From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #258 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 3 May 1995 Volume 05 : Number 258 In this issue: Re: Paris Air Show Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #257 Keep the Aliens OUT please A for real USAF flying saucer! 50's black project? Lockheed Re: Lockheed SR-71 Ray-tracing Data Re: A for real USAF flying saucer! 50's black project? Re: Lockheed Re: "Warp-Drive" Schematics Lockheed-Marietta Re: A for real USAF flying saucer! 50's black project? Re: A for real USAF flying saucer! 50's black project? Cypher Real Flying Saucer Re: Keep the Aliens OUT please aircraft@groom lake.area 51 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: Jeremy Nygren Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 01:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Paris Air Show On Tue, 2 May 1995, K. Krzysztofowicz wrote: > On Fri, 28 Apr 1995 skunk-works-digest-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu wrote: > > > From: wizard@sccsi.com (John F. Regus) > > Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 08:28:04 -0500 > > Subject: Paris Air Show > > > > Any skonkz going to the Paris air show? > > ******************************************************************* > > Yes, I hope I am going. What are you particulary interest in? How about a ticket? :-) Or maybe the black box out of the.... :-) (Just kidding....) > Krzysztof Krzysztofowicz > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Materials Science Department Email: kkrzyszt@sunrise.pg.gda.pl > Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Snail: Narutowicza 11/12 > Technical University of Gdansk 80-952 GDANSK > tel. (+4858) 47-19-63 POLAND > fax. (+4858) 47-10-25 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Nick Barnes Date: Tue, 02 May 1995 09:39:51 +0100 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #257 > "Casimir effect", Tiny, barely measureable, nothing to do with Skunk Works. > "off-world" craft I'm guessing these weren't built at the Skunk Works, right? > Ether Science. No such thing (and nothing to do with Skunk Works). Look, you guys, skunk-works is concerned with the Lockheed Skunk Works, with the planes designed and built there (such as the SR-71), and, tangentially, with other experimental, exotic, and 'black' aircraft, built by human engineers working within the regular workaday laws of physics. It is not concerned with faster-than-light travel, alien spacecraft, dead aliens in storage at Wright-Patterson AFB, anti-gravity, mind control, strawberry ice cream, conspiracy theory, or the JFK assassination. Those subjects are inappropriate for this list. Please think before you mail; it's not like there are no more suitable places for discussing such things. We don't care if you are interested in them. Those of us who are also interested in them can read alt.alien.visitors (or whatever), and could read your opinions there. In the past skunk-works has had a very high signal-to-noise ratio. Nick B, speaking for himself. ------------------------------ From: acobley@mic.dundee.ac.uk (Andy Cobley) Date: Tue, 2 May 95 11:13:03 BST Subject: Keep the Aliens OUT please >Look, you guys, skunk-works is concerned with the Lockheed Skunk >Works, with the planes designed and built there (such as the SR-71), >and, tangentially, with other experimental, exotic, and 'black' >aircraft, built by human engineers working within the regular workaday >laws of physics. It is not concerned with faster-than-light travel, >alien spacecraft, dead aliens in storage at Wright-Patterson AFB, >anti-gravity, mind control, strawberry ice cream, conspiracy theory, >or the JFK assassination. Those subjects are inappropriate for this >list. Please think before you mail; it's not like there are no more >suitable places for discussing such things. We don't care if you are >interested in them. Those of us who are also interested in them can >read alt.alien.visitors (or whatever), and could read your opinions >there. Agreed, Much of the postings regarding FTL and proposed UFO technology is going too far for this list. Although I am interested in these fields this is clearly not the place to discuss them. So just to clear the UFOlogists out, here is a brief list of usenet news groups that they may find more interesting. alt.alien.visitors alt.paranet.ufo alt.paranet.science alt.misc.forteana alt.sci.physics.new-theories Andy C Andy Cobley acobley@mic.dundee.ac.uk http://alpha.mic.dundee.ac.uk This was sent by Eudora. The address just above is correct even if the return address wasn't ------------------------------ From: "JOE P." Date: Tue, 02 May 1995 10:29:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: A for real USAF flying saucer! 50's black project? Yes, this IS a question about flying saucers but not the alien made variety. Rather the USAF/US ARMY variety. This past weekend there was film footage of a couple experimental craft which were being developed by the Air Force &/or Army, at least to judge from the decals on the craft shown. It was interesting that the older craft and a more modern unmanned platform were both circular discs with no wings, rudder, elevator or tail type appendages. The first craft had a three strut landing gear arrangement. Now it did not support any unusual propulsion systems other than a ducted airflow kind of Hovercraft center fan. There was maybe 30 or 60 seconds of video on this craft skittering around the area and I do mean skittering. It showed big problems with yaw and pitch. Interviews with one pilot who had flown the craft indicated that this was an insurmountable problem which eventually scuttled the project. According to this pilot, the craft could never get more than a few feet off the ground without going dangerously out of control. He also said that it was hot in the cockpit, so much so that they did not need or want heavy clothing to keep warm while flying in the winter, even with the open cockpit on this craft. It was a two person craft which was to be developed as a "flying tank" for ground support missions. Apparently this project was developed sometime in the 50's or 60's. Another more modern craft had a similar propulsion system but was unmanned and showed no instability problems. It could reach, I believe it said, 8,000 feet altitude. This was shown flying well above the ground. It was designed to be a battlefield recon platform remotely controlled. Can anyone tell me what the project for either the original or the modern remote controlled vehicle might have been called and/or if the manned vehicle from the 50/60s had any XF-?? or XR-?? or X-?? type designation? Or who the contractor for the modern version might be? Direct from the halls of Edinboro University - (814) 732-2484 and directly from the terminal of, - 142 Miller Bldg. - Edinboro Univ. Joe Pyrdek pyrdek@edinboro.edu - Edinboro PA 16444 ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Tue, 2 May 95 11:05:02 EDT Subject: Lockheed Recently, I drove down I-75 to Florida. Near Atlanta, Ga, there was an everyday green and white exit sign that said there was an Air Force Base (for the life of me, I can't remember the name), and it also said "Lockheed". It didn't say "drive" or "Road". Does Lockheed have a facility near Atlanta, or is it just a small town? - -- A hundred years from now, it will not matter what kind of house I live in, how much is in my bank account, or what kind of car I drive, but the world may be a different place because I was important in the life of a child. Douglas J. Tiffany dougt@u011.oh.vp.com Varco-Pruden Buildings Van Wert, Ohio ------------------------------ From: hendefd@mail.auburn.edu Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 10:51:22 -0500 Subject: Re: Lockheed > Recently, I drove down I-75 to Florida. Near Atlanta, Ga, there was > an everyday green and white exit sign that said there was an Air Force > Base (for the life of me, I can't remember the name), and it also said > "Lockheed". It didn't say "drive" or "Road". Does Lockheed have a > facility near Atlanta, or is it just a small town? > > > -- > Dobson AFB. Lockheed has a plant there that builds some part of the F22. - --frank ------------------------------ From: Mark Grant Date: Tue, 2 May 95 18:09:25 BST Subject: SR-71 Ray-tracing Data Does anyone know where I can find an SR-71 object suitable for use in the 'Povray' ray-tracing program ? Or in a format that can be easily converted for it ? Mark ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 10:31:42 -0700 Subject: Re: A for real USAF flying saucer! 50's black project? >This past weekend there was film footage of a couple experimental craft > ... >It was a two person craft which was to be developed as a "flying tank" > ... Yes. I saw the same program. The vehicle was the AVRO CAR. They wanted to develop a disk shaped aircraft but ended up building a hovercraft instead. From what I've heard, an AVRO Car is in the Smithsonian Annex in D.C.. >Another more modern craft had a similar propulsion system but was unmanned >and showed no instability problems.It could reach, I believe it said >8,000 feet altitude. This was shown flying well above the ground. > ... >Can anyone tell me what the project for either the original or the >modern remote controlled vehicle might have been called ... It was the CIPHER or CYPHER if I recall. It is a modern recce drone. It was on the cover of AW&ST in the past year or so, if I recall. Larry ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 13:44:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Lockheed Doug wondered about the "Lockheed" sign near (north of) Atlanta on I-75. This is actually the city Marietta which is now kind of a suburb of Atlanta, and the Lockheed plant there is Lockheed Marietta. They are building their transports, like C-130 Hercules, C-140 JetStar, C-141 Starlifter, and C-5 Galaxy there. This is also indicated in the Manufacturer part of the full designation as 'LM' for Lockheed Marietta, in contrast to 'LO' for Lockheed's other sites at Burbank and Palmdale, etc. Examples: C-141A-1-LM (first block of Starlifters), F-104A-1-LO (first block of Starfighters). Of course Martin Marietta (now part of Lockheed Martin) is also at Marietta, if I recall correctly. The Air Force base there is Dobbins AFB, which is an AFRES base, with the HQ of the 22nd Air Force, the 94th ALW / 94th OG, with the 700th ALS, equipped with C-130H, tail code 'DB'. The 128th FS, 116th FW, Georgia ANG, equipped with F-15A, F-15B and C-26B was based there, too, but I think they converted to B-1B and moved to Robins AFB, Warner Robins, GA, a while ago. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: alun@corte-madera.geoquest.slb.com (Alun Whittaker) Date: Tue, 2 May 95 10:56:24 PDT Subject: Re: "Warp-Drive" Schematics > He showed off a large workshop of information about > "off-world" craft, and what they were all about. .... > Has anyone else heard of "Ether Science"? Of course. Its... * Ether Science and belongs on Skunk Works. * Or t'ain't and don't. ALUN W... ------------------------------ From: "RUSSELL.B" Date: 02 May 1995 14:09:14 GMT Subject: Lockheed-Marietta Date: Tuesday, 2 May 1995 2:08pm ET To: Internet From: RUSSELL.B@GOMAIL Subject: Lockheed-Marietta On Tuesday, 2 May 1995 12:45pm Doug Tiffany sent; >Recently, I drove down I-75 to Florida. Near Atlanta, Ga, there was >an everyday green and white exit sign that said there was an Air Force >Base (for the life of me, I can't remember the name), and it also said >"Lockheed". It didn't say "drive" or "Road". Does Lockheed have a >facility near Atlanta, or is it just a small town? The facilty that the exit pointed to is Dobbins Reserve Base/Naval Air Station Atlanta and Air Force Plant Number 6 which is Lockheed-Marietta. Marietta is the name of the city that is just north of the base. The F-22 is supposed to be assembled there (talk to congress) but what this facility is mostly known for is building the best military airlifters in the world. The C-130 and all its' varients, the C-141 and the C-5. Just another software type question. Keep-em flying. Bob Russell, B.B.A. Economics University of Georgia, 1977 Systems Programmer DOAS State of Georgia 404-656-7334 ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 14:40:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: A for real USAF flying saucer! 50's black project? Joe asked for some information about 'flying saucer projects' of the USAF. The first one he mentioned was the Avro Canada VZ-9V AvroCar, a Canadian VTOL research project, which was later also sponsored by the USAF and the US Army. The VZ designation was a 1950s US Army designation series for VTOL test aircraft, which ranged from VZ-1 to VZ-12. Avro built a flyable scale model, a full scale wooden mockup and two test articles, of which (at least) the second one received later the US Army fiscal year serial '58-7055', when it was tested in the US (at NASA Ames ?). It was marked as 'AV-7055' and was otherwise left in natural metal. The project was doomed, due to the fact that the lift-fan, powered by three Continental J69-T engines (license build Turbomeca Marbore), didn't have enough power to lift the aircraft higher than a few feet (or better inches). If they would have put a rubber skirt around its bottom, to trap the air cushion, they would have built the first hovercraft. The first flight was made on 07/15/1961. One is displayed in Canada, the other in the USA, but I don't know off hand were exactly they are. The second project, a very recent one, actually, should be the Cypher. This project is a company funded remote controlled observation platform, and not sponsored by any US service, even though I guess they might get money from (D)ARPA or some other source. This UAV has a counter rotating impeller, powered by a conventional piston engine. It is supposed to become an autonomous observation system with AI-software, GPS and other goodies. [I can't remember the company name -- I guess I get old :( ] [Sorry for the vague information, but I can't check my sources, right now.] - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: Dave Cox Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 12:33:54 Subject: Re: A for real USAF flying saucer! 50's black project? larry@ichips.intel.com writes > >Another more modern craft had a similar propulsion system but was unmanned > >and showed no instability problems.It could reach, I believe it said > >8,000 feet altitude. This was shown flying well above the ground. > > ... > >Can anyone tell me what the project for either the original or the > >modern remote controlled vehicle might have been called ... > > It was the CIPHER or CYPHER if I recall. It is a modern recce drone. > It was on the cover of AW&ST in the past year or so, if I recall. > > Larry The Sikorsky Cypher is in the Mar 7 94 issue. It's 6.5 ft dia, 2.0 ft high, weighs 300 lb loaded, and has a 52hp engine. ------------------------------ From: George Allegrezza 02-May-1995 1542 Date: Tue, 2 May 95 15:47:18 EDT Subject: Cypher The saucer-like mini-RPV, the Cypher, that everyone is talking about is built by those famed flying saucer builders, Sikorsky. BTW, I hear that Sikorsky is about to be approved by the Greys as a major maintenance depot. Big coup for them, no? George George Allegrezza | Digital Equipment Corporation | "There is nothing more dangerous than Mobile Systems Business | a race fan with grading equipment." Littleton MA USA | allegrezza@ljsrv2.enet.dec.com | -- Humpy Wheeler ------------------------------ From: Merlin Wright Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 17:32:47 -0500 Subject: Real Flying Saucer In 1955 most of the services were tinkering with the idea of building practical vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) craft. The Army got into the act around 1958 and by 1960 the first photos of an 18-foot diameter, five-foot high saucer were made public. The 3,600 pound craft was designed around three jet engines and a five-foot diameter fan. The pilot was supposed to be able to control the direction of flight by adjusting a series of baffles on the saucer's outer edge which, in turn, would control direction. Expectations were high for awhile. The saucer was expected to be capable of 300 mph with a range of 1,000 miles. But neither of the two built ever made it. One of the craft cracked up and by late 1961 the $5 million dollar project was discontinued. Problems with the flight envelope were attributed in a final report to "internal aerodynamic losses and uncontrollable pitching." Photos of the craft appeared in the September-October 1974 issue of the Army Reserve Magazine on page eleven. Merlin Wright A good education enables a person to worry about things on a global scale. ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 16:28:13 -0700 Subject: Re: Keep the Aliens OUT please Nick Barnes writes: > >> "Casimir effect", >Tiny, barely measureable, nothing to do with Skunk Works. >> "off-world" craft >I'm guessing these weren't built at the Skunk Works, right? When Ben Rich says that there have been UFOs (Un-Funded Opportunities), THAT generates interest! >these weren't built at the Skunk Works, right? "built"? ... Due to what Ben said, "proposed" also passes the filter, in my opinion. But we should be talking about legitimate stuff, and not wholesale conjecture on the part of amateurs. However, real proposals, and possibly technical concepts, no matter how exotic, I do believe are worthwhile knowing about. As an example: The context in which the Casimir effect above was mentioned had nothing to do with aliens (I didn't see the whole thing), but seemed to be a reference to the Morris/Thorne Wormhole Paper. The Morris/Thorne paper may have given birth to a new technical field, namely, wormhole design, which is interesting, and possibly related to skunk-works due to it's being exotic technology. Subsequent papers have taken Morris/Thorne further and improved on it. The Casimir effect, in the context in which it seemed to be posted yesterday, was used by Morris/Thorne as an example of negative energy, which would be needed to hold the throat of the wormhole open. It was simply an example to aid understanding. The wormhole doesn't require Casimir, only exotic matter exhibiting negative energy (like the Casimir effect), which may or may not exist. I find it quite possible that some conceptual design engineer at Lockheed Skunk Works or elsewhere, would be thinking over the possibilities as well. Conceptual design can be rather far out design, like these concepts. If you could ever build an aerospace system with such characteristics, it would obviously be one heck of a system! As Ben has said, "All things are possible" (not wanting this quote to give wholesale license to any hairbrained scheme). >> Ether Science. >No such thing (and nothing to do with Skunk Works). Right! Andy Cobley responds: >... >Much of the postings regarding FTL and proposed UFO technology is going >too far for this list. Although I am interested in these fields this is >clearly not the place to discuss them. So just to clear the UFOlogists out, >here is a brief list of usenet news groups that they may find more >interesting. > >alt.alien.visitors >alt.paranet.ufo >alt.paranet.science >alt.misc.forteana >alt.sci.physics.new-theories The above lists do not address aerospace vehicles. Larry ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (BYRON WEBER) Date: Tue, 02 May 1995 16:53:27 Subject: aircraft@groom lake.area 51 Im new to skunk-wks, so I don't know if this is appropriate. That is my defense if I make a fool of myself. I have read several persons statements they saw nothing at Groom Lake. I did, lots of activity and aircraft, three of which were interesting. (designated no.s 1-3) No.1 took off from the runway, north, at dusk and was not unlike the space shuttle in overall shape. It appeared to have one rear mount engine, squat body, small swept wings. No. 2 approached in slow, horizonatal flight from north to south above the long building north of the big hanger with a clearly visible vapor trail 5 to 6x as long as the craft. Not long after it went vertical, like a rocket while remaining in a horizontal position and with intense exhaust light that obliterated it's shape--very, very fast and with enormous thrust. It was shaped like the rear mounting plate on a common desk lock with a protrusion at the back. (Later that night I saw what I thought was a meteor and since realized it was the same craft returning) No. 3 started in front of the big hanger just below the roof and above the ground. It crept along to the space between the hanger and the long building where it raised up in swirls of vapor and then seemed to hover. It drifter over the long building and then up about 3x the height of the big hanger. It was odd shaped, in three connected sections, the middle and left similiar, roundish, the left smaller, and the right like the head of an oil pump weight. It appeared to have at least six engine exhausts, three on the bottom, one at the back (or front?) and one or more on either side. Has anyone a clue as to what these craft are? Definitely not disk shapes or anti-gravity. ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #258 ********************************* 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).