![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mary,
I am about to triple dose myself with "C" and hit the rack. Yes, I know fast Eddie and I was in on the 31 It was my distinct pleasure to chat with you on the phone today. I hope to catch up with you in Lancaster. Jake "Mary Shafer" wrote in message ... On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 07:11:27 -0600, "Jake Donovan" wrote: I do have time in the 29, my reference to one hanging in the Air and Space Museum was just that - looking up at it brought back memories. (Poorly worded) Not knowing that the model even existed, I was astounded to walk into that gallery and see the model when I was at NASM back when I knew, without a doubt, that both aircraft were at Dryden. Realistic, isn't it? I think it was an antenna model, but that doesn't seem likely. That's more something you do for production aircraft than for research aircraft. But if not, what was it for? For some authentic nostalgia, you should come to Dryden. We've got one of the X-29s on a pad out in front of Dryden now; we've stopped giving every plane we ever flew to someone else's museum. Of course, it's kind of a motley collection, comprising two lifting bodies, one LLRV, an X-29, an F-104G, an SR-71A, the X-1E, and two F-8s (one the Digital Fly-By-Wire and the other the SuperCritical Wing). We've also got the X-15 mock-up, which looks pretty good for being a complete fake. As for the HARV, DARPA most definitely had input. I had quite a bit of flight data from the HARV come across my desk. No where did I say I flew the test program. You're right--DARPA was definitely in the loop on HARV and I misread what you wrote. Sorry. I knew we'd had a bunch of guest pilots at one time and assumed you were one of them. It's too bad you didn't get to fly it, as it was, I'm told, a lot of fun to fly. We sure did get a lot out of that program, too, as you know from the masses of data you saw. Ken did the S&C estimates on it, now that I think about it. I spent some time advocating an HMD (not an HMS, because we weren't supposed to do weapons system stuff, of course) but never got anywhere. The airframe went back to the Navy about a year ago and I don't know what they've done with it. Weren't you involved with X-31? Fast Eddie thought you were, but we're not sure. Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New aviation history interview: Fokker/Curtiss/Messerschmitt ace Mauno Fräntilä | Jukka O. Kauppinen | Military Aviation | 0 | September 22nd 04 11:18 PM |
MILITARY HISTORY BOOKS | Robert Hansen | Military Aviation | 0 | February 19th 04 02:10 AM |
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements | me | Military Aviation | 146 | January 15th 04 10:13 PM |
F-14 on the History Channel's "Modern Marvels" | Brian J. McCann | Military Aviation | 15 | October 12th 03 02:12 PM |
FS: Aviation History Books | Neil Cournoyer | Military Aviation | 0 | August 26th 03 08:32 PM |