| From: | Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Outage...Results |
| Date: | Tue, 4 Mar 1997 13:20:31 -0800 |
>>>>>[Well, here are the projects you were curious about. I was a bit
puzzled why you would know the names of the projects, but you pay me
enough not to ask questions.
I got it yesterday while all the poor engineering students were busy
accessing the system and giving me additional cover. As far as I was able
to tell, the whole thing went completely undetected.
The files are the cad drawings that the group was working on, relevant
e-mail sent between the various group members, and documentation they had
been writing up and my analysis as to what they are actually doing, and
my commentary on their work:
+++++include: Spooky.cad
+++++include: Spooky.correspondence
+++++include: Spooky.doc
+++++include: Texaco.cad
+++++include: Texaco.correspondence
+++++include: Texaco.doc
+++++include: Spooky.analysis
+++++include: Texaco.analysis
The short form of the analysis is that someone wants to be able to convert
a cargo plane into either a tanker or a close support aircraft. All the
reasoning behind my opinions is in the analysis documents.
Texaco is a design for a removable fuel tank, pumps, and refueling
armature. From what they are saying in most recent e-mail, it seems to be
almost done.
Spooky took more time for me to figure out. That group seems to think it
is a frame for some sort of firefighting equipment, but I have seen enough
military hardware to know hardpoints for gun systems when I see them.
Forced to venture a guess from materials, configuration, etc. I would say
that they are designed to hold a pair of 30mm cannon, a pair of 7.62mm guns,
and the gear needed to target and load them. They seem to be mostly done,
but are having difficulty getting the custom parts made in the machine
shop to their specifications (they really should have been forced to take
some sort of machining class or have some software to tell them they are
being unreasonable for no real benefit to the design).
Now the interesting part: comparing the two supposedly unrelated projects
reveals that they have the same volumetric and power/control interface
constraints. So, they are obviously designed to go into the same kind of
aircraft. But which? Two things tipped me off. One, my first comparison
of the power/control interface and loadmastering configuration suggested
the Lockheed Poltergeist, but it wasn't a 100% match. Then it hit me.
Pre-millennium, there was an aircraft called the AC-130 Specter, hence the
project name which was cause for a bit of discussion among the group, but
makes sense to me, now. It was a close support aircraft designed off of
the cargo-hauler C-130 Hercules (also by Lockheed). It had several
variations of armament including one common variant with two 7.62mm
mini-guns, two 20mm and two 40mm cannons and one 105mm cannon all of which
aimed out the side so it could circle over a potential target and shell it
from the air. I included a full report from Jane's on the Specter and
it's predecessor the AC-47 Spooky in the full analysis. Now the size
envelope didn't exactly fit the original Hercules, not that I expected it
to since a lot of C-130A's are over a century old now. However, shortly
before the turn of the millennium, there was a major upgrade and overhaul
to the design. That was a match to the size/weight specs and the last
incarnations of the Hercules are a match on the loadmastering.
Therefore, it seems that someone has some of the latest model of Hercules,
(not that they wouldn't be old enough to be their pilot's parents) and is
planning on using them as either tankers or close support aircraft, and
wants to be able to switch. It will mean putting some removable holes in
the bird, but nothing too impractical. I compiled a list of companies
known to still use Hercules (mostly small air-shipping companies), but if
the unit is a mercenary group, I can't help you since they don't usually
make their procurement "available." I expect prompt
payment.]<<<<<
-- Vernier <12:54:23/03-04-58 PST>
