From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #202 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Friday, 10 February 1995 Volume 05 : Number 202 In this issue: Re: Ships Radar NASA 09637 Re: Aurora..In Thrust We Trust..? Re: NASA 09637 Re: NASA 09637 Re: NASA 09637 Re: NASA 09637 Audio Stealth PROBLEM Re: Audio Stealth Triangular Craft - Belgian Sightings 2/2 Aurora - The Evidence 2/6 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: "MTVIEW::KELLEHER"@mickey.consilium.com Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 11:32:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Ships Radar >John Burtenshaw wrote .. >By the way during the Gulf War Royal Navy ships could *see* the >F-117A on their Marconi radars. > >Ian Wraith wrote: >> ... I might be wrong here but surely any high >>powered radar at sea could spot a F117A if it were quite close. >If this is the case won't t it provide a headache for Naval Stealth programs Once again the question is the aircraft mission. If the purpose of the aircraft is to go against opposing ships, this visibility sounds like a problem. If the aircraft is designed for ground attack or other interdiction missions, it won't be flying against these shipboard radars and the problem goes away. The same applies if the aircraft is flying a defensive CAP role where incoming attack aircraft are unlikely to be under the control of shipboard radars. (Face it - it the task force screen has let somebody slip in that close, all the stealth in the world is too late!) There are few nations in the world with an integrated air defense network involving shipboard radar systems. Other than unique circumstances such as Desert Storm, there probably won't be many situations where this capability would be a detriment to a naval stealth aircraft. If, of course, there ever is such an aircraft. John ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 16:21:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: NASA 09637 Because the myth of the YF-12C is quite persistent, I want to clarify why I called '09637' a fictitious serial: First, I have to define some of the terms I am using: msn ==> manufacturers serial number, aka: b/n (build number), c/n (construction number), article number, etc. individual aircraft identification number, never changes serial ==> an USAF/US Army Fiscal Year serial (FY-serial) or an USN/USMC Bureau of Aeronatics Number (BuAerNo) normally doesn't change, sometimes even equivalent to msn registration ==> civil registration, internationally accepted, changes frequently with owner tail number ==> external marking on an aircraft, representing usually one of the three above, often shortened, but sometimes is more or less a piece of art (see Warbird markings), changes frequently buzz number ==> (2- or 3-digit) number, aka 'nose number', sometimes based on serial, sometimes representing the type or unit of the aircraft, tactical, military markings, changes most frequently (with changes in assignments) The aircraft in question was purchased and build as 'SR-71A' with an USAF FY-serial of '64-17951' -- as part of a batch of other SR-71As with serials ranging from '64-17950' - '64-17985' (including canceled ones). The Lockheed msn (or article number) was '2002'. On the other hand, long before that, the CIA purchased several A-12 planes, with USAF FY-serials of '60-6924' - '60-6948' (also including canceled ones, modifications, and the three 'YF-12A' '60-6934' - '60-6936'). The A-12 with the serial '60-6937' was Lockheed msn/article '131'. No matter what was painted on the tail, the aircraft's serial number is still '64-17951'. I call the tail number "06937" fictitious, because these markings and the 'YF-12C' designation were choosen to disguise the aircraft's real identity (for political or security reasons), so NASA was officially flying just another prototype of an abandoned (canceled) fighter design, and not one of the super secret spy planes, (then) in active USAF service. NASA aircraft are either civil registered (with the FAA) or they retain their military serials. I understand that the military serials are sometimes used purely for budgetary reasons -- the fuel for military planes is cheaper -- or because the aircraft are only on loan or in joint use with the military. NASA usually (but not always) assigns a (3-digit) number to its aircraft, where the first digit represents the facility, the aircraft belongs to. These numbers (usually) correspond with the civil registration (NxxxNA => NASA xxx), but not always. Civil registrations are usually of the form 'NxxxNA', but that rule also has exceptions. Unregistered aircraft are confined to the airspace of the USA. They, like the SR-71s, often also receive a 3-digit number, others (B-52, X-29) use the shortened serial or 'tail number', others use 'buzz-numbers'. The designation change from SR-71A to YF-12C, and the repainting as '06937' was done by the USAF, not NASA. This didn't change the serial number of the aircraft, however! For example, many U-2 were flown with 'fictitious' tail numbers, representing NASA aircraft, and many military aircraft like RC-135s, U-2s and SR-71s are often flown with 'wrong' tail-numbers -- for deception. I am bothered by the tendency to just accept these subterfuges, long after their purpose is gone, and even alter paintings to fit the myth. It's plain wrong! Sorry for the excessive length, but I take this subject quite seriously. - -- Andreas PS: At Huntsville, Alabama, in front of the NASA Space Camp, is an A-12 (article 127, USAF serial '60-9630') on static display, disguised as an SR-71A, with a really fictitious tail number '7930', representing a mix of an SR-71 serial, 64-179xx, and the original A-12 serial! :) - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl Absolute Software 313 West Court St. #305 schnars@umcc.ais.org Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 - --- --- ------------------------------ From: David Windle Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 20:05:52 Subject: Re: Aurora..In Thrust We Trust..? Larry wrote: >Appropriations committees know nothing about these systems. They >rely on expert testimony to inform them. Believe me, there are >experts, with excellent track records, who believe, based on their >research, that hypersonic systems can be built and flown. These >experts would disagree with you. Your opinion, as a journalist, >would be discounted. I wouldn't doubt that for one second! I suppose what I was trying to do with this hypothetical, cautious 'Appropriations Committee' was to inject the practical funding element of creating such a sophisticated and expensive aircraft and to move away from the technical feasibility question.No-one who is familiar with the Skunk-Works would doubt that they are capable of designing and building a hypersonic aircraft. There are other companies who could do it too - . >So, it isn't a case of not having the technology,it is a matter >of having the funds to do it, and keeping politicians away from >it, and keeping people who don't believe in it (who just want >something to do) away from it. Amen to that!:) Thanks for such a detailed response Larry.It's been very helpful.I'd like to hear more about your ideas for a stealthy hypersonic aircraft. I promise to keep an open mind ! Best Wishes David ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 22:44:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: NASA 09637 Andreas is a little confused about NASA and tail numbers. If we're the sole operator of the airplane, it will be assigned a civil registration of the form NnnnNA, with the tail number nnn being used most commonly. If the program is a joint one, with military participation, and the military provides the aircraft, we'll keep the military side/tail number. It has absolutely nothing to do with the price of fuel (we get our fuel through a contract with the Air Force and pay exactly the same price as the military), only with whether the military is active in the program. For example, we've just got the SR-71s on loan but the Air Force isn't involved in our flying them, so they have N numbers. On the other hand, DARPA was intimately involved in the operation of the X-29s and they had military tail numbers. Of course, we own the JP-7, so we don't put it on a Jet Fuel Ident-A-Plate, but the JP-4 we bought for our F-104s cost exactly what the JP-4 for DARPA's X-29s did. I also have NASA fuel cards for the two Calspan variable-stability Learjets, N101VS and N102VS, and I pay the military rate for fuel for these aircraft, even though they belong to a private company. They also use the callsigns NASA 101 and NASA 102 when they're flying my flights, rathr than 1 November Sierra and 2 November Sierra. It's true that one or two of the F-18s had a mismatch between the N number and the tail number, but that was an error and has been corrected with repainting. The N number was incorrect, actually, because the Navy painted the plane wrong. Since it's expensive to repaint, we've just lived with it. 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.... ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 23:02:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: NASA 09637 I forgot to mention that NASA "owns" all registrations of the form NnNA. That is, the FAA has given us that block of registration numbers for our exclusive use. We assign the numbers and inform the FAA of what aircraft is carrying that number. We don't, of course, have to meet any sort of certification requirements for the FAA; we're not private aviation, so they have no control over us. We do, however, do our best to conform to their rules when we use their airspace, as much as we can. We accidentally transfered one such number when we surplussed the C-47 to Ole Miss, but they had to give it back and reregister the plane. 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.... ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 00:55:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: NASA 09637 I read in one source, that the reason for keeping the military serials on the ER-2 (together with its civil registrations) was supposed to be the fuel price. If that is not true, sorry for the misinformation. Not all NASA aircraft with a NASA tail number are also in the civil register as NxxxNA. Example: NASA 650 / N650PF - NASA/Lockheed PropFan test aircraft, a Gulfstream II, c/n 188 Others use NASA numbers, derived from their military serial, at least temporarily. Example: NASA 991 - Grumman F-14A Tomcat, BuAerNo 157991 Others, who have neither NASA numbers nor military serials use regular civil registrations. Examples: N88937 - Douglas DC-4, c/n 18337 N86652 - NASA FRC M2-F1 N9765Z - NASA FRC Parasev As I mentioned in my previous post, there are exceptions to the rule. On the other hand, many regular NASA xxx aircraft don't have their civil registration painted anywhere on the fuselage. Others don't even appear in the FAA register as NxxxNA. The reason for these inaccuracies / exceptions, might be that NASA, as a government organization, is exempt from many regulations, and that the border between civilian and military authority is a little bit blurred. - -- 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: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 03:12:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: NASA 09637 Mary wrote: >I forgot to mention that NASA "owns" all registrations of the form NnNA. >That is, the FAA has given us that block of registration numbers for our >exclusive use. We assign the numbers and inform the FAA of what aircraft >is carrying that number. We don't, of course, have to meet any sort of >certification requirements for the FAA; we're not private aviation, so >they have no control over us. We do, however, do our best to conform to >their rules when we use their airspace, as much as we can. >We accidentally transfered one such number when we surplussed the C-47 to >Ole Miss, but they had to give it back and reregister the plane. I am certain, that the NASA dose not have the exclusive rights to use NxxxNA registrations. A look at the FAA register (from 1991) shows, that 220 aircraft were registered as NxxxNA, where xxx is a number from 1 to 999. Of these 220 aircraft, only 88 where owned/registered by NASA (or one of its facilities) and 132 were owned/registered private or commercially. Some examples, from each 100-block: N6NA - Beech C-45H, msn AF-817, Manatee CO Mosquito Control District N10NA - Dassault-Breguet Falcon 10, msn 172, Hayward Enterprises, Inc. N100NA - Piper PA-32R-301, 32R-8013093, B and A Aviation N201NA - Piaggio P.136-L2, msn 236, Armor Shield Inc. N300NA - Piper PA-31, msn 31-763, M K D Fisheries N400NA - Cessna 402B, msn 402B0035, Dynamic Ventures Inc. N500NA - Beech B90, msn LJ-401, Woolston G P N630NA - Douglas DC-6A, msn 45474, Citizen National Bank of Greater St. Louis N734NA - Cessna 172N, msn 17268973, Thomas F. Kramer N858NA - Cessna 421B, msn 421B0858, Albert B. Fay N900NA - Lear Jet 24A, msn 111, AMR Combs Grand Rapids Inc. For example, NASA 734, a Bell UH-1H Iroquois, US Army FY-serial 64-13628, did not use the civil registration N734NA, instead, this registration belonged to the private Cessna, listed 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: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk (John Burtenshaw) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 11:21:39 +0000 Subject: Audio Stealth Hi Following on in the same thread of the Flying Triangles, visual stealth and the problem with noise suppresion from aircraft I'd like to bring to the notice of the list an article in Thursday's (10 Feb) Guardian Technology pages. The US Navy has developed and is about to sell a new soundproofing material said to be a million times more efficient than a anything else on the market. The *Noise Barrier System* is rubbery and about an eighth of inche thick but with the soundproofing qualities of six-inch concrete. (stuff deleted) Mold-Ex Rubber Company of Milton, Florida has been licensed to sell the stuff. They say it could be used to soundproof aircraft, automobiles and domestic equipment. The article doesn't say anymore about the stuff, but I wonder if anyone on the list has had any experience of it. Could it be used to soundproof aircraft engines and is it the same stuff used on Submarine hulls to cut down detection. John ============================================================================= John Burtenshaw BOURNEMOUTH System Administrator, The Computer Centre UNIVERSITY - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -Postal Address: Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, POOLE, Dorset, BH12 5BB Internet: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk Phone: 01202 595089 Fax: 01202 513293 Packet Radio: G1HOK @ GB7BNM.#45.GBR.EU AMPRnet: G1HOK.ampr.org. [44.131.17.82] Compuserve: 10033,3113 ============================================================================= ------------------------------ From: mangan@Kodak.COM (Paul Mangan) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 95 07:29:26 EST Subject: PROBLEM I have a problem posting to the Skunk Works mail list. Have I been inadvertently dropped from the list???? I recieve constant replies to my mail that gaia.ucs.orst.edu is down. But, at the same time I can ftp into it. Any suggestions. At least acknowledge reciept of this note if it gets through. mangan@kodak.com ------------------------------ From: "MTVIEW::KELLEHER"@pluto.consilium.com Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 11:26:06 -0800 Subject: Re: Audio Stealth John Burtenshaw writes: >...The *Noise Barrier System* is rubbery and about an eighth of inche > thick but with the soundproofing qualities of six-inch concrete... > Could it be used to soundproof aircraft engines and is it the same stuff > used on Submarine hulls to cut down detection. No. The last submarine I saw just had 6 inches of concrete around the entire hull. (insert grin here) If the material is what the article you quote says it is, it may very well be used by the submarine fleet. Lots of other characteristics must be considered there, such as resistance to corrosion and sea water, vibration, etc. The fact that it is elastic indicates it would be a good candidate to withstand hull expansion/compression during diving operations. The Navy is intensely secretive about the details of soundproofing its boats, and seeing the material available to the public suggests it's not completely state-of- the-art. It is interesting to speculate just what state of the art IS! For use as an engine covering it would have to exhibit similar characteristics such as vibration and temperature durability. For aircraft, there would obviously be a trade-off for its weight as to its usefulness. Although good engine housings could certainly reduce some of the noice, engine exhaust, prop noise, etc., are far greater sources of noise. (Admittedly, for some operations every bit counts!) On the other hand I'd see it as amazingly useful as a cabin liner to deaden noise inside aircraft. John ------------------------------ From: James Easton Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 20:57 BST Subject: Triangular Craft - Belgian Sightings 2/2 The pilot did not even have time to start this procedure, which requires the fighter's radar to stay locked on for at least six seconds. But the object had speeded up from an initial velocity of 280 KPH to 1,800 KPH, while descending from 3,000 meters to 1,700 meters...in one second! This fantastic acceleration corresponds to 40 Gs. It would cause immediate death to a human on board. The limit of what a pilot can take is about 8 Gs. And the trajectory of the object was extremely disconcerting. It arrived at 1,700 meters altitude, then it dove rapidly toward the ground at an altitude under 200 meters, and in doing so escaped from the radars of the fighters and ground units at Glons and Semmerzake. This maneuver took place over the suburbs of Brussels, which are so full of man-made lights that the pilots lost sight of the object beneath them. "In any event, it was out of the question for the F-16 to catch up with the object at this low altitude, where the density of the air limits the speed to 1,300 KPH. Above that speed, the temperature in the compressors of the jet turbines would cause the engines to burst," said Col. DeBrouwer. "There was a logic behind the motions of the object." Everything indicates that this object was intelligently directed to escape from the pursuing planes. During the next hours the scenario repeated twice. [Deletion] After having seen this dramatic sequence, I posed a number of questions to Col. DeBrouwer. First, could the object have been a radiosonde balloon? "No, the object acted as if it was totally independent of the winds, and we have done, among other things, a complete review of meteorological conditions. This is why we did not publish the report until now. We wanted to do a complete study to verify all aspects of the case. Our military defense system is not prepared for this sort of thing. We had to analyze and interpret the data from the recording inside the fighters." Is it a natural phenomenon, or perhaps the debris from rockets or satellites or space junk? "No, a meteorite or a fragment of a rocket does not enter the atmosphere in a zig zag fashion. The analysis of the radar traces showed numerous changes in direction, and the atmospheric conditions that prevailed precluded any electromagnetic phenomenon as the cause." But I asked how about the famous F-117 the American Stealth airplane, which many people think may be responsible? "This airplane is absolutely designed for penetration at low altitude. On the other hand it has a minimum speed of 278 KPH and the UFOs speed went down to 40 KPH. The F-117 does not have engines that can be tilted down for very slow speed flight. Also no airplane is capable of flying at 1,800 KPH or so low to the ground without creating a sonic boom." Then he gave me a telex sent by the Military Attache of the U.S. Ambassador to the Commander of the Belgian Air Force confirming that the Stealth airplane was never stationed on European territory nor did it ever fly over that territory. [Deletion] [END] In a further article, De Brouwer (or DeBrouwer) wrote, "We have observed at certain instances a correlation between the data from two on-board radars (F-16s) and at least one ground radar. The detection of identical signals by three different systems in a given moment lead us not to exclude that one or more unidentified device did effectively move within Belgian airspace...in any case, the Air Force has arrived at the conclusion that a certain number of anomalous phenomena have been produced within Belgian airspace." He also noted that "...not a single trace of aggressiveness has been signalled; military or civilian air traffic has not been perturbed or threatened. We can therefore advance that the presumed activities do not constitute a concrete menace." Additional, fundamental information has just come to my attention, which, if authentic, effectively ends this thread as far as "black" projects are concerned, or at least U.S. based projects. I now understand that the Belgian Armed Forces have been positively assured by American authorities that there have _never_ been any such American test flights over Belgian airspace. Supporting this contention, in a letter, De Brouwer also stated, "Unfortunately, all I can say is that the multiple enquiries have not revealed any details, neither about the origin or the nature of the phenomenon. ...It is untrue that the Belgian military authorities can explain the phenomenon in terms of American military aircraft." He concluded, "The day will come undoubtedly, when the phenomenon will be observed with technological means of detection and collection that won't leave a single doubt about its origin. This should lift a part of the veil that has covered the mystery for a long time. A mystery that continues thus present. But it exists, it is real, and that in itself is an important conclusion." Which I think, Jean-Pierre, is where we came in. :) Cheers, James. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: TEXJE@VAXB.HW.AC.UK Internet: JAMES.EASTON@STAIRWAY.CO.UK - ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: James Easton Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 21:00 BST Subject: Aurora - The Evidence 2/6 AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY October 1, 1990 SECRET ADVANCED VEHICLES DEMONSTRATE TECHNOLOGIES FOR FUTURE MILITARY USE Advanced secret aircraft developed at highly classified government facilities in the Nevada desert over the last decade are demonstrating and validating new technologies for the U.S.'s future fighters, bombers and reconnaissance platforms. Although facilities in remote areas of the Southwest have been home to classified vehicles for decades, the number and sophistication of new aircraft appear to have increased sharply over the last 10 years, when substantial funding was made available for "deep black" projects. Vehicles now flying from these well-guarded sites include both manned and unmanned hypersonic-capable aircraft designed to perform strategic reconnaissance and other, less conventionally defined missions. The classified fleet also comprises a number of large-winged concept demonstrators that evolved into the Air Force's B-2 bomber and the Navy's A-12 next-generation attack aircraft. Several vehicles, though, appear to incorporate technologies that outstrip those now employed by engineers charged with developing more traditional, current-generation aircraft. A number of these aircraft have been seen and heard repeatedly by ground-based and airborne observers in the western U.S. over the last few years. Based on about 45 reports provided by people who have seen, heard or had access to the advanced aircraft, there now appear to be at least two - but probably more - distinct types of vehicles! * A triangular-shaped, *quiet* aircraft seen with a flight of Lockheed F-117A stealth fighters several times since the summer of 1989. This may be a demonstrator or prototype of the General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas A-12. Navy officials recently noted that full-size test models will soon be "exposed to public view" during testing, suggesting that predecessors of the A-12 are already flying. * A high-speed aircraft characterized by a very loud, deep, rumbling roar reminiscent of heavy-lift rockets. When observed at medium altitude, this aircraft type often makes a pulsing sound and leaves a thick, segmented smoke trail or contrail. Lighting patterns indicate the aircraft is on the order of 100+ ft. long, but no reliable description of a planform has been reported to Aviation Week & Space Technology. * A high-altitude aircraft that crosses the night sky at extremely high speed. Normally, *no engine noise or sonic boom is heard*. The vehicle typically is observed as a single, *bright light* - sometimes pulsating - flying at speeds far exceeding other aircraft in the area, and at altitudes estimated to be above 50,000 ft. Such aircraft have been reported by both ground-based and airborne observers. This may be the same vehicle as the one characterized by a loud, pulsing noise when flying at lower altitude and slower speed... ...These primary types of "black" aircraft appear to employ relatively conventional propulsion systems, although more advanced than those available to the "white" world. In addition, there is substantial evidence that another family of craft exists that relies on *exotic propulsion and aerodynamic schemes not fully understood at this time*. Data pertaining to this type of vehicle are being studied by Aviation Week and several consultants. - --- this is only a small part of a larger article. Get it at your Lib and read it all. Excerpts from Aviation Week Oct 1, 1990 pg. 20: MULTIPLE SIGHTINGS OF SECRET AIRCRAFT HINT AT NEW PROPULSION, AIRFRAME DESIGNS Multiple reports from well-qualified observers lend substantial credence to the existence of numerous secret aircraft flying from remote bases in the southwestern U.S., regardless of the political, funding or technical arguments against that probability. [Deletion] ...A totally separate, distinctly different type of aircraft seen and heard in California and Nevada over the last year is characterized by a loud, very deep, rumbling engine noise, At times, the exhaust noise is punctuated by a slow-frequency (about 1 Hz.) pulsing sound, which has prompted observers to call this aircraft the "pulser." The aircraft also produces a sausage-link-shaped smoke trail or vapor contrail when it is pulsing. This vehicle is not the triangular-shaped aircraft discussed earlier, and may be capable of hypersonic speeds. At other times, however, the aircraft exhibits a more continuous noise without the pulsing characteristic. Observers are confident it is the same type of aircraft, based on its distinctive deep, loud roar. There have been multiple reports of "pulser" flights, including: * The first, in July, 1989, at about 3 a.m. near Edwards AFB, Calif. The vehicle was at medium altitude, flying very fast and exhibiting the characteristic pulsing sound. The "pulser's" position was marked by a *white glow*, rather than a distinct point of light. * An early evening takeoff from Edwards AFB on Oct. 18, 1989. * Multiple reports of an aircraft having a deep, pulsing roar flying over central and eastern Nevada during the early morning hours throughout the past year. * Eight separate reports of an aircraft exhibiting the same characteristics, always flying on a northerly heading near Mojave, Calif., between midnight and about 5 a.m. It was typically at lower altitude and slower speeds than when first seen in July, often had a slower pulsing sound and displayed only two position lights. * Six reports of an extremely fast-moving vehicle in southern California's skies, ranging from Santa Barbara on the Pacific coastline to near George AFB at the eastern end of the Antelope Valley. These aircraft typically were flying at very high altitude, were seen as a *single bright light*, and seldom changed direction. Speed changes have been observed, and, on occasion, a pulsing red or white light was seen. Whether these so-called fast movers also are the "pulser" aircraft is not known. A Santa Barbara observer estimated the aircraft crossed "some 350 mi. of night sky off the Pacific Missile Range bases in about 6 min." (about 3450 mph!) One Aviation Week & Space Technology editor estimated a similar aircraft - seen as a bright point of white light - required less than 20 sec. to transit about 70 deg. of sky... ...On Oct. 18, 1989, the "pulser" apparently took off from North Base, an airfield at the north end of the Edwards AFB complex primarily devoted to classified programs. The noise from that takeoff was described as extremely loud, with a deep, throaty rumble that shook houses 16 mi. away, drawing residents into the street. One observer claimed the noise compared with that of Saturn 5 rocket tests conducted at Edwards AFB in the 1960s and 1970s. Although no lights were seen, the deep, vibrating roar continued for about 5 min., and its source appeared to be climbing steeply to the north. "Your eyes tended to follow the noise; something was climbing at a very steep angle," one observer noted. Residents of surrounding communities reported that the sound "was like the sky ripping," and was unlike anything they had heard in the Edwards area for years. The same pulsing, very loud, rumbling type of engine noise has been reported by multiple observers in central Nevada as well. It typically was heard in the early morning hours and was described as having a 1-2 Hz. pulse rate. One Nevada-based observer said tha same pulsing aircraft departed from the Groom Lake range and flew over a neaby community as recently as Aug. 6. It was "the loudest thing I've ever heard. It wasn't breaking the sound barrier, but it was rattling the window!" * An interesting note: one of the drawings accompanying the text shows the object as a very rounded triangular shape glowing orange! The variety of highly classified "black world" aircraft has prompted industry experts to suggest that the term "Aurora," which has been used in reference to a purported new classified hypersonic aircraft, may be inappropriate. Instead, Aurora may be one of several code names, all referring to a class of aircraft designed for multiple missions. A line item identified as "Aurora" in a Fiscal 1986 Procurement Program document dated Feb. 4, 1985, supposedly was simply one "site" for B-2 bomber funds when that program was highly classified, according to a government official. Listed under the "Other Aircraft" category, "Aurora" was projected to receive sharply increased funding. The Fiscal 1986 budget request for Aurora - $80.1 million - jumped to $2.272 billion in Fiscal 1987, according to the document. ...Several of the secret aircraft believed to be based in Nevada may be experimental or prototypes. At least one type has advanced to the production and deployment phases, and may be capable of hypersonic flight, according to officials who have been closely associated with classified programs at several Nevada test sites in recent years. One senior official said, "We don't really do anything strictly for experimental reasons. There's usually an operational twist." Several of these people had hands-on experience with a number of the classified vehicles. Although prevented from discussing specific projects, these individuals said, "There are bigger and better things out there," referring to aircraft based at the Nevada test locations... Continued... ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #202 ********************************* 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).