WORK AND DELAY ON 64009 - TRIP REPORT - NOVEMBER 30 TO DECEMBER 4, 1965.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: NGA Records (Formerly NIMA)
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78B04770A002900040004-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 27, 2005
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: December 6, 1965
• Content Type: MFR

lk ROUTING SLIP
TO
NAME
I
TIALS
DATE
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Declass
Review b
NGA.
RETURN TO SENDER
ACTION
CONCURRENCE
INFORMATION
COMMENT
FILE
SIGNATURE
REMARKS
O
NAME AND ADDR
PHONE NO.
roved For R
P78B
DATE/
4+Y7,Odb0 4
 TO: File
X1 FROM:
December 6, 1965
[SLoo3.-
SUBJ ECT: Work and delay onr64009 -
Trip Report - November 30 to December 4, 1965.
1. On arrival examined equipment as installed.
Camera was pulsing as fast as it could cycle. Found that
the 28 volt supply (ground power cart) was in use and was
extremely noisy, causing malfunction throughout the system.
2. Investigation showed that our power in flight
was to be drawn from generators driven by the engine. In
order to use flight power the engines would have to be
run up. This was apparently not possible except for a
final system check of short duration.
3. Inquiry from the communicators and radar types
indicated that the ship's line was no better than the ground
carts having + 15 volt pulses of several msec durations and
very short rise times.
4+. Decided to get system operating with ground carts
and get final checkout with aircraft power, but to use air-
craft wiring to simulate final configuration for current paths
and pickup. This proved impossible since ground crews had
the electrical system apart. Although we were promised avail-
ability on Thursday, this proved to be only physical not
,-electrical.
5. Noise problems were handled as follows:
a) Separated the camera drive monostable MV and
decoupled it from the line.
b) Separated the lamp matrix drive monostable MV
from the other circuits and decoupled it from the line. Found
this a great improvement but much noise still entered from
ground currents.
Approved,For17elease 2005/07/13 CIA-RDP78B04770A002900040004
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP78B04770A002900040004-4
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP78B04770A002900040004-4
c) Some noise was apparently strong enough to
puncture a few transistors and these had to be replaced.
d) Ground noise was removed from the lamp matrix
drive by returning the switching circuit ground to a point
used for ground for the lamp drive monostable MV.
e) Placed a 4000 ?fd condenser across the 28 volt
supply at the lamp circuit board. This out out occasional
winking of the lamps.
6. With all above changes tried out system in the
aircraft but using ground power carts. All operation was
correct. Of course it was not possible to check the computer-
transducer since no calibrated source of pressure was available.
X1
7.1 will make final changes and try
the system with aircraft engines and power on Monday.
8. Note that many delays due to scheduling difficulties
not caused by us were encountered. Work on the system was
only begun on Nov. 28. At that time we first learned of the
existence of severe noise on aircraft lines. We had assumed
that these lines were governed by MIL interference require-
ments and would be sufficiently clean.
25
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP78B04770A002900040004-4
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP78B04770A0029000'4030b t^L' N 1 /7
December 20, 1965
Dear Joe,
I have just concluded a telephone conversation with
bringing him up to date on the status of our
job. In the last two months we have had very poor results
In accordance with Jack's instructions, I would
indeed
.
like to submit 1) a report of our difficulties, and 2) an
estimate of the resulting overrum in costs. Jack indicated
that we should be able to amend to cover this overrun.
I regret to say that some of these costs have already
been incurred. This happened because much of these costs
were the result of aircraft scheduling delays. Our people
made trips to the aircraft facility in the expectation of
being able to make tests only to wait for long periods with-
out being able to. At first it looked like quite small
costs which we were willing to absorb in view of the future
possibilities of the device and its previous successful
flight tests. However, these slowly mounted and appear
to be headed for a yet larger number. At this point, we
feel that we must ask for reimbursement.
One reason for the unexpectedly large cost is the
very great difficulty we encountered in working at the
field. While everyone there gave us the most gratifying
and courteous cooperation, still stocks of parts, which
are essential in the type of trouble-shooting we were doing,
were not available and each test required hours of scrounging
for parts and trips to distant distributors.
Let me now summarize our difficulties and our present
status:
1. After completion of the required changes to the
system to adapt it to high altitude flight, we were ready
for installation and test. A field engineer was sent out
for this purpose after clearing the trip with
We were, at this time, left with ample funds to install
and test.
25
1, '7
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 :'EIA1IFDP8,B04770A002900040004-4
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP78B04770A002900040004-4
%(,-& , r,-
2. On arrival at the installation facility, around
September 27, it was found that the installation work had
not been scheduled as yet, and that the aircraft was engaged
in other activity and unavailable. Our man returned.
3. A second trip was scheduled after clearance with
Jack. On arrival (Nov. 14) it was found that only the hatch
was available. All required work on the hatch was completed,
whereupon it was pointed out by our engineer that the required
static line had not been provided. This work required the
presence of the aircraft which was at Edwards. Weather pre-
vented its return for several days. When it arrived it was
found that instructions had arrived to perform other work
on it as well. Between the inclement weather and the vague
schedule, our engineer was instructed to return.
4. Finally, word was received of the availability
of the aircraft with all installation complete. Our engineer
went to the test facility (Nov. 29) and the gear was turned
on with ground power. This power was found to have extremely
high noise, which was not specified in advance. He called
for help and I had to go out to solve the problem imposed
by the noise. I have enclosed my trip report.
5. When I left, a flight had been scheduled for the
following day for final test. The next day our engineer
was told that a night flight had uncovered a problem in
the aircraft which produced an order grounding all equip-
ment. Discussion between our engineer and
produced some results in scheduling a quick rl-IgHT-at lower
altitude in another aircraft. Quick temporary rewiring in
that aircraft permitted a short test flight. Unfortunately,
the test aborted because our 400 cycle power was drawn from
a generator that is turned on only at over 80% engine power.
This limit was not exceeded since the pilot did not know
of the use of this generator. However, some data was obtained
from the flight indicating that our corrections to the cir-
cuitry had not completely immunized the system from the
aircraft noise. This had been feared, since previous work
was all done with ground power carts. As a result of this
test, additional circuit changes of relatively minor char-
acter are.projected.
C 1`412rl R'% 4-
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 CIA-RDP78B04770A002900040004-4
25
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP78BO477OA002900040004-4
-3-
6. The additional work to completely insulate the
system from noise on the aircraft power lines, and an ad-
ditional trip for our engineer and myself, have been pro-
jected. This must include a final test using aircraft,
not flight tests. This work cannot be scheduled until the
grounding order for the aircraft is lifted.
I am afraid that the above report may have the sound
of a series of excuses and gripes. This is unintentional.
I would like to re-emphasize that
X1 ? and their subordinates, were in every way helpful
an cooperative. The troubles are almost all ascribable to
unavoidable scheduling problems and to noise on the power
lines. The latter was not foreseen because of the assump-
tion during our system design that the aircraft power would
be MIL Spec clean.
X1
The overrun produced by the above history is as follows:
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP78BO477OA002900040004-4
25
 Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP78BO477OA002900040004-4
r sj.
-4-
If any further breakdown of costs, or if any additional
data is required, do not hesitate to call me. I hope that
this can be settled rapidly, since we can gain time by making
some of the changes in circuitry now.
Yours respectfully,
25
L 4-A
ICIC
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP78BO477OA002900040004-4