From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #394 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 23 August 1995 Volume 05 : Number 394 In this issue: Re: Su-35 Aircraft Show in Russia Hunter Joint Tactical UAV - Status Report Ice Rings Pine Bush Sightings Business Aviation Futures Pine Bush & Aurora Pine Bush & TR-3A Black Manta info? Business Aviation Futures Re: Business Aviation Future Re: Pine Bush Sightings Re[2]: Pine Bush & Aurora Re: Re[2]: Pine Bush & Aurora Re: Re[2]: Pine Bush & Aurora Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #392 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: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 03:13:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Su-35 I know it is not very skunky, but I have some new information about Sukhoi designations, which I wanted to add. The Su-27IB, Su-27KU, Su-34 is now designated Su-32FN, and I also added some details to the other prototypes, series and test versions. Anyone keeping the information for reference, should replace the Su-15 to Su-35 part with the following list: - Su-15, jet fighter with cranked delta/double-delta wing and two engines, prototypes P-1, T-37, T-5, T-58, etc.; + Su-15T, interceptor, prototype T-58, NATO 'Flagon A', + Su-15VD VTOL version, aka Su-15 DPD, T-58VD, NATO 'Flagon B', + Su-15U, trainer version, NATO 'Flagon C', + Su-15TM with modernized engines, believed to be designated 'Su-21', NATO 'Flagon E', + Su-15TM with modernized radar, believed to be designated 'Su-21', NATO 'Flagon F', - Su-17, jet fighter bomber, based on swing wing prototypes of Su-7, S-22I, Su-7IG, Su-7G, + Su-17, Su-17M, prototypes S-21, S-23, S-32, S-211, NATO 'Fitter C', + Su-17MK, Su-17M-1, Su-17M-2, modernized radar/engine, NATO 'Fitter D', + Su-17U, Su-17UM, trainer versions, NATO 'Fitter E', + Su-17M-3, modernized, NATO 'Fitter H', + Su-17M-4, modernized, NATO 'Fitter K', + Su-17R, armed reconnaissance version; - Su-20, export version of Su-17M, + Su-20, aka S-32MK, NATO 'Fitter C', + Su-20U, aka S-32UMK, trainer version, NATO 'Fitter E'; - Su-22, advanced export version of Su-17M/MK, + Su-22, NATO 'Fitter F', + Su-22M, Su-22M-2, NATO 'Fitter J', + Su-22M-3, NATO 'Fitter H', + Su-22UM-3K, aka S-52UM-3K, trainer version, NATO 'Fitter G', + Su-22M-4, aka S-54M, NATO 'Fitter K'; - Su-24, jet attack aircraft/light bomber, prototypes T-6, T-6-1, T-6-2IG, etc., (originally believed to be designated Su-19), NATO 'Fencer', + Su-24 pre-production, NATO 'Fencer A', + Su-24, early production, NATO 'Fencer B', + Su-24, with RWR, NATO 'Fencer C', + Su-24MK, modernized, NATO 'Fencer D', + Su-24MR, reconnaissance/ELINT, NATO 'Fencer E', + Su-24MP, ELINT/ECM, NATO 'Fencer F'; - Su-25, jet attack aircraft, prototypes T-8, T-8-1, etc., NATO 'Frogfoot'; + Su-25, single-seat ground attack aircraft, Su-25K export version, NATO 'Frogfoot A', + Su-25UB, two-seat ground attack aircraft, Su-25UBK export version, NATO 'Frogfoot B', + Su-25BMK, target tug, + Su-25UT, aka Su-28, two-seat trainer, + Su-25UTG, two-seat aircraft carrier ground attack, + Su-25UBP, two-seat aircraft carrier trainer, + Su-25T, aka Su-34, anti-tank aircraft, Su-25TK export version, - Su-26, single-seat competition aerobatic aircraft; - Su-27, jet fighter, prototypes T-10, P-42, NATO 'Flanker', + T-10-1, original prototype, + T-10-7, aka T-10S-1, definitive Su-27 prototype, NATO 'Flanker A', + T-10-16, aka Su-27LL-PS, modified Su-27UB, test aircraft with canards and thrust vectoring (two-dimensional), + T-10-24, first test aircraft with canards and thrust vectoring, also tested on aircraft carrier, NATO 'Flanker B2', + T-10-37, aka Su-27K-1, aircraft carrier test aircraft, no folding wings, + T-10-39, aka Su-27K-2, aircraft carrier test aircraft, with folding wings, + LMK-2405, modified Su-27 with sidestick controller, + Su-27B, air-superiority fighter, NATO 'Flanker B', + Su-27UB, two-seat combat trainer, prototype T-10U-1, NATO 'Flanker C', + Su-27K, aka Su-33, aircraft carrier version with canards, folding wings, air-refueling probe, NATO 'Flanker D', + Su-27IB, aka Su-27KU, then Su-34, now Su-32FN, side-by-side two seat precision attack aircraft, + Su-27KU, originally Su-27IB, later Su-34, now Su-32FN, side-by-side two seat precision attack aircraft, + Su-27M, aka Su-35, with canards and FBW, NATO 'Flanker Plus', + Su-27LL-PS, prototype T-10-16, modified Su-27UB, test aircraft with canards and thrust vectoring (two-dimensional), + Su-27PS, modified Su-27UB with air-refueling probe, + Su-27PU, aka Su-30M, planned as two-seat airborne combat command post, but now a long-range strike/interceptor/SEAD version of Su-27UB trainer, Su-30MK export version; + Su-27SK, single seat version of Su-27PU (Su-30MK) with air-refueling probe, - Su-28, military designation of Su-25UT, two-seat trainer; - Su-29, two-seat competition aerobatic aircraft, modernized Su-26; + Su-29LL, aka Su-32, test aircraft for light ejection seat; - Su-30M, military designation of Su-27PU, two-seat long-range strike/ interceptor/SEAD version of Su-27UB trainer, Su-30MK export version; - Su-31, (?) / Su-32, piston engine two-seat primary trainer project, based on Su-29; \ Su-32FN, originally Su-27IB, then Su-27KU, then Su-34, side-by-side two seat precision attack aircraft; - Su-33, military designation of Su-27K, aircraft carrier version with canards, folding wings, air-refueling probe, NATO 'Flanker D'; / Su-34, military designation of Su-25T, Su-25TK, anti-tank version; \ Su-34, originally Su-27IB, then Su-27KU, now Su-32FN, side-by-side two seat precision attack aircraft; - Su-35, military designation of Su-27M, with canards, FBW and axis- symmetric thrust vectoring; - -- 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: "Terry Colvin" Date: Wed, 23 Aug 95 08:29:37 EST Subject: Aircraft Show in Russia :AIRCRAFT SHOW OPENS IN RUSSIA MOSCOW -- Hoping to pull in cash for its struggling aerospace industry, Russia is bringing out its best, costliest and deadliest aircraft at the nation's biggest-ever international air show. Thousands of people, Indian businessmen, Dutch military attaches and Russian babushkas among them, wandered down a huge aisle lined with Sukhoi fighter jets, Tupolev passenger planes and some foreign aircraft at the show's opening Tuesday. Russian aerospace officials hope to attract as many as 500,000 visitors -- preferably wealthy ones -- to the show, modeled after Le Bourget in Paris and Farnborough in England. It closes Sunday. "That is a magnificent machine," said Defense Minister Pavel Grachev, gazing up proudly at two Su-27 fighter jets slicing through the blue sky overhead. Grachev, Deputy Prime Minister Oleg Soskovets and dozens of other top officials spent hours boarding aircraft at Zhukovsky airfield, a formerly secret base outside Moscow where top Soviet pilots tested their planes. The show marks the debut of 10 Russian-made aircraft, including Sukhoi's top-of-the-line fighter, the Su-32FN, the Il-76F transport plane, the Tu-334 passenger liner and the Tu-160SK carrier for boosting satellites into orbit. The Ka-226 multi-purpose helicopter also will be unveiled. But if rumors are borne out the most dramatic premiere at the show will be that of the new MiG stealth bomber. German military officials attending Tuesday's opening nodded approvingly at the formidable Tu-160SK booster, commenting on its flat front and unusual wing shape. A Saudi Arabian businessman took pictures of his colleague in front of the Tu-22M3 long-range bomber, its slate gray exterior marked only by a huge red star on the tail. But Russia's aircraft companies are not only aiming at foreign customers. The Tu-334, which will be flown in a special demonstration Friday, is a short-range passenger jet marketed for private use by Russia's new businessmen. Vladimir Gusinsky, president of the Russia's powerful MOST Bank, was doing some window-shopping himself. "I'm very interested in this stuff, both personally and professionally," he said. The technology on display does not come cheap. One Russian official estimated the cost of the Su-32FN at $30-$40 million. A MiG-29, which was being featured at the show and is one of Russia's most sophisticated combat aircraft, runs about $25 million, he said. On the day of the show's opening, a Russian Air Force MiG-29 crashed on a training mission in Siberia. The pilot was killed. Details of the crash were not released pending an investigation. However, the the MiG-29 is considered one of Russia's most reliable aircraft and a Russian Air Force spokesman, Lt. Col. Viktor Beltsov, said there have been no crashes involving the plane for several years. ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Wed, 23 Aug 95 08:37:03 EST Subject: Hunter Joint Tactical UAV - Status Report Date: 8/22/1995 U.S. - DOD ACCEPTS FIFTH HUNTER JOINT TACTICAL UAV (AUG 22/2311 GMT) SIERRA VISTA - BUSINESS WIRE -- The Department of Defense accepted the fifth Hunter Joint Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (JT-UAV) system on Aug. 17. Prime contractor TRW Inc. and major subcontractor Israel Aircraft Industries Ltd. (IAI) produced the system under a $169-million low-rate initial production contract for seven systems. This system will be transferred to the Test, Analyze, Fix, Test (TAFT) program at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., which will include payload integration and upgrade testing. With acceptance of System Five, for which government performance and reliability tests were successfully completed Aug. 12, the U.S. inventory now includes 42 Hunter air vehicles (including two attrition air vehicles) and ten ground control stations, as well as other ground support equipment. System One's Air Vehicle Number 208 flying out of Fort Huachuca's Rugge-Hamilton Army Airfield passed the 1,000-hour milestone Aug. 7 during TRW training of the U.S. Army's D Company, 304th Military Intelligence Battalion, 111th Military Intelligence Brigade. Hours without a major mishap since have climbed to more than 1,030. So far this year, Hunter has made nearly 400 flights totaling more than 1,075 hours. Since 1990, Hunter air vehicles have logged more than 3,700 hours. In addition to Rugge-Hamilton, Hunter has been flying out of Libby Army Airfield at Fort Huachuca for C Company's System Two first article and qualification testing, which was completed Aug. 12, and Cochise College Airfield in Douglas, Ariz., for acceptance testing. The Army's A Company, 15th Military Intelligence Battalion, III Corps began Hunter flight operations at Fort Hood, Texas, on Aug. 18 with System Four. ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Wed, 23 Aug 95 09:13:10 EST Subject: Ice Rings FOR Dr. Douglas Grant (emeritus scientist) Terrain Sciences Division Geological Survey of Canada Please email me privately to discuss ice ring formation theories. Terry W. Colvin or Fort Huachuca (Cochise County), Arizona USA "No editor ever likes the way a story tastes unless he pees in it first." -Mark Twain ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Wed, 23 Aug 95 10:01:35 EST Subject: Pine Bush Sightings The Pine Bush sightings I saw on 8/11 are a flying craft with lights. I don't know what craft it is or where it comes from. I have "no beef" in this regard. This was my first trip to Pine Bush and also my first expedition to look for "UFO's." I do not plan to publish a book, etc. To show good faith, I will sell a copy of my photos to anyone who wants them at cost plus mailing. If you want a copy of the 6 best photos I took please let me know and I will determine what it will cost to get you a copy. Maybe someone with some expertise can tell what we saw from the photos. I hope others who are interested will help determine what is going on at Pine Bush. These are slow moving crafts , not supersonic jets. My photos show the lights on the craft. Please check it out for yourself by going to PB. They are not balloons, ultralights, or small aircraft. There were at least 30 people on West Searsville Rd last Friday (8/11/95) when this one sighting occurred. I graduated from Harvard Medical School in 1980 with an M.D. degree. I hardly wish to discredit myself by making up a story about something I did not see. I saw it and I have posted my perception of what I saw. The craft is delta shape, slow moving, and travels only a few hundred feet about the earth. What it is, I don't know. But IT IS REAL. Michael Borland, M.D., Ph.D. ------------------------------ From: wizard@fs1.houston.sccsi.com (John F. Regus) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 12:47:29 -0500 Subject: Business Aviation Futures I am suprised to not read anything about the future directions of business aviation, led by companies such as Cessna, DeHavilland, Grumman, etc., into the realms of supersonic speeds for business jets. Has anyone seen any information on this topic? ************************************************************************* * STRATACOM WORLDNET * internet: wizard@sccsi.com | SYS/370/390 * internet: STRATACOM_WORLDNET@msn.com | Systems Software Engineering * voice: 713-960-0045 | Data and Tele-Communications * fax/data:713-960-0015 | * WUI: REGUSHOU | John F. Regus, Consultant ************************************************************************* ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Wed, 23 Aug 95 10:50:05 EST Subject: Pine Bush & Aurora I saw the Aurora mentioned in reference to the Pine Bush sightings. If anyone is interested in looking at some pictures of what it might look like, I have some good news. There are some _excellent_ illustrations done by a fellow in England posted at: http://www.primenet.com/~mikeq/aurora.html. These were done by a graphics designer who does work for aviation companies. They are based on the most popular theories on the Aurora. Please give them a look, you won't be disappointed. Feel free to email me with any comments. I personally doubt the craft seen at Pine Bush was the Aurora (BTW, this is probably not the progarm's actual name, just one that stuck). It would be totally against its mission profile to be flying in that area that low & slow. This is of course assuming that it exists at all. I personally believe it does in one format or another, but I can't say for sure. I've also seen the TR-3A mentioned as well in some other reports. One question was if it could hover. I would think not, again just my opinion. Hover capability would most likely not be needed.Its role of selecting multiple targets for the F-117s can be done while moving. Hovering woold make it a better target. - -> Send "subscribe FocusUFO-L" to misc@interport.net FAQ for FocusUFO-L is available at: http://www.interport.net/~misc/ ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Wed, 23 Aug 95 10:50:43 EST Subject: Pine Bush & TR-3A Black Manta info? From: Rmborland@aol.com Can anyone please provide reference to a magazine or book that shows the TR-3A Black Manta. If I see this, I can tell if it is similar to what I saw at Pine Bush. The two delta shaped crafts I saw moved in a straight line ( no hovering, direction reversals, etc.). Marc Whitford has seen and photgraphed the crafts changing direction abruptly. I have not. Thanks. Michael Borland, M.D., Ph.D. ------------------------------ From: Jay.Waller@analog.com Date: Wed, 23 Aug 95 14:32 EDT Subject: Business Aviation Futures Didn't Sukhoi have a design for a supersonic business jet on the boards a while back? I think they're were working with a US company (Grumman perhaps?). Regards, Jay - --- - -------------( Forwarded letter follows )----------------------- - --- Date: Wednesday, 23 August 1995 2:11pm Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 12:47:29 -0500 X-Sender: wizard@newpop.sccsi.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: skunk-works@gaia.ucs.orst.edu From: wizard@fs1.houston.sccsi.com (John F. Regus) Subject: Business Aviation Futures Sender: skunk-works-owner@gaia.ucs.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: wizard@fs1.houston.sccsi.com I am suprised to not read anything about the future directions of business aviation, led by companies such as Cessna, DeHavilland, Grumman, etc., into the realms of supersonic speeds for business jets. Has anyone seen any information on this topic? ************************************************************************* * STRATACOM WORLDNET * internet: wizard@sccsi.com | SYS/370/390 * internet: STRATACOM_WORLDNET@msn.com | Systems Software Engineering * voice: 713-960-0045 | Data and Tele-Communications * fax/data:713-960-0015 | * WUI: REGUSHOU | John F. Regus, Consultant ************************************************************************* ------------------------------ From: "RUSSELL.B" Date: 23 Aug 1995 14:44:14 GMT Subject: Re: Business Aviation Future Date: Wednesday, 23 August 1995 2:43pm ET To: Internet From: RUSSELL.B@GOMAIL Subject: Re: Business Aviation Future Sukhoi had entered into a partnership with Gulfstream to design a supersonic biz jet. Haven't seen anything about it lately. Just another software type question. Bob Russell Systems Programmer State of Georgia, DOAS ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Wed, 23 Aug 95 12:31:07 EST Subject: Re: Pine Bush Sightings Howdy Alexa and Pam, Thank you for your comments. Please be advised I am only the messenger. Those messages from my account are actually cross-posted from the skunk-works mailing list. Skunk-works readers focus on stealth and black project subjects. Some skunkers will address UFO-related messages if a suspicion exists of an IFO (Identified Flying Object) such as an Aurora or Black Manta aircraft. The close proximity to observers in a more populated part of the country is puzzling. If U.S. military aircraft testing is going on I would much more expect testing out here in the American Southwest. With your permission I could forward this message and any subsequent messages on "Pine Bush Sightings" to the skunk-works mailing list for their review and comments. Regards, Terry Terry W. Colvin or Fort Huachuca (Cochise County), Arizona USA "No editor ever likes the way a story tastes unless he pees in it first." -Mark Twain ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Pine Bush Sightings Author: AlexaC6750@aol.com at smtp Date: 23/8/1995 11:34 AM Hello Terry - I am a recent subscriber to FocusUFO-L and have been reading with interest about the Pine Bush sightings. I have been noting your posts in regard to the sightings. It seems to me that you may be suggesting that what is being seen in Pine Bush is not alien craft. Am I correct in this assumption? If so would you be interested in sharing with us (off list) your view point and reasons for such. I and my friend Pam (cc above) have many suspicions that what is being seen, ie triangular and boomerang shaped craft, are possibly ultra-tech secret craft of human origin, or possibly alien craft piloted by humans. Our basis for this reasoning is that these craft seen in Pine Bush do not behave as a normal UFOs in that they allow folks to observe at will and take pictures, they make jet noises, have flaps and running lights, no one has ever seen them enter or exit from space, all observations seem to be close to the ground, the observations are usually from 7-10 pm at night etc, etc. Pam and I both live near Whitford who is quite defensive about the Pine Bush sightings. Though we have never met Whitford, I have talked with both he and Dr. Cornet on the phone. I have also seen Cornet's web site, and I'm not impressed by his theories. Dr. Cornet has some very unusual ideas about the nature of the Pine Bush sightings and tends to also be defensive if others do not prescribe to his beliefs. Since Whitford is an associate of Cornet's and since Whitford is on every news group around, I would prefer to discuss theories contrary to their beliefs off the newsgroup for now. I don't want to get into convoluted discussions about the fact they are definitely seeing something 'real' as that is obvious, but I would like a rational conversation about the nature of these craft without Whitford butting in to defend his position - I already know his position and he's very pushy about it. Regards, Alexa C Clinton MD ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Wed, 23 Aug 95 12:40:15 EST Subject: Re[2]: Pine Bush & Aurora Oops. Orange County, New York. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: re: Pine Bush & Aurora Author: , (CMS, SCOTT, MAF, 637) at smtp Date: 23/8/1995 12:30 PM where is pine bush scott ------------------------------ From: "James.C.Anderson" Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 16:15:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Re[2]: Pine Bush & Aurora Ummm... I do believe the sighting in question happened in the Albany, New York area. Seem to remember a whole lot of noise about lights in the sky some months back. The inital post mentioned Albany Post Road and there is a big part of Albany County (south west part, I believe) that is call the Albany Pine Bush. As to Aurora/Black Manta/B-2 being in the area... there a ANG base at Schenectady County Airport (C-130's) and and ANG (Cobra's) at Albany County. Neither airport could support anything bigger than a lightly loaded widebody (Air Force One was at AC and the pilot remarked he didn't look forward to landing or taking off on < 7,000 ft) so I really doubt it was anything skunky... there's a better chance it was indeed a UFO.. Jim On Wed, 23 Aug 1995, Terry Colvin wrote: > Oops. Orange County, New York. > > > ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ > Subject: re: Pine Bush & Aurora > Author: , (CMS, SCOTT, MAF, 637) at smtp > Date: 23/8/1995 12:30 PM > > > where is pine bush > > scott > > ******************************************************************************* Jim Anderson Williams College Systems Manager Center for Computing James.C.Anderson@williams.edu Jesup Hall Williamstown, MA 01267 413-597-2082 ******************************************************************************* ------------------------------ From: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 20:10:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Re[2]: Pine Bush & Aurora Once upon a time James.C.Anderson shaped the electrons to say... >As to Aurora/Black Manta/B-2 being in the area... there a ANG base at >Schenectady County Airport (C-130's) and and ANG (Cobra's) at Albany >County. Neither airport could support anything bigger than a lightly >loaded widebody (Air Force One was at AC and the pilot remarked he didn't Correction. I lived next to the 109th TAG at Stratton Air Base (ANG) for 10+ years. They normally fly C-130s (LC-130Hs - The ski-birds for Greenland, the only AF/ANG unit to use them) - but they have air shows there routinely, and I got my private rating at Schenectady County Airport (the other side of the field) - you can land fully loaded C-5s there. And they've done it. They've also used it for C-141s, B-52s, 747s have used it, etc... It has the longest runway in the area, I forget the exact length (I can look it up if anyone wants, I have the reference around here - I'm packing for a move though) but it is 7,000+ feet for the main runway. They use it for airraft too large to land at Albany International (what a joke that is, it's a small airport with little/no room to expand). Saratoga is a short drive - if you don't know, Saratoga is a major horse racing mecca - - and some Shiek flew his private 747 into Schenectady for some horse trading he was doing a number of years back. Albany couldn't handle it. Before the C-130, the main aircraft there was the C-97. Schenectady can handle the largest planes we have in use today. However, the *entire* field can be seen if you know where to look. My family still owns the 20+ acres that border the length of the air-guard side of the field. I could show you evey hole in the fence - including the ones I made. Some great wild strawberries grow in the grass along the taxi strip... ;-) - -- megazone@world.std.com (508) 752-2164 MegaZone's Waste Of Time Moderator: anime fanfic archive, ftp.std.com /archives/anime-fan-works; rec.arts.anime.stories - Maintainer: Ani Difranco Mailing List - Mail to majordomo@world.std.com with 'subscribe ani-difranco' in the body. ------------------------------ From: davidcol@clark.net (David Colton) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 23:41:04 -0400 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #392 Re Bissell post BoP He went to Philadelphia and with Bill Kintner, R. Strauss Hupe and others, launched the Foreign Policy Research Institute of Orbis fame. >Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 22 August 1995 Volume 05 : Number 392 > >In this issue: > > AE > Re: Su-35 > Re: Faster Than Light Travel > Re: Su-35 > Re: Su-35 > TU-2000 Aerospace Plane > LLV Launch Fails > Pine Bush Sightings > Off topic posts > Re: Pine Bush Sightings > >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: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com >Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 03:48:58 PDT >Subject: AE > >To whom it may concern (and you know who you are!) > >I`m an engineer, I deal in the facts. >If you want the truth, go see a freakin philosopher. >Chuck > >------------------------------ > >From: Wei-Jen Su >Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 16:37:57 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: Re: Su-35 > >On Sun, 20 Aug 1995 Pionusman@aol.com wrote: > >> In a recent Popular Science, there was an article about the F-22 (sound >> familiar.) The was about the simulator that the author got to test drive. >> The article said that there were 4 threats on the display, and they were >> Sukoi Su-35s. I have heard about the Su-27 (nato name "Flanker", but never >> the Su-35. Is it under development like the F-22, or is it just a made up >> aircraft. >> >> pionusman@aol.com >> >> PS What happend to The Su-28 through -34? > > If my memory doesn't fake me... I saw a picture of Su-35 model in >AW&ST about 2 years ago. I don't know if they built it already or not >(because of the military budged cut in Russia). The mission of the Su-35 >is figther, very similar mission of the F-16. Look like a doble delta >wing with canard (the shape is very similar to the Sweden J-37 Viggen). >This is a one engine type aircraft too. I believe is a not a long-range >interceptor like the Su-27 rather than short-range light-weight figter. > The Su-32MK is a side-by-side bomber derivade from the Su-27. >Basically, the similar airframe with upgrade in avionic and system (I >believe is fly-by-wire). Two-seater was designated Su-34 when it first >flew in 1993. > There is a upgrade version of the Su-27 for landing in carrier with >canard, I believe is assign as Su-27K... I am not sure. > > Live Long and Prosper > > Su Wei-Jen > wsu02@barney.poly.edu > > >------------------------------ > >From: Wei-Jen Su >Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 01:28:41 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: Re: Faster Than Light Travel > >On Sat, 19 Aug 1995 Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com wrote: > >> Big question about FTL is: >> If I travel at the speed of light, the distances in the direction of my velocity >> become zero. The trip would take no time at all! How can I go any faster >> than that!? > > So, if I am understanding... you guys are talking about time >machine?? > >> >> And if I could go faster than light, how long would it take? Negative time? >> If that happened, velocity which is a relationship between distance and time, >> would go negative. Oops. Now I`m going away from my intended destination. > > Travel to the past? Well, if you studied the physic theory >"swirl", they "re-define" the time and space in different way. The space >is no consider points, lines, etc in 3-D anymore... The theory talk >something about chain of "swirl". I didn't really understood the theory >because is physic for PhD. Too deep for my poor knowledge :P > >> The big problem with the "space warp" theories is that even if it could work, >> the energy requirements would require you carry the mass of several Suns >> along with you! Proponents of supra-light travel tend to omit this little >> tidbit. >> >> "Why stabbest thou thus at the poet`s heart, >> Vulture, who`s wings are dull realities?" E.A.Poe "Sonnet to Science" >> >> Chuck Smith >> "Aerospace Engineer to the Stars" >> >> > > Live Long and Prosper > > Su Wei-Jen > wsu02@barney.poly.edu > >------------------------------ > >From: Ian Deeley >Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 17:00:12 +0100 >Subject: Re: Su-35 > >At 16:37 20/08/95 -0400, you wrote: >> >> If my memory doesn't fake me... I saw a picture of Su-35 model in >>AW&ST about 2 years ago. I don't know if they built it already or not >>(because of the military budged cut in Russia). The mission of the Su-35 >>is figther, very similar mission of the F-16. Look like a doble delta >>wing with canard (the shape is very similar to the Sweden J-37 Viggen). >>This is a one engine type aircraft too. I believe is a not a long-range >>interceptor like the Su-27 rather than short-range light-weight figter. >> > As I understand it, the SU-35 is a SU-27 derivative, featuring the > canard/foreplanes of the "sea flanker", vectored thrust capability, & > advanced FBW. The airframe is identical to the SU-27, & therefore is > twin engined. > I'm almost certain that the SU-29 & SU-31 are prop driven > specialist aerobatic aircraft, one of them is a two seater, the other > solo. Which one is which, I'm afraid I couldn't tell you! > > ttfn, > Ian. > > > Ian Deeley > Computer services "..even with an I.Q of 6000, > School of Engineering it's still brown trouser > University of Sussex / ^ \ time!!" > Falmer, Brighton ---(.)==<-.->==(.)--- Holly R.D > U.K > '88 ZX-10 Mag Sport, BMF, Ogri #100, Tufty club. > > >------------------------------ > >From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl >Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 12:02:10 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: Re: Su-35 > >On Sunday, August 20, 1995, wrote: > >>In a recent Popular Science, there was an article about the F-22 (sound >>familiar.) The was about the simulator that the author got to test drive. >>The article said that there were 4 threats on the display, and they were >>Sukoi Su-35s. I have heard about the Su-27 (nato name "Flanker", but never >>the Su-35. Is it under development like the F-22, or is it just a made up >>aircraft. > >>PS What happend to The Su-28 through -34? > >In the USSR and, in some ways, now in the CIS, aircraft are designed by OKBs >(construction bureaus), which also build the prototypes, while the series >aircraft are usually built by different aircraft manufacturing plants. > >The OKBs assign their own designations to projects and prototypes, while the >military later assigns their own military designations. Here are some OKB >prototype designations and the later military designations: > - Sukhoi prototype T-8, military designation Su-25, NATO 'Frogfoot'; > - MiG prototype Ye-6, military designation MiG-21, NATO 'Fishbed'; > - MiG Product 9, military designation MiG-29, NATO 'Fulcrum'; > - Tupolev Tu-95, military designation Tu-20, NATO 'Bear'; > >For not very clear reasons, the USSR military used odd numbers for their >fighter aircraft, and even numbers for bomber, attack, transport and other >aircraft. This rule was not strictly enforced, and there are quite a few >exceptions. Some prototype designations might have been used mainly for >deception and security reasons. > >Non-military aircraft, and aircraft which were not procured by the military, >are usually known by their OKB designations. In later years, export versions >of military aircraft received different designations, like a Mi-24 'Hind' >export version, which is known as Mi-35M; a MiG-29 export version called >MiG-30, etc. > >The OKB Sukhoi -- named after Pavel Osipovitsh Sukhoi -- is not only known >for its fighter and attack aircraft, but as well for its excellent aerobatic >competition and trainer aircraft. They used a lot of different designation >systems (as did MiG and others) and the assignment of designations to their >prototypes and series aircraft was not necessarily always in numeric, >sequential or chronological order: > > - DB-2, long-range bomber, 1930s; > - Su-1, prototype I-330, high-altitude interceptor, 1940; > - Su-2, military designation BB-1, ground attack aircraft, a modified > version was known as ShB, 1940s; > - Su-3, prototype I-360, high-altitude interceptor, 1941; > - Su-4, ground attack aircraft, Su-2 version, 1941; > - Su-5, prototype I-107, piston engine and jet engine, 1944/45; > - Su-6, ground attack aircraft, in competition to Il-2, 1941; > - Su-6/II, ground attack aircraft, in competition to Il-10, 1942/43s; > - Su-7, modified Su-6, fighter with piston engine and jet engine, 1946; > - Su-8, ground attack aircraft, two piston engines, 1944/45; > - Su-9, more or less a copy of Me 262, aka Su-9(K), 1946; > - Su-10, medium jet bomber prototype, 4 engines, 1947/48; > - Su-11, modernized Su-9 with different engines, aka Su-11(LK), 1947/48; > - Su-12, reconnaissance/observation aircraft, Fw 189 look-a-like, 1948; > - Su-15, jet fighter with two jet engines (one exhaust under fuselage, like > the MiG-9 etc. and one in the tail) and swept wings, aka Su-15(P), 1949; > - Su-17, jet fighter with swept wings, like MiG-19 with one engine, aka > Su-17(P), 1949; > >Sukhoi was closed down in 1949 (and integrated into the Tupolev OKB), but was >re-established in 1953. Prototypes with swept wings were then usually given >S-x designations (S - Strelovidnoye / arrow-shaped) and prototypes with >delta wings (or straight wings) received T-x designations (T - Treugolnoye / >triangular): > > - Su-7, jet fighter bomber, swept wings, prototypes S-1, S-2, S-22, etc. > (originally believed to be designated 'Su-19'), > + Su-7B, Su-7BM, Su-7BKL, NATO 'Fitter A'; > + Su-7IG, Su-7G, S-22I swing wing prototypes, NATO 'Fitter B'; > + Su-7U, trainer version, NATO 'Moujik'; > - Su-9, like Su-7 but with delta wings, prototypes T-1, T-3, T-7, PT-7, > T-43, T-431, T-49, T-405, etc., with modified air-intakes, engines, etc., > (originally believed to be designated 'Su-21'), > + T-3 prototype, NATO 'Fishpot A', > + Su-9, fighter, Sukhoi T-43, NATO 'Fishpot B', > + Su-9U, trainer version, NATO 'Maiden A'; > - Su-11, modernized Su-9, prototypes PT-8, T-47, > + Su-11, fighter, Sukhoi T-47, NATO 'Fishpot C', > + Su-11U trainer version, NATO 'Maiden B'; > - Su-15, jet fighter with cranked delta/double-delta wing and two engines, > prototypes P-1, T-37, T-5, T-58, etc.; > + Su-15, interceptor, prototype T-58, NATO 'Flagon A', > + Su-15VD VTOL version, aka Su-15 DPD, T-58VD, NATO 'Flagon B', > + Su-15U, trainer version, NATO 'Flagon C', > + Su-15 with modernized engines, believed to be designated 'Su-21', > NATO 'Flagon E', > + Su-15 with modernized radar, believed to be designated 'Su-21', NATO > 'Flagon F', > - Su-17, jet fighter bomber, based on swing wing prototypes S-22I, Su-7IG, > Su-7G, > + Su-17, Su-17M, prototypes S-21, S-22, S-23, S-211, NATO 'Fitter C', > + Su-17MK, modernized radar/engine, NATO 'Fitter D', > + Su-17U, Su-17UM, trainer versions, NATO 'Fitter E', > + Su-17M-3, modernized, NATO 'Fitter H', > + Su-17M-4, modernized, NATO 'Fitter K', > + Su-17R, armed reconnaissance version; > - Su-20, export version of Su-17M, > + Su-20, NATO 'Fitter C', > + Su-20U, trainer version, NATO 'Fitter E'; > - Su-22, advanced export version of Su-17MK/M-3/M-4, > + Su-22, NATO 'Fitter F', > + Su-22M, NATO 'Fitter J', > + Su-22M-3, NATO 'Fitter H', > + Su-22UM-3K, aka S-52UM-3K, trainer version, NATO 'Fitter G', > + Su-22M-4, aka S-54M, NATO 'Fitter K'; > - Su-24, jet attack aircraft/light bomber, prototypes T-6, T-6-1, T-6-2, > etc., (originally believed to be designated Su-19), NATO 'Fencer', > + Su-24 pre-production, NATO 'Fencer A', > + Su-24, early production, NATO 'Fencer B', > + Su-24, with RWR, NATO 'Fencer C', > + Su-24MK, modernized, NATO 'Fencer D', > + Su-24MR, reconnaissance/ELINT, NATO 'Fencer E', > + Su-24MP, ELINT/ECM, NATO 'Fencer F'; > - Su-25, jet attack aircraft, prototypes T-8, T-8-1, etc., NATO 'Frogfoot'; > + Su-25, single-seat ground attack aircraft, SU-25K export version, NATO > 'Frogfoot A', > + Su-25UB, two-seat ground attack aircraft, Su-25UBK export version, NATO > 'Frogfoot B', > + Su-25BMK, target tug, > + Su-25UT, aka Su-28, two-seat trainer, > + Su-25UTG, two-seat aircraft carrier ground attack, > + Su-25UBP, two-seat aircraft carrier trainer, > + Su-25T, aka Su-34, anti-tank aircraft, Su-25TK export version, > - Su-26, competition aerobatic aircraft; > - Su-27, jet fighter, prototypes T-10, P-42, NATO 'Flanker', > + Su-27, pre-production, NATO 'Flanker A', > + Su-27B, air-superiority fighter, NATO 'Flanker B', > + Su-27UB, two-seat trainer, NATO 'Flanker C', > + T-10-24, aircraft carrier test aircraft, NATO 'Flanker B2', > + Su-27 LL-PS, modified Su-27UB, test aircraft with canards and thrust > vectoring (two-dimensional), > + LMK-2405, modified Su-27 with sidestick controller, > + T-10-?, aircraft carrier test aircraft with folding wings, > + Su-27K, aka Su-33, aircraft carrier version with canards, NATO > 'Flanker D', > + Su-27PS, modified Su-27UB with air-refueling receiver, > + Su-27IB, aka Su-27KU and Su-34, improved version (?), side-by-side two > seat precision attack aircraft, > + Su-27KU, military designation of Su-27IB, aka Su-34, side-by-side two > seat precision attack aircraft, > + Su-27M, aka Su-35, with canards and FBW, NATO 'Flanker Plus', > - Su-28, military designation of Su-25UT, two-seat trainer; > - Su-29, competition aerobatic aircraft, modernized Su-26; > - Su-30, military designation of projected two-seat long-range strike/ > interceptor/SEAD version of Su-27; > - Su-32, two-seat primary trainer; > - Su-33, military designation of Su-27K, aircraft carrier version with > canards, folding wings, etc., NATO 'Flanker D'; > - Su-34, military designation of Su-25T, Su-25TK, anti-tank version; > - Su-34, improved Su-27IB or Su-27KU version (?), side-by-side two seat > precision attack aircraft; > - Su-35, military designation of Su-27M, with canards, FBW and axi-symmetric > thrust vectoring; > - Su-37, Multi-Role-Aircraft (MRA) project, Eurofighter 2000 / JAS-39 class; > - Su-100, prototypes T-4, supersonic jet bomber; > - T-60 bomber project; > - S-80 STOL twin engine transporter project; > >This list is most likely incomplete, and could contain some errors -- any >corrections and additions are, as always, appreciated. > >- -- 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: "Terry Colvin" >Date: Mon, 21 Aug 95 10:15:01 EST >Subject: TU-2000 Aerospace Plane > >Forwarded from Space Tech mailing list: > >Date: 19 Aug 1995 17:52:22 GMT >From: Damon Hill Subject: Tu-2000 Aerospace Plane >almost complete? > >The limited testing the Russians did with scramjet engines hardly qualifies the >TU-2000 as a real vehicle if it doesn't have real engines. It's a very long way >from engines that operate at low thrust for a few seconds to many thousands of >pounds of thrust for many minutes or even hours. There's no reason to believe >even Russian engine technology can get around the development challenges that >scuttled the X-30 without a similar amount of money and effort. > >So I have difficulty believing this report is in any way accurate. > >- --Damon > > >------------------------------ > >From: "Terry Colvin" >Date: Mon, 21 Aug 95 12:31:31 EST >Subject: LLV Launch Fails > >Date: 16 Aug 1995 20:31:32 -0400 >From: DPEALER >Subject: LLV Launch Fails > > Happened to be there to photograph the launch and attend the >de-brief, where Rusty Schweikert (CTA Corporation - Gemstar satellite >payload) appeared. The countdown was delayed by low visibility in the >launch area until improving around 15:00:00. Ignition and liftoff at >15:30:10.25 (PDT) and first stage performance (Castor 120) was nominal by >all indications. Appearing late in the burn a high pitch rate developed >and control of the vehicle became questionable. Once in the coast phase, >the first stage remained attached to second stage for a period of 1 >minute. Payload fairing separation occurred nominally on time. Second >stage ignition and separation occurred apparently nominally but under a > >high pitch rate condition. Velocity was low because of the vehicle's high >AOA. The vehicle did not disentegrate but remained intact. The thrust >vector control attempted to correct. Destruct command was issued by the >range by 15:33:00 with the vehicle about 290.0 nm downrange and altitude >about of 485,000 ft. The command was issued because the vehicle was no >longer making velocity downrange and pointed in the wrong direction. They're >not sure if it was a tumble with a high pitch. No damage to people or >property and the debris impacted in deep water. There are no plans to >recover the debris but analyze the available telemetry. > Lockheed-Martin is still getting data to analyze to determine the >actual cause of the high pitch rate. It will be several days before the >board can make some conclusions. > Tentative plans for the two other launches are still for next summer. > > Don Pealer > Quest Magazine Writer > > >------------------------------ > >From: "Terry Colvin" >Date: Mon, 21 Aug 95 13:47:03 EST >Subject: Pine Bush Sightings > >Near the end of this message are two legit questions germane to the readers of >skunk-works. Skeptics may analyze at their leisure. >Forwarded by: >Terry W. Colvin or >Fort Huachuca (Cochise County), Arizona USA >"No editor ever likes the way a story tastes unless he pees >in it first." -Mark Twain > >______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ >Subject: Pine Bush Sightings >Author: Terry Colvin at FHU2 >Date: 21/8/1995 10:39 AM > > >I was at Pine Bush on August 11th and 12th. On the 11th I was with Paul >Carleton and saw the same two unusual crafts. > >The first craft was seen from Albany Post Road as we were driving to the >observation area on West Searsville Road. The second craft was seen from >West Searsville Road. Paul's description matches what I saw. In addition >I would like to note that the second craft flew over us. I estimate it >was only a few hundred feet above us since it flew very close to the >tree line in the distance. It appeared to be about 200 feet long. It made >no sound whatsoever until after it passed us, at which time it made a >sound like a jet engine but much softer. I estimate its speed at no more >than 200 miles per hour, but I may be off somewhat on this since I have >no reference point. I could clearly see the outline of the craft. It was >delta shaped and clearly had no tail nor fuselage, as Paul stated. I >have never seen a military or commercial jet travel so slowly as did this >craft. It traveled only in a straight line (no hovering or abrupt turns). >I photographed both crafts with ASA 400 color film. The photos show the >lighting pattern Paul described, but were too dark to show the delta >shape. I am going to enlarge two photos to see if the shape can be seen >by doing this. > >I have never been to Pine Bush before this trip. > >I can not determine the source of these two crafts but I was very >impressed that they looked and behaved differently than anything I've >ever seen. I have seen pictures of the Stealth bomber and it's shape is >different than what I saw at Pine Bush. The Stealth bomber is wider than >it is long. The crafts at Pine Bush were longer than they were wide, thus >I refer to them as delta shaped. > >I'd appreciate knowing if anyone knows if our military has any plane >with this shape. Also, can anyone tell me what is the minimum speed >needed to keep a jet in the air? Is there any explanation for why the >craft was absolutely silent until after it passed over our head, at which >point the jet sound was heard. > >Thanks >Michael Borland,M.D.,Ph.D. > > >- -> Send "subscribe FocusUFO-L" to misc@interport.net > FAQ for FocusUFO-L is available at: http://www.interport.net/~misc/ > > >------------------------------ > >From: ConsLaw@aol.com >Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 20:30:48 -0400 >Subject: Off topic posts > >If you complain about a post being off topic, then you quote the off-topic >post in full, are you really helping things? >- -Conslaw (quotes deleted) > >------------------------------ > >From: chosa@chosa.win.net (BYRON WEBER) >Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 18:02:44 >Subject: Re: Pine Bush Sightings > >What you described sounds an aweful lot like the B-2. Two flew over >my house at dusk on a Friday about two months ago. The sound, >lights and slow pace were the same. I guessed their stealthiness >extended even to the visual spectrum since it was difficult to >estimate velocity, altitude and shape. I was only sure they were >B-2's after seeing the lights and watching a banking turn that made >the shape more identifiable. It almost looked the the plane pivoted >instead of banked. If they were not B-2s, could they use the same >technology? > >An aside note: what happened to Bissell after he was fired from >the CIA for the Bay of Pigs event? Did he continue his interest in >platforms? Anyone? > >The theoretical postulate to faster than light travel hypothesises >more than 4 dimensions. Got a long way to go to prove more. >Its still SMF despite claims to the contrary. (science mathmatical >fiction) > > >Byron Weber > > >------------------------------ > >End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #392 >********************************* > >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). > ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #394 ********************************* 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).