From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V2 #24 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 8 December 1992 Volume 02 : Number 024 In this issue: There's sources, and sources... Re: There's sources, and sources... Discovery Flaws Re: WSJ Article Discovery Flaws Just received this ... accuracy/accuracy Discovery Flaws unconfirmed info about Aurora Re: Discovery Flaws See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: I am the NRA Date: Mon, 7 Dec 92 05:13:41 PST Subject: There's sources, and sources... >An additional program note of interest is another descent Discovery >show "SECRET WEAPONS". Friday's episode was called "Hide and Seek", >Now the good news! You can catch a replay of this >episode on SUNDAY (12/6), at 2:00pm (PST). rmmmmm. Personally, I find this show riddled with errors. Ferinstance the one on nuclear weapons asserted that Mme Curie discovered Plutonium and that H-Bomb yields were always in Megatons. The US Civil War Gatling gun was credited with 3,000 rpm (not achieved until motor drive was applied, decades later....) The pictures presumably don't lie, but the scriptwriting is poorly researched, as nearly as i can tell. regards dwp ------------------------------ From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 92 07:39:18 MST Subject: Re: There's sources, and sources... pierson@ggone.enet.dec.com writes: >rmmmmm. Personally, I find this show riddled with errors. >The pictures presumably don't lie, but the scriptwriting is poorly >researched, as nearly as i can tell. Eh... I watch these things mostly for the *footage*. If they screw up a few facts here and there in the narration, i'm not all that concerned (or surprised :)... These sort of specialzed shows are at least usually more accurate than many "general media" type coverage of these technical-type issues. ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 92 10:34:02 PST Subject: Discovery Flaws My absolute favorite glitch with the Wings/etc series is when they show their footage, they hardly ever show the footage with the actual sound. Most shots probably come from some source with background narration so when you see a jet you hear a jet sound, when you see a prop you get a prop sound. I first noticed this when they had the sound of a P&W radial with the clips of a P51D. Best was when they had a jet w/prop noise. Obviously a secret weapon (Active camoflage). Yeah, they aren't perfect. I ignore the sound and the narration, in fact I've watched a couple of episodes with the sound turned waaay down and didn't miss a thing. Rick ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 11:16:56 -0800 Subject: Re: WSJ Article In light of the interesting 3-year old sighting reported in WSJ last Friday, and to be covered in more detail this week in Janes Defense Week (hey, how about a length comparison between the Mystery Aircraft and an F-111 or KC-135!), I thought I would repost the following. Not the first time that some of these same words have been used together! I got a kick about someone matching one of the phrases that was in this article, namely that Lockheed ADP and Rockwell worked together on a B-2 entry. Maybe others also thought the following was interesting. From the 1/13/92 AW&ST VISTA issue. John D. Morrocco from Washington has a piece that begins on pg 26 entitled: "Navy Officials Debate Service's Ability To Fund AX, Other Aircraft Needs". The article is basically about the Navy's woes in getting new aircraft projects funded. However, what is interesting is that in the mentioning of the teamings for the Navy AX Concept Exploration and Definition Study currently underway, is mention of an 'interesting' other project, a USAF project. Evidently Lockheed ADP and North American Rockwell are working on something (maybe AX, maybe something else) together. For AX, Lockheed is ALSO teamed with Grumman and Boeing. So this is INTERESTING! Lockheed is on 2 different teams (for AX?)! The article mentions that besides being involved in proprietary work in the 1980's, Rockwell and Lockheed were teammates on the losing B-2 design. Also the article mentions that "others indicate the two companies were involved in a secret program to develop a successor to the USAF F-111"! Hmmmmm ... F-111, A-7? Larry ------------------------------ From: Bruce Henderson Date: Mon, 7 Dec 92 11:14:36 -0800 Subject: Discovery Flaws Another good one was Wings this weekend. They were covering the F-4. They spent a few moments talking about the RF version, and they talked exclusively about the Israeli RF-4, the whole time they were showing a USMC RF-4B, at MCAS El Toro no less (a noted Israeli air base). If I recall it was #27. This same bird bit the big one in September 1987 in the Philippines during Cope Thunder. Bruce ------------------------------ From: markj@orion.convex.com (Mark Jones) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 92 14:20:44 -0600 Subject: Just received this ... I just received this from a friend and thought y'all might like it. >Date: Mon, 7 Dec 92 11:47:20 -0800 >From: bostic@vangogh.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Bostic) >To: /dev/null@vangogh.CS.Berkeley.EDU >Subj: NY to SF in 20 minutes Subj: The latest in executive travel (NY to SF in 20 minutes) U.S. SPY PLANES REPORTEDLY HIT MACH-8 London, Associated Press, 12/5/92: The U.S. Air Force is operating a new generation of secret spy planes capable of reaching 8 times the speed of sound, _Jane's Defense Weekly_ said yesterday. In a report prepared for next week's issue, the military affairs magazine said the triangular-shaped planes had been in service since 1989. "We've been working on this report for about three years," Paul Beaver, editor of the magazine, said in a telephone interview. "The evidence has grown overwhelming--all we need now is a photograph to prove that it exists." Mr. Beaver quoted the report as saying that the $1 billion plane, dubbed Aurora, could reach cruising speeds of up to Mach-8, or 5,280 mph, and more than two and a half times the official world record. The defense establishment continues to deny the existence of Aurora, he said. There was no immediate comment yesterday from Pentagon officials. The Pentagon announced in 1990 that it was retiring its supersonic spy plane, the SR-71 Blackbird, and would rely on orbiting satellites for its high-altitude surveillance. But the magazine's technical editor, Bill Sweetman, who compiled the article, reported that the hypersonic Aurora operated mainly at night and incorporated the latest radar-evading "stealth" technology. Mr. Sweetman based his conclusions on pieced-together data, including strange sounds reported above air bases in Nevada and California and the sighting over the North Sea of a wedge-shaped aircraft under fighter-bomber escort. According to Mr. Sweetman, there is no immediate prospect for commercial development of this technology. ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Mon, 7 Dec 92 14:08:04 PST Subject: accuracy/accuracy I (for one) never, i think, mentioned Discovery channel. They buy their shows where they can. I (for one) have never noticed any holes in WINGS (8)>>). Secret Weapons, onna other hand, manages to get facts from high school physics wrong.... (The best howler, imo, was in an advert, for someones video, which described an " A-10 Warthog's 35mm guns ". Right. NOT) regards dwp ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 92 14:11:32 PST Subject: Discovery Flaws I _didn't_ mean to imply the flaws overshadowed the goodies. Yes, I've seen footage on Discovery that took my breath away. Was merely commenting on what I'd noticed. Perhaps it merely the realization that the people that create Discovery are not fanatical about the topic. They're reporters, you know. They are, however, quite adept at finding material and organizing it appropriately. The nutshell: I _Like_ Wings. I am _really_ grateful for the time they take to dig out the footage they do. All my comments were meant to do were to illuminate the one thing that was annoying about the show. Rick Rick Pavek |----------------------------| kuryakin@bcstec.boeing.com | Si ego certiorem faciam... | kuryakin AppleLink | ...mihi tu delendus eris. | r.pavek1 GEnie |----------------------------| ------------------------------ From: mike@shower.rain.com (Michael Heggen) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 92 14:44:26 PST Subject: unconfirmed info about Aurora The following was sent to me by a friend at the University of Oregon in response to a message I had sent regarding the articles in WSJ. My friend is a graduate student there and is quite reliable, as is his father, who is an influential professional here in Oregon. I take his account of the conversation to be credible, although I cannot speak for the engineer they spoke to at Boeing. As such, I am afraid that this must be labeled as hearsay, but that's what this mailing list is all about . - -Mike p.s. The spelling errors are due to excitement, I suspect, as he is usually an excellent speller. - ------ cut here ----- Michael this is a response to your interesting messege about the Aurora. An unidentified engineer at Boeing, last night confirmed the existence of the plane!!! Her description is similar to the one that was described in the article. However, Aurora has a nose, which differentiates her from the B-2 design. In addition, she has twin tail fins, although they are not prominant. The plane is fueled with liquid methane. Interestingly its power source is a ram-jet. A regular jet engine is used to start it. Once going, the ram-jet sucks in oxygen and forces it out with tremendous force. The engineer we talked with said that the plane was probably capable of hypersonic speeds (greater than mach 8)!!! In addition, the ram-jet requires very little fuel. It is almost a perpetual motion system. Therefore, the Aurora was not the plane refueling when she was sighted. The technology of the ram-jet is so advanced, there is a possibility of using it for space travel. Essentially it can suck in any substance and use it for fuel. Huge hydrogen gathering "funnels" could channel the available hydrogen in space and the ram-jet would force it out as propultion. Apparently, if you were able to follow this magnificant machine, the pulsing nature of the ram-jet creates multiple sonic booms. It would sound like boom, boom, boom, boom, etc. The ram-jet technology allows unlimited increases in speed. Apparently, Boeing is using it in its development of mach 20+ transport aircraft. Imagine Washington D.C. to Tokyo in 1.5 hours? The only limitation on Auroras speed is the structure of the plane. Unfortunately, the engineer we talked to specialized in topic secret alloys and would not comment on the make-up of the plane. This information is real Mike! The engineer is the father of a friend of mine in the program. Because of the nature of some of the information (secrecy) he would not give us anymore information on the project. Inform Mr. Cavanaugh, I'm sure he would be very interested. [another friend of mine and a fellow Skunker] Oh by the way, they are talking about combat applications. How do you kill something which can't be caught??? I wonder what it looks like going past at top speed? On the other hand, what is its top speed? - -- Michael Heggen "An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the grand fallacy." --Weinberg's Corollary to Murphy's Computer Law ------------------------------ From: Bruce Henderson Date: Mon, 7 Dec 92 14:15:31 -0800 Subject: Re: Discovery Flaws I think you have mis-understood me. I worship the Discovery Channel. I write them mail to say so. I think they do a fantastic job. I would say that if they did a lousy job, the piddly little mistakes they made would be hard to spot. But because the shows are so well done, little problems stick out. Bruce ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V2 #24 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "listserv@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu". 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 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 anonymous FTP from harbor.ecn.purdue.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).