The regulations could affect more than 12,000 workers currently seeking compensation. ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V11 #4 ******************************** 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