From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #193 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Monday, 30 January 1995 Volume 05 : Number 193 In this issue: UFO Sighting?? Re: Congressional contact concerning G.L. Re China Lake tape Re: Active noise cancelling -- true cancelling, or covering up? the (cancelled) "Q" spy plane Tooling, Fixtures and Jigs Re: the (cancelled) "Q" spy plane Re: the (cancelled) "Q" spy plane reliability of unmanned aircraft Triangular Craft 2/2 Triangular Craft in Near Fatal Miss Triangular Craft 1/2 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: Alistair M Henderson Date: Mon, 30 Jan 95 12:11:22 GMT Subject: UFO Sighting?? Those of you in the UK may have seen 'The Sun' on Saturday. For those who didn't, they had an article regarding a near miss between a British Airways Boeing 737 and "a high speed UFO". The incident occurred at 13,000ft over the Pennines. The 737 was on its way into Manchester when the "brightly lit mystery craft" appeared in front of them. When they asked ATC what it was they were told that they were the only aircraft on radar. The crew described the 'UFO' as "triangular-shaped". Apparently, a Janes spokesman said "We know of nothing at all being developed that would account for this sighting". Could this be related to all the recent discussion about Triangular shaped mystery aircraft that we've been having recently?? Comments, Suggestions?? Ali Henderson. Heriot-Watt University. ------------------------------ From: etate@reagan.mcl.bdm.com (C. Emory Tate) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 95 09:36:06 EST Subject: Re: Congressional contact concerning G.L. In article posted to alt.conspiracy.area51, you wrote: >The following interesting message is reposted without permission >or comment from the Skunk Works mailing list. >---------------------------------------------------------------- [article including details of how to subscribe to the Skunk Works mailing list snipped] I noticed that you posted this not only with just the relevant article, but also including all the details on how to subscribe to the Skunk Works mailing list. Of course, that material is available elsewhere, but I am a bit surprised that you would make the specifics known here given the heated discussion of late on the Skunk Works list itself on this very subject (i.e., exposure/ cross-posting of SWL material to alt.conspiracy.area51). So, on behalf of all the professional folk who use the Skunk Works mailing list as an information resource and alt.conspiracy.area51 for entertainment, I just wanted to thank you for publicizing the SW list to those who normally post to this newsgroup. Perhaps you didn't pay attention to the SWL dialog on this cross-posting issue, perhaps you felt your "mission" was more important, perhaps you disagreed with those of us who don't want the noise level increased on SW, perhaps you didn't quite know how to make the editing functions work in your newsreader, or perhaps you just didn't care either way. Regardless, the next Area 51 "conspiracy" thread I see on the Skunk Works list will mark *my* last posting there! Thanks again for all your help, - -- C. E. Tate snailmail: BDM Federal, Inc. 1501 BDM Way, McLean, VA 22102 ____________________________________________________________ Stick forward and opposite rudder to stop the spin. ------------------------------ From: Charles Hattendorf Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 10:08:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re China Lake tape > Engineers; History; Military personnel; Mojave Desert; > NOTS(Naval Ordnance Test Station); Ordnance laboratories; > Research and development; Scientists > Performing Org: Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake, CA. Weapons Div. > Availability: These VHS videos are 1/2 inch in color with total playing time > of 3 hr 14 min (Part 1=84min; Part 2=110 min). > Price: AV$145.00. Order No. AD-M000 333HDV > > The thought that occurs is that since items created by the government > are not usually subject to copyright protection, an entrepeneur could > buy a set of these tapes, duplicate them, and sell copies at a lower price. > If you are interested in ordering the tapes from NTIS, you can contact: > U.S. Department of Commerce > National Technical Information Service > Springfield, VA 22161 USA > phone: (703) 487-4650 > > Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com / PaulMcG@aol.com > Paul, I work at China Lake, and a friend has these tapes. They are available for copy at $20. The subject matter deals in things that China Lake is famous for like: SNORT (high speed sled for testing ejection seats,etc), HARM missle tests (high speed anti-radiation missile) and such. We basically get to see this stuff on our local navy tv channel. My friend is serious about the tape offer. coyote @ios.com ------------------------------ From: "Andre Molyneux" Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 08:54:45 -0800 Subject: Re: Active noise cancelling -- true cancelling, or covering up? On Jan 27, 16:18, Ron Schweikert wrote: > If > we were say in a shop where the noise output was high (say from > machinery) and there were devices that output sounds in opposite phase, > and therefore "cancelling" the original noise, how does that affect the > ear? Aren't the vibrations that affect the inner ear (and therefore > damage it) still present? Is the noise really "cancelled" or just > "masked?" Does that make sense? >-- End of excerpt from Ron Schweikert Active noise cancellation will attempt to create a sound wave equal in amplitude and 180 degrees out-of-phase with the sound to be masked; the result (hopefully) being that the noise-canceller causes a low- pressure trough when the noise-emitter makes a high-pressure spike, and vice-versa. If you're dealing with a point noise source (such as the exhaust outlet on a car) and can mount the noise canceller right next to it, the differences in the pressure waves will cancel out for the most part and the noise will be substantially reduced. Cancelling out the noise of a room full of machinery would be far more difficult, as the interaction of the different sound waves would lead to differing amounts/frequencies of noise in different parts of the room. To try to pull this back on topic, making such a system for a stealthy aircraft would be a bit trickier than for a car. Your noise-canceller would have to be strong enough to match the noise level of a jet-exhaust. Also, sampling the noise source in order to determine the correct masking signal gets more difficult - with a car exhaust you can have a sensor upstream in the exhaust pipe, while it would be a bit trickier to find a good spot for a sensor in a jet engine. However, I'd guess that you could gather enough data to come up with an algorithm to determine the cancelling signal based on a combination of things like aircraft speed, altitude, engine RPM, the position of the turbine in its rotation, etc. It probably wouldn't be perfect, but would likely substantially reduce the noise. Just hope you've got a hell of a set of speakers mounted next to the exhaust... - -- Andre +--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | Andre Molyneux KA7WVV | -=-------- PYRAMID TECHNOLOGY CORP | | Internet: andrem@pyramid.com | ---===------ 3860 N. First Street | | Packet: | -----=====---- San Jose, CA | | ka7wvv@n0ary.#nocal.ca.usa.na |-------=======-- (408) 428-8229 | +--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: jlovece@DGS.dgsys.com Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 13:05:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: the (cancelled) "Q" spy plane Interesting that it was called ``Q.'' That is the military's designation for drones. For example, the F-4 jet is turned into the unmanned ``QF-4'' target drone. If ``Q'' was indeed the first letter in the system's name, that implies it was in fact the unmanned vehicle which has been often discussed. In fact, that vehicle apparently was the Lockheed design that has grown into the Tier Three Minus stealth drone to be rolled out in the Spring. Joe Lovece jlovece@dgs.dgsys.com Military Robotics > From: TRADER@cup.portal.com > Date: Sat, 28 Jan 95 13:51:48 PST > Subject: the (cancelled) "Q" spy plane > > An article in the January 13, 1995 issue of 'Aerotech News and Review' > provides additional information on an SR-71 follow-on. The article is > titled "Was the SR-71 revived because the "Q" fell through?", and was > written by John Boatman, from Janes On Defense. (Aerotech News is an > aerospace industry publication from California's Antelope Valley, > home of the Lockheed "Skunk Works", Edwards AFB, and other military > contractors and installations.) > [stuff cut] > > * Most of the questions about a SR-71 follow-on have appeared after the > program was cancelled and "no questions were asked about a replacement > that would be unmanned, invisible to radar, and able to fly at subsonic > speeds." > ------------------------------ From: "RUSSELL.B" Date: 30 Jan 1995 14:11:14 GMT Subject: Tooling, Fixtures and Jigs Date: Monday, 30 January 1995 2:10pm ET To: Internet From: RUSSELL.B@GOMAIL Subject: Tooling, Fixtures and Jigs Oh no, does this mean I can no longer call my jig-saw a "Jig-Saw" ? Just another software type question. Bob Russell Systems Programmer State of Georgia DOAS ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 15:14:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: the (cancelled) "Q" spy plane I believe that's TR-3 Minus, not Tier 3 Minus. At least, that's how everyone here says it. I haven't seen it written. In any event, the rollout is scheduled for May, it's coming to Dryden in June, and first flight will be in August. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Mon, 30 Jan 1995 jlovece@DGS.dgsys.com wrote: > > Interesting that it was called ``Q.'' That is the military's designation > for drones. For example, the F-4 jet is turned into the unmanned ``QF-4'' > target drone. > > If ``Q'' was indeed the first letter in the system's name, that implies it > was in fact the unmanned vehicle which has been often discussed. > > In fact, that vehicle apparently was the Lockheed design that has grown > into the Tier Three Minus stealth drone to be rolled out in the Spring. > > Joe Lovece > jlovece@dgs.dgsys.com > Military Robotics > > > From: TRADER@cup.portal.com > > Date: Sat, 28 Jan 95 13:51:48 PST > > Subject: the (cancelled) "Q" spy plane > > > > An article in the January 13, 1995 issue of 'Aerotech News and Review' > > provides additional information on an SR-71 follow-on. The article is > > titled "Was the SR-71 revived because the "Q" fell through?", and was > > written by John Boatman, from Janes On Defense. (Aerotech News is an > > aerospace industry publication from California's Antelope Valley, > > home of the Lockheed "Skunk Works", Edwards AFB, and other military > > contractors and installations.) > > > [stuff cut] > > > > * Most of the questions about a SR-71 follow-on have appeared after the > > program was cancelled and "no questions were asked about a replacement > > that would be unmanned, invisible to radar, and able to fly at subsonic > > speeds." > > ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 17:49:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: the (cancelled) "Q" spy plane Mary wrote: >I believe that's TR-3 Minus, not Tier 3 Minus. At least, that's how >everyone here says it. I haven't seen it written. >In any event, the rollout is scheduled for May, it's coming to Dryden in >June, and first flight will be in August. It is indeed Tier 3 Minus (or Tier 3-). The new Pentagon/CIA reconnaissance drones are identified as: Tier 1 ==> CIA UAV, modified General Atomics 'Gnat-750', 24 hr to 30 hr missions at 5,000 to 15,000 feet with small payload, 1 owned, 1 leased, 1 ground station leased, 1 two-seat Schweizer RG-8A is used as data-relay aircraft, maybe 3 more (Turkish ordered) Gnat-750 and a ground station will be procured, and drones maybe updated with the Tier 2 engine (Rotax 912). Was/is used from Albania and Croatia to monitor the war in the former Yugoslavia (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia etc.); Tier 2 ==> Pentagon's joint service UAV, General Atomics 'Predator', 44 hr endurance at up to 25,000 feet with 450 lb. payload, including SAR, can survey up to 1,300 sq. nautical miles, first flight was 7/3/1994, 10 UAVs, 2 ground stations and sensors are planned (all together for $20 million ?), ready for crisis deployments; they now fly daily from Ft. Huachuca, AZ, with EO and IR cameras and LOS data links -- and some are now fitted with satellite data links for OTH flights; all planned 10 aircraft are supposed to be delivered before March; Tier 2 UAVs will participate in exercise 'Roving Sands', a combined theater ballistic missile defense and integrated air defense exercise, slated for April and May 1995, based at Ft. Bliss, TX and the White Sands Missile Range, NM, but reaching out over a four-state area in a hunt for Scud-type mobile missiles; Tier 2+ ==> DARO long endurance surveillance UAV, sponsored by ARPA, teams: Motorola/Boeing/Hughes, Lockheed/Raytheon, TRW/IAI, Teledyne Ryan/E-Systems Melpar Div., E-Systems Greenville/Grob, 1,600 lb. payload (minimum), up to 65,000 feet altitude, for 24 hours or more at ranges of 3,000 miles, costing no more than $10 million a piece, (another bid is Mission Technologies Inc.'s Valkyrie twin-engined, joined-wing concept, range 4,500 miles, with a speed of 220 kt, much cheaper but less sophisticated), maybe a few dozen will be procured Tier 2++ ==> Unofficial ("press") designation, proposed stealthy Tier 2+, also called Tier 4, more payload than Tier 3- Tier 3- ==> Stealthy reconnaissance UAV, downgraded Tier 3, a Boeing/ Lockheed/DARO/ARPA project, with a payload of about 800 lb., resembles a miniature B-2 flying wing, ('Frisbee with wings', 'Semi-boomerang'), with a wingspan of 100 feet, altitude of 45,000 feet, can loiter 8 hours over a target at 500 nautical miles range, fly at 250 kt, with 7,500 lb gross takeoff weight, and can cover 15,000 sq. nautical miles at 1 meter resolution and can make 600 spot images at 0.3 meter resolution, uses a single Williams FJ-44 turbojet, supposed to cost $10 - $12 million a piece, but maybe up to $20 million ?, ($100 million paid), maybe 10 to 12 will be procured, roll-out planned for 6/1995 (at Palmdale ?), flight testing planned for 10/1995 Tier 3 ==> Very stealthy high endurance reconnaissance UAV from Lockheed, B-2 sized flying wing, 150 feet wingspan, priced at $150 - $400 million a piece, canceled, ($850 million paid) Tier 4 ==> Unofficial ("press") designation, proposed stealthy Tier 2+, also called Tier 2++, more payload than Tier 3- This are "procurement" code names, not official military designations. Joe Lovece wrote: >Interesting that it was called ``Q.'' That is the military's designation >for drones. For example, the F-4 jet is turned into the unmanned ``QF-4'' >target drone. Actually, that only applies for the designation of aircraft under the current Joint Designation System. And only if they were modified as RPVs (Remotley Piloted Vehicle). The Q is also used in the designation system for unmaned aircraft (Missiles, Rockets, etc.), where it also means RPV. These are mainly target-drones (e.g. BQM-34). >If ``Q'' was indeed the first letter in the system's name, that implies it >was in fact the unmanned vehicle which has been often discussed. It actually implies a 'Byeman code name', starting with "Q", like "Quest" or maybe "Senior Queen", etc. - not a designation (like Q-12, or what ever). >In fact, that vehicle apparently was the Lockheed design that has grown >into the Tier Three Minus stealth drone to be rolled out in the Spring. I believe, this vehicle WAS the now canceled "Tier 3" UAV, which (in my opinion) was to replace the (so called) hypersonic Aurora. (See descriptions above). - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl Absolute Software 313 West Court St. #305 schnars@umcc.ais.org Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 - --- --- ------------------------------ From: neil@bedford.progress.COM (Neil Galarneau) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 95 18:01:57 EST Subject: reliability of unmanned aircraft Given the discussions of unmanned recon aircraft recently, I thought this discussion of reliability in the X-15 would be appropriate. Neil neil@progress.com - ----- Begin Included Message ----- >Date: Sun, 15 Mar 92 20:11:54 EST >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >Subject: X-15 reliability experience On reading the Proceedings of the X-15 First Flight 30th Anniversary Celebration (NASA CP-3105, Jan 1991), I ran across a section of some relevance to Risks. Insertions in [] are mine. In 1962, a very comprehensive, but little known, study was initiated by Bob Nagle at AFFTC to quantify the benefits of having a pilot and redundant-emergency systems [this seems to be essentially a buzzword for "redundant systems"] on a research vehicle. Each individual malfunction or abnormal event that occurred after B-52 [X-15 launch aircraft] takeoff for the first 47 free flights of the X-15 was analyzed. The outcome of each event was forecast for three hypothetical models; one with only the pilot but no redundant-emergency systems, one with only the redundant-emergency systems but with no pilot, and one with neither the pilot nor redundant-emergency systems (i.e. single-string [buzzword for no redundancy], unmanned). [The bar chart of results shows an expected failure rate of over 50% for the "neither" configuration, with many of the failures destroying aircraft. Adding just a pilot or just redundant systems produces only small improvements. Adding both takes the failure rate down to near zero and eliminates aircraft losses.] [Referring to the graph.] The unmanned, single-string system would have had 11 additional aborts and resulted in the loss of 15 X-15s. [The actual program built only three!] Not surprising is the fact that the pilot is of little value in a system without redundant-emergency systems. He must have some alternate course available in order to be effective. The redundant-emergency systems were also found to be of little value in an unmanned system primarily because the fault detection and switchover logic must presuppose the type of failure or event. For example, few designers would have built in a capability to handle an inadvertent nose gear extension at Mach 4.5. [That last refers to something that actually happened to an X-15. Landing gear is normally designed to be extended at a maximum of a few hundred MPH. Having gear extend at 3000+ MPH is a horrifying prospect, but the X-15 was landed safely with minor damage to the aircraft and the pilot unhurt.] Of more than academic interest was a parallel, but independent, study conducted by Boeing on the first 60 flights of their BOMARC missile, an unmanned, single-string, ramjet-powered interceptor. The authors collaborated on the ground rules for the study but not on the actual analysis. The similarity of the results [a virtually identical bar chart] is striking, especially when considering that the X-15 study was projecting from a piloted, redundant design to an unpiloted, nonredundant design, and the BOMARC study was the reverse... ("X-15 Contributions to the X-30", Robert G. Hoey, pp 103-121.) Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry - ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ From: James Easton Date: Mon, 30 Jan 95 18:05 BST Subject: Triangular Craft 2/2 If these reports do not relate to the TR-3A, might they indeed relate to a highly covert craft, similar in design, but with both remarkable maneuverability and leading edge camouflage techniques. Is there sufficient evidence to suggest this is a credible hypothesis? As Robert points out, it is highly unlikely that the field of luminance matching has not been the subject of substantial developments during the last 40 years. It was rumoured that this area of research had made significant progress towards the development of an essentially "invisible" aircraft. Going back to the Pittsburgh report, is there a clue in the following observation, "We could see a faint outline of an elongated, acute triangle with rounded edges but it was very faint the only reason I think we saw it was because the underside reflected no light and the background was brighter due to the clouds. Had this been a clear night I doubt we would have detected an outline."? Are these also clues that this form of camouflage is being employed? : "I saw a triangular craft high in the sky above northern Virginia about 2 weeks ago (Nov 94)...Just before the helicopter came into view, the triangle disappeared. I was watching all the while, and I didn't blink. It was as if someone had flipped a switch." "My husbands friend today (Feb 94) was working in Escondido when he heard a loud boom and went outside to look around. He saw a very bright X-shaped thing in the sky very high over the I-15 and gopher canyon road area moving very slowly. He stated that while he was staring at it, it vanished all at once while has was not blinking." "(Dec 94) The witness went inside to get his camcorder, but upon returning found the object had vanished." What I would specifically like to ascertain is how credible this hypothesis is. I have in the last 2 days become aware of several additional recent reports from the U.S. and particularly from England, which again refer to a similar craft with these consistent characteristics. All I can do is pass some of these on, in the hope that someone can make sense of them: ...from a local Salisbury (UK) newspaper, dated 19th August 1994... "A "frantic" lorry driver, convinced he had spotted a UFO begged police to go with him to a field on Salisbury Plain early yesterday so they could verify the sighting. But when they got there the mystery object had gone. The man had been driving along the A303 road near Deptford when he saw a "triangular-shaped object with rounded edges and green and white lights hovering beside the road. The trucker says other drivers were flashing their lights to get its attention." Note again, "a triangular-shaped object with rounded edges...hovering.." MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE ORIGINAL INCIDENT REPORT October 12, 1994 INFORMATION: "Complainant called to report that on Monday, Oct. 10, at 8:15pm he and two friends were on their way into Traverse City from Lake Ann area when they spotted a triangle shaped object in the sky to the South of them. He said they were on N. Long Lake Rd. in the vicinity of Straight Rd. and the object was off to the Southeast. The driver, (name witheld), age 22 stopped the pickup truck and all three got out to get a closer look. As they got out and watched the object, it sped off from it's hovering position in a lift off angle similar to a helicopter. The object was described as triangle shaped object with the lower or bottom having blue lights emitting from it and shining downward. At the peak of the object it had a red beacon light. The strangest thing that (names withheld) both said about the object was that it lifted off without any roar or sound of any kind." And again, "a triangle shaped object...hovering..." Other than they are almost certainly not the TR-3A, I can't make any sense of these reports. Logic dictates they are either all erroneous or there is in active operation a highly maneuverable, clandestine aircraft (of which there is perhaps more than one version), secretly developed over recent years, perhaps employing "state of the art" camouflage techniques and in operation not only in the U.S. but also in the U.K., and perhaps elsewhere. There must obviously be a rational explanation for these reported sightings. If anyone can suggest one, I would be more than interested. Cheers, James. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: TEXJE@VAXB.HW.AC.UK Internet: JAMES.EASTON@STAIRWAY.CO.UK - ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: James Easton Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 1:21 BST Subject: Triangular Craft in Near Fatal Miss In view of recent discussions concerning the apparent prevalence of triangular shaped craft, the following cross-postings are somewhat poignant: [START] Originally from: karl@dominion.demon.co.uk Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 16:13:38 +0000 Below is a report from the Manchester Evening News dated Friday 27th January 1995. Headline:- Ringway jet in UFO terror A BRIGHTLY-lit UFO suddenly appeared in front of a British Airways' plane flying to Ringway. The two terrified BA pilots, fearing a disaster, ducked in the cockpit of the Boeing 737 with 60 people on board, which at the time was at 13,000 feet above the Pennines approaching Manchester. Captain Roger Wills, who was in command of the flight from Milan, and first officer Mark Stuart, have made reports to the Civil Aviation Authority and a top-level inquiry is underway today. The pilots said in their reports that they saw a "triangular-shaped flying object" in front of their plane. They immediately checked with air traffic control at Ringway, and were told there was nothing on the radar other than their own aircraft. The pilots then saw the UFO travel at great speed down the right hand side of their own airliner. Highly-experienced Captain Wills and first officer Stuart, 24, did not initially report what they had seen, as they feared being ridiculed by their colleagues. But the BA management was informed, and following set procedures, reports with sketches have been sent to the Joint Air Miss Working Group, which is part of the CAA. Both pilots refused to speak to the Manchester Evening News, but one of their colleagues said: "They are high-grade, sensible guys". "Everyone's talking about what they saw and it is right that it is reported, so the experts can try to establish what it was". Despite the drama, which the passengers knew nothing about, the plane landed safely at Ringway at 7pm on January 6. [END] And... [START] Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 19:12:02 GMT From: hvw123 Bild (a German "tabloid" newspaper), 30 January 1995. Captain Roger Wills stated: "We were already above Great Britain. Suddenly a mysterious, fiercely illuminated triangle was heading towards our machine in a straight way. We thought of the worst. We drew in our heads because we thought we are going to collide. But in the last second the object passed our airplane on the right side". The captain immediately alarmed the nearest control tower. The answer from the control tower: "Besides you we didn't see anything on the radar!". At this moment the British air traffic control handles the case. [END] Although this incident apparently occurred on the 6th of January, it appears that the story has only now been made public and I will have a thorough search through recent back issues of national newspapers for a more detailed account of what transpired. Cheers, James. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: TEXJE@VAXB.HW.AC.UK Internet: JAMES.EASTON@STAIRWAY.CO.UK - ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: James Easton Date: Mon, 30 Jan 95 18:03 BST Subject: Triangular Craft 1/2 Regarding... >From: jackg@holobyte.com >Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 12:31:23 -0800 >Subject: Re: TR-3A > It seems that James is combining two different sightings into one >aircraft. From what I remember of his previous posts, I believe there was >an eyewitness statement saying that a triangular object some hundred-odd >feet in length hovered over their house. It would indeed appear there is more than one similar triangular shaped craft being reported. > I really think we're talking about two different aircraft here. I >doubt that the TR-3 would be able to hover. What would be the advantage, >other than providing a good target for AA? Reconnaissance planes either fly >very high, very fast, very stealthy or a combination of all of the above. >They don't usually hover. You can take as good a picture at mach3 as you >can hovering. Observations (no pun intended) such as this have been immensely helpful in attempting to determine what these consistent reports may represent. > As far as the sighting of an object skimming the trees over a >father and daughter's yard, I doubt that secret aircraft would be >overflying known populated areas, not to mention drawing attention to >themselves by buzzing people. I'm not saying it couldn't or didn't happen, >I just think it is unlikely and it wasn't the TR-3 that this couple saw. I >find the profile observed over the desert much more characteristic of Air >Force procedure. Agreed, that reported sighting is both consistent with the assumed characteristics of the TR-3A and a perfect match with it's purported support role for the F-117A. Credible and logical. As you point out, the problem with the other reported sightings of what would prima facie appear to be a candidate for the TR-3A is that these sightings are somewhat illogical. But they exist and there are many other similar reports which I have collated and one must assume many more that we are unaware of. Aside from anything else, some of these reports, such as Jay Ward's credible sighting, date from the 1970's. As does the following: Subject: Indiana Sighting - Early 1970's My daughter and I saw a triangular-shaped craft fly very low over our yard. It had rounded corners and lights in the corners and though it just skimmed the trees, it made no engine sound - only a "whoooosh"-like noise. It was not flying fast and there were one or two others in the area at the same time but not as close. It almost seemed as if they were surveying the area. There were newspaper reports soon after that confirmed our sighting but we never reported it. [END] However, it is by no means impossible that there was a highly advanced covert programme in operation by this time. The credibility of the Indiana sighting, specifically the comment that "it made no engine sound - only a "whoooosh"-like noise" seems to be strengthened by a report dated 20 June 1992 from Brandstorp, Sweden. This report states that a "small black triangular aircraft of some kind flew across Brandstorp on the 20 June, 1992. It was observed for only 5-6 seconds as it flew over, the only sound the witnesses heard was a "swish"." Also regarding.. >From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) >Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 05:25:18 -0800 >Subject: Re: TR-3A >>"The craft seemed to be at about 2,000 feet but it is hard to estimate >>distances at night. All the while no sound was heard until it was >>directly above us. It slowed and paused in mid-air for a second and >>emitted a real low but audible rumble which seemed to come on >>instantaneous, as if someone said "OK, turn on the sound". >That to me sounds like someone seeing an aircraft TURING, which would >both explain it seeming to "pause" briefly from certain viewing angles, >AND a increase in engine noise if the exhaust were to suddenly be aimed >in your direction. I had considered this possibility and agree it is a credible explanation. But how do we account for the initial characteristics reported in this case, i.e., "Now what drew our attention to it was it's wobbly motion at first. It seemed like it was floating like a falling leaf (since we live on a flight path to the Pittsburgh International Airport which is about 3 miles away, we see planes and helo's all the time)."? Again, the credibility of this and similar reports, appears to be supported by a very recent report from South Jersey. The above report referred to a "craft... which had 3 lights on it in a triangular formation and a red "beacon" light underneath... We could see a faint outline of an elongated, acute triangle with rounded edges..." The South Jersey report, dated mid-December 1994 states that, "An assistant district attorney reported a large triangular-shaped object hovering over the lake behind his yard. The object was observed for several minutes. The witness went inside to get his camcorder, but upon returning found the object had vanished. The object had three white lights, one at each corner, and a single red light in the centre." Here we have the same repeated characteristics, "...a large triangular shaped object hovering...The object had three white lights, one at each corner, and a single red light in the centre." This report does not unfortunately state if the craft had "rounded corners". Referring to Jack's comment's, Dean states, "I agree. Besides, most of the "hovering" talk seems to originate from "UFO" type reports and circles. I don't see any serious reason to imagine a TR-3A type craft having such capability. It also would not likely be very compatible with STEALTH operation, both at IR and probably radar wavelengths as well, given the directed thrust requirements for VTOL flight. Big exposed lift-fans or downward jet exhausts just makes one a big target from the ground." Two points, firstly, the "hovering" descriptions (not talk) originate from the reports themselves, irrespective of where they are subsequently discussed. Secondly, I completely agree that these are not sightings of the TR-3A. Robert Herndon raised some particularly interesting speculations. He stated: "I also have to wonder if this craft has any active measures to help its visual stealth characteristics. Certainly the basics of luminance matching were understood in WWII (e.g., for night fighters a dark flat grey was least observable) and even some active techniques were known to be useful in the day (active lighting of an aircraft made picking it out against a bright sky much more difficult). I very much doubt that nobody has done anything in this field for 40 years. Might the TR-3 have more modern active camouflage to help it hide against day or night skies?" Continued... ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #193 ********************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.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 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 either "skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.edu 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 mail.orst.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).