> Very interesting compilation!! I believe this hypothesis has been stated once before, but I'll repeat it once more: The reports seem to point to a lighter-than-air vehicle of some sort. Note: * Large, plenty of room for lift gases * Nerly silent, with only a "swoosh" if anything * Ability to hover * Lifts off slowly, "like a helicopter" * "Fluttered like a leaf", probably due to wind I'd say this is certainly a LTA vehicle that we're talking about. Also, I would think that a "blimp" would cost a lot less than a conventional aircraft exhibiting the same characteristics (but then again, you know our govt. :-) Whatever it is, it sure sounds like a neat aircraft!! PS - How feasable/worthwile is it to mount small jets onto a LTA vehicle? Could "micro" jets serve as propulsion for this big black wing? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Guslick / ^ \ IRC: HaveBlue NAR #53962 TIP #112 ---(.)==<-.->==(.)--- Klein bottle for sale - michaelg@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu SR-71 Blackbird Inquire within. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The above is all speculation.... ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 10:31:06 MET Subject: Re: Triangular Craft 2/2 >I'd say this is certainly a LTA vehicle that we're talking about. >Also, I would think that a "blimp" would cost a lot less than a >conventional aircraft exhibiting the same characteristics (but then >again, you know our govt. :-) >Michael Guslick (Mon, 30 Jan 1995 22:53:12 -0600 (CST)) Just look towards the Aereon airships. Aereon Corporation is located in Princeton (NJ) and builds triangular or nearly triangular airships. The Aereon 26 is photographied in the 1976-1977 Jane's. In 1984 there was a project Aereon 340, 100 meters length, 80 meters large (looks like the "Big Wing" seen near Edwards AFB (Popular Mechanics, Dec. 1991)). There was a discussion on skunk-works about this hypothesis last April. Two references were given: 1) (with my thanks to BaDge): TITLE Stealth Also Comes in a Cut-Rate Blimp.--News. SOURCE New York Times: Apr 29, 1990, 3, 8:2 LENGTH Short (0-6 col inches). FEATURES Illustration ABSTRACT The Stealth blimp, a real, $195,000, lighter-than-air craft being developed for the US Army's Intelligence and Electronic Warfare Center, is discussed as a lower-budget, remote-piloted surveillance vehicle. - -BaDge 2) (with my thanks to Steve Miller): "The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed" by John McPhee. It gives a history of the private development of aerostatic/dynamic craft in New Jersey in the early '70s. J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 15:33:47 MET Subject: Re: SR unstarts The discussion about the shock wave(s) the SR-71 engine J-58 is dealing with was quite impressive. Are there now engines better than the Pratt&Whitney J-58 (14,700 kg thrust - sorry for the metric units) and the ex-Soviet D-30F engines of the Ye-266M (15,500 kg thrust) used for flights at Mach 3+ ? Up to what speed could the concepts used for these engines be extended: Mach 3.5, Mach 4, Mach 5 ? J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: jlovece@DGS.dgsys.com Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 10:21:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: the (cancelled) "Q" spy plane Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: [bunch of stuff cut] > Tier 2++ ==> Unofficial ("press") designation, proposed stealthy Tier 2+, > also called Tier 4, more payload than Tier 3- > 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 Actually, it may be ``unofficial,'' but did not originate with the press. The term can be found in Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office (DARO) briefing charts from last year or the year before. That is where the press got the term. Really. Joe Lovece Military Robotics jlovece@dgs.dgsys.com ------------------------------ From: MiGEater1@aol.com Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 10:59:45 -0500 Subject: Anti noise/doughnuts on a rope With the active noise cancellation thread going on, I've been doing some thinking. (I can see the smoke rising already). The noise cancellation works on the theory that a secondary signal 180 degrees out of phase of the first will effectivey cancel out the original signal. Sound pressure levels would drop to zero in a perfect world. Multiple sound sensors and transducers (microphones and speakers) would be required for a complex system such as a jet exhaust. However, as Andre pointed out, > It probably wouldn't be perfect, but would likely substantially reduce the noise.< That said, an aircraft would probably wind up trailing a series of nodes and nulls where the unbalance sound pressure waves intersect. In the atmosphere, rapidly changing pressure levels cause temperature changes. When the temperature falls to the dew point, visible moisture is formed. Now to my thought. If the visible moisture in a contrail were to go through these pressure nulls and nodes you would get a series of wide "balls" of visible moisture were the pressure drop was the greatest. Node=higher pressure, null=lower pressure. Node-null-node-null-node-null etc. = o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o. Nearly everbody has seen shock diamonds in an afterburner plume. Nodes and Nulls. The difference is that the shock waves created by the engine travel with the aircraft. Water vapor in the air is not moving releative to the air that holds it. You know, if these huge pressure variances eminating from the back of an aircraft they may eventually reach the ground. Is it possible that the result could resemble seismic activity? I've read the reports about PDE's but have yet to see/hear of a PDE powered aircraft. So I thought I'd throw another theory into the ring. Any comments? John p.s. Would a car with an anti-noise exhaust system trail donuts on a rope on a cold winter morning? hmmmmmmm ------------------------------ From: hulk@gelac.lasc.lockheed.com (Mr. Duane Schulke) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 11:55:10 EST Subject: Re: Anti noise/doughnuts on a rope Re: your comments concerning active noise cancellation causing "donuts-on-a rope" contrails... you may be onto something good. However, I'm sending this message to inform you that I myself saw something come from the Carribean, hang a left turn over Disney World, and go out of sight toward Nevada in less than 5 minutes. This was in Jul86, when I was in Melbourne, FL, at sunset. The sun illuminated a huge, billowing, full contrail trailing a vehicle that appeared as only a black dot as it flew by me at at least 100 K feet, and at least M5. As the vehicle disappeared to the WNW, the earth-shaking, sky- ripping-apart noise reached the ground where I was. I don't know if it was using PDW or rocket propulsion, but the sound and seismic effects were *very* similar to those of the Shuttle launches -- of which I've watched at least a dozen (from 4-20 miles away). Keep watching the skies -- we're living in interesting times! Schulk ------------------------------ From: lumber@hopf.dnai.com (Jack-Lee Gibbons) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 09:17:30 -0800 Subject: Re: 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". The fact that the pilots reported a "brightly lit mystery craft" lends me to believe that this was a UFO in the alien sense and not in the black aircraft sense. There is no reason for a secret aircraft to fly near civilian transport aircraft with bright lights all over them! Doesn't seem like a good way to keep a secret to me. "I've done it over and over.. You see, I kill breeders." "God is dead." -Nietzche "Nietzche is dead." -God Lumber ------------------------------ From: Mark A Buda DTN 381-1969 31-Jan-1995 1216 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 12:10:20 EST Subject: Air and Space Magazine I have not seen mention of Air & Space magazine in here and thought I would bring it up. The latest issue talked about a couple guys who collect parts from crashed planes in the early days of Mach 1+ programs. They also have posters about skunk planes and many other interesting subjects. IMHO, it is a magazine worth subscribing to, if you enjoy skunk material. The magazine comes out of the Smithsonian Air & Space museum. - mark ------------------------------ From: lumber@hopf.dnai.com (Jack-Lee Gibbons) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 09:35:25 -0800 Subject: Re: 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". The fact that the pilots reported a "brightly lit mystery craft" lends me to believe that this was a UFO in the alien sense and not in the black aircraft sense. There is no reason for a secret aircraft to fly near civilian transport aircraft with bright lights all over them! Doesn't seem like a good way to keep a secret to me. "I've done it over and over.. You see, I kill breeders." "God is dead." -Nietzche "Nietzche is dead." -God Lumber ------------------------------ From: lumber@hopf.dnai.com (Jack-Lee Gibbons) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 09:35:54 -0800 Subject: Re: 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". The fact that the pilots reported a "brightly lit mystery craft" lends me to believe that this was a UFO in the alien sense and not in the black aircraft sense. There is no reason for a secret aircraft to fly near civilian transport aircraft with bright lights all over them! Doesn't seem like a good way to keep a secret to me. "I've done it over and over.. You see, I kill breeders." "God is dead." -Nietzche "Nietzche is dead." -God Lumber ------------------------------ From: lumber@hopf.dnai.com (Jack-Lee Gibbons) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 09:35:40 -0800 Subject: Re: 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". The fact that the pilots reported a "brightly lit mystery craft" lends me to believe that this was a UFO in the alien sense and not in the black aircraft sense. There is no reason for a secret aircraft to fly near civilian transport aircraft with bright lights all over them! Doesn't seem like a good way to keep a secret to me. "I've done it over and over.. You see, I kill breeders." "God is dead." -Nietzche "Nietzche is dead." -God Lumber ------------------------------ From: ron@habu.stortek.com (Ron Schweikert) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 11:06:41 MST Subject: An update on the SR-71 pictures I offered recently Hello all. Sorry to bother everyone with this rather than just those who responded before to the picture offer, but I wanted to make sure everyone got the message in case I missed someone. This is getting more complicated than planned. We're about to roll on the pictures. Sorry for the delays but I've been very busy, but have also been looking for labs and getting myself educated on options/costs etc. I'm reposting this because things have changed slightly and I want everyone to re-respond in case your mind is changed based upon the new information. First, I'm going with slides (that's what my originals are). Since some folks wanted slides, some wanted prints and some negatives, there was a decision that had to be made on format. I've decided to go with slides because not everyone will want prints of all the pictures. Each person's tastes/needs are different so I wanted everyone to have maximum flexibility at minimum cost overall. A desc. of the slides is included at the end of this message. With a set of slides (although second generation, hopefully the lab I've chosen will do a top-notch job) each person can view the slides and determine if they want any made into prints, blown up, duped or whatever. Any good local photo lab should be able to satisfy those individual requests. (If anyone wants a large-format blowup, we could work something out using the originals). Now for the new pricing information. The lab price for the slides is 55 cents each (if I can get 20+ orders) plus 5cents each for putting them in trays (this is what the lab is charging--not me!). (There's 23 slides). On top of that I have to buy the trays separately ($1 ea ?), pay tax (~7.2%), buy envelopes and pay for shipping (doing all the envelope stuffing, labeling and mailing myself). I don't know what those costs are but envelopes and shipping will probably be 2 or 3 dollars total each(?). These expenses put the target price at approximately $18. If we only get requests for 10+ sets, add $6. Let me know in your email back if you'd go for either price, or only the lower one. Again, it depends on how many people request sets (there was over 20 before). Because of the price increase I want to re-offer the pictures and ask you to re-request a set. I'll wait until next Thursday (Feb. 9th. +-) at which point I will order however many sets people have requested. The lab turnaround time is 4 days, and I'd plan on turning them in that Friday. Here's what I ask: 1) Please respond via email that you'll be wanting them, but PLEASE DON'T REQUEST A SET unless you're SURE you want them! Your request via email is your promise that you'll follow through. I'll have to lay out over $300 with the hopes that everyone will come through with the money. When I know the final cost, I'll send out email telling you the final price (again, it should be $18 +-). 2) I'm doing this as a courtesy and service to SR fans. If you do get the pictures published, I ask photo credit. If you benefit financially by having them published, I would ask to be treated the way you would if you'd obtained pictures from another source. There -- no legalease, no contracts, copyrights etc. Just asking for a fair, ethical shake. Sorry for delaying things again, but I hope this change will be amenable as it gives you more flexibility. Ron If you want to send a check now, that would also be appreciated but is not required. Ron Schweikert 2559 Franklin Ave. Louisville, Colorado 80027-1247 Again, send back the following information via email: Whether you want them only at the $18 rate, or would pay $23 if we only get 10-19 orders. Here's a breakdown of the pictures (in no particular order): * the Beale trim pad from about 100 yds. with 972 tied down * closer shot, same as above. * sunset shot at the pad, engines not yet fired up. kinda pretty * sunset shot at the pad, engines not yet fired up. Beautiful sky. * getting 972 ready at the pad. Taken from above, right rear view. shows all ground support equipment, fuel leaking everywhere , maint. folks milling about. * an engine start of 972 at the trim pad. Good shot of TEB explosion * a night shot of 972 at the trim pad in full afterburner -- awesome! View from above and behind the plane (this picture alone IMO justifies the cost for all of them!). * ditto, slightly different exposure (was trying to "bracket" the exposure), not sure which one will look best when blown up, so I include them both. * engine in minimum a/b, viewed from ground level, left, front * closer view of full a/b * 964 in a hanger, ready to go. kind of a "regular day at Beale" shot. * 964 in a hanger, my boss and a co-worker hanging out (well okay, my boss is also flipping me off ) * far-shot of taxiing aircraft at Mildenhall, about to park. * far-shot of taxiing aircraft at Mildenhall, sideways view * close-in taxiing aircraft at Mildenhall, about to park. * Same as above, but starting to turn. Straight-on view. Kinda cool if all you have is static display shots. * closer shot of nose, same sequence from above. * closer taxiing shot. * closer taxiing shot, about to turn. C-5 Galaxy in background. * great side view, taxiing, pretty close. * aircraft stopped after mission at Mildenhall. Maintenance folks starting to do their thing. * takeoff at Mildenhall. Would probably look cool cropped and blown up. * taken a few seconds later from behind (takeoff at Mildenhall). I know it seems like there's a lot of taxiing shots, but they show the plane from different angles, with different backgrounds that are interesting. Much better than a static display! ------------------------------ From: Adrian Thurlow Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 12:47:24 +0000 Subject: SR-71 deactivation! Hi skunkers, Got the following from Usenet, Ed Rogers wrote: >Interesting article in the Air Force Times this week. apparently a group of Republican Congressmen are fighting the SR reactivation proposed by the last Congress, citing money considerations. "The money would be better spent...blah,blah, blah". Interesting turnabout, don't you think..< Has anybody got any more on this? I do not get to see Air Force Times. Was this from a bigger piece on the SR71? Adrian Thurlow / Det.4 9th SRW \ Technology Integration / \ BT Labs / _ \ Martlesham Heath ____(( ))_________/_/_\_\_________(( ))____ Ipswich \ \_/ / Suffolk U.K. Now only distant thunder Tel. +44 1473 644880 Fax. +44 1473 646534 e-mail. Adrian.Thurlow@bt-sys.bt.co.uk The views expressed above are not necessarily those of BT. ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 11:58:56 -0800 Subject: Re: SR unstarts >Are there now engines better than the Pratt&Whitney J-58 >and the ex-Soviet D-30F engines of the Ye-266M used for >flights at Mach 3+ I've got to get that MIG book. I like the Ye-166 and Ye-266 as well. I also like the T-100, which was supposed to be at least a high Mach 2 and maybe Mach 3 airplane. They built 3 of them and flew two of them (I for structure testing). The GE-120 had a bypass cycle. The GE-120 of course being the ATF proposal from GE. They lost to the PW-119. Then there are the Mach 6 to Mach 8 engines rusting out behind Marquardt in Sunnyvale! I kid you not! (unless they've been moved). Mach 8 airbreathers, rusting in Marquardt's back yard! Then there were the massive Amercian GE SST engines and of course the slightly shrunk XB-70 versions. Larry ------------------------------ From: Christian Jacobsen Date: 31 Jan 1995 14:21:50 U Subject: Re: SR unstarts Subject: Time:2:05 PM OFFICE MEMO RE>>SR unstarts Date:1/31/95 From: larry@ichips.intel.com > Mach 8 airbreathers, rusting in Marquardt's back yard! I have got to wonder... At Mach 8, doesn't it become dangerous to fly at an altitude where air breathing engines work? For instance, the SR71 pilots in Ben Rich's book talk about missing a turn by a second or so and getting hundreds of miles off of their planned course. At Mach 8, wouldn't a minor fluctuation in the elevators (or whatever control surfaces exist) put you screaming into the ground in a matter of seconds? Which brings me to the human factors of flying at such speeds. There is clearly still some need for humans in recon aircraft, so what are the human factors that must be considered when designing a Mach 6+ craft? Just wondering... - - Christian ------------------------------ From: lumber@hopf.dnai.com (Jack-Lee Gibbons) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 15:06:55 -0800 Subject: Re: Is there a reason for sending this to the list 4 times ? No, just a mistake. Sorry for the overload. "I've done it over and over.. You see, I kill breeders." "God is dead." -Nietzche "Nietzche is dead." -God Lumber ------------------------------ From: "Frank Schiffel, Jr." Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 16:05:24 CST Subject: tier variants Hmm. Liked the info on the Tier set of recon vehicles. But, nothing had the SR-71 flight envelope. Really sort of sad that nothing was done to upgrade the vehicle (besides sensors and avionics) and come up with a better manned recon aircraft. Such as M4 or so with maybe 90kft and a lot more stealth and ECM. There were some interesting upgrades in the works at the cancellation of SR-71 operations that would have been nice to have in another aircraft that would have been a follow on. Satellites are nice, so is the U-2, but, IMHO there's a niche that needs to be filled and 3 flying acft aren't the answer. ------------------------------ From: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 19:25:45 +73900 (EST) Subject: Re: UFO Sighting?? (fwd) Once upon a time Jack-Lee Gibbons shaped the electrons to say... >sense. There is no reason for a secret aircraft to fly near civilian >transport aircraft with bright lights all over them! Doesn't seem like a >good way to keep a secret to me. Active camo - bright lights on the airframe in the daylight make it hard to see the size, shape, and detail of the craft. And at any distance, it causes the aircraft to blend into the sky. - -- megazone@world.std.com megazone@hotblack.gweep.net (508) 752-2164 "I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity. Use your mind, think!" Moderator: anime fanfic archive, ftp.std.com /archives/anime-fan-works; rec.arts.anime.stories Geek Code 2.1: GTW/H d-- H+>++ s++:++ !g p? au+ a24 w++@ v++@ C++(++++)$ UU+$>UL++++ P+ L>++ 3 E N+++ K+++ W-- M- V-- -po+ Y+>++ t+@ 5@ j@ R@ G' tv@ b++(+++) D+@ B--- e++ u** h- f+ r@ n+(----) y++@(*) ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #194 ********************************* 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).