From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #512 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Friday, 17 November 1995 Volume 05 : Number 512 In this issue: Re: Bill Sweetman on 'Dark Eagles' Re: Bill Sweetman on 'Dark Eagles' popularmechanics.com Holloman Anomaly Re: secret testing at WSMR Re: Boscombe Down UK Ad for Helicopter for sale, that I saw.... Bland Navy planes (from SR-71 paint) /Optical guidance 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: David Windle Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 10:35:22 Subject: Re: Bill Sweetman on 'Dark Eagles' Andreas posted Bill Sweetman's commentary on above. First off, I have to say I haven't read the book..but,with regard to the North Sea sighting...I've interviewed Chris Gibson who saw the 'pure isoceles triangle'..for those who don't know, he's an expert on a/c recognition and the notion that he wouldn't know an F-111..or any other a/c when he saw one is laughable. No-one who has spoken to him would doubt that he's an expert on his subject. When you're researching a subject as elusive as black programmes you don't dismiss witnesses of that calibre, you grab hold of them with both hands ! All Chris Gibson ever wanted(s) is to know what it was that he saw..because what he saw was no acknowledged a/c of that I'm sure. Not being an Auroraphile, I think it may have been the F-111 replacement..which may also be the same a/c that made a forced landing at Boscombe Down UK last year. Best D ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:12:27 -0800 Subject: Re: Bill Sweetman on 'Dark Eagles' Thanks David for the Gibson info. I've posted this before here, and I thought I would reiterate: Back in January 1992, AWST came out with one of their VISTA issues (1/13/92). In it was a rather interesting little tidbit: The article mentions that besides being involved in proprietary work in the 1980's, Rockwell and Lockheed were rumored to be involved in a secret aircraft development effort: "others indicate the two companies were involved in a secret program to develop a successor to the USAF F-111". Larry ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 95 12:35:22 EST Subject: popularmechanics.com Tech Update Of The Day: November 16, 1995 Jet Wiggles Its Nose To Turn EDWARDS, CA -- Question: How do you handle a jet fighter at steep angles of attack, when the plane itself blocks airflow to control surfaces? Answer: ANSER, or Actuated Nose Strakes for Enhanced Rolling. Developed at NASA's Langley Research Center (see Tech Update, page 17, Feb. '94), the strakes are now flying on the High Alpha Research Vehicle (HARV). Strakes lend control when nose pitches much higher than direction of flight. A modified F/A-18 on loan from the Navy, HARV had already been fitted with thrust-vectoring vanes. These deflect engine exhaust to boost pitch and yaw control. Engineers installed the strakes -- each 4 ft. long and 6 in. wide -- last winter. Hydraulic actuators extend them to interact with vortexes swirling around the nose. The strakes work best at turning the jet left and right when it's in high angles of attack. The pilot sim-ply shifts the stick -- the strakes' movements are governed entirely by the plane's flight-control software. The research program is a broad exploration of high-angle flight, as compared to the X-31's focus on dogfighting maneuvers. - -- 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: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 13:14:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Holloman Anomaly Does anyone remember the photo of the "Holloman AFB Anomaly", which Rick Pavek provided, and which can be downloaded from my www page? I thought about it again, when I read a sidebar in an older Flug Revue (11/1991) about a new, tethered, maneuverable target from the company Hayes Targets. This model, called TRX-12B, was supposed to be able to maneuver with a speed of more than 200 ft./sec. up to 45 degrees above and 70 degrees below the target tug aircraft (a Fairchild C-123 Provider) and fly up to 1,000 ft. beside it. The target was controlled from the C-123, and used a digital autopilot for 3-axis stabilization. The photo may show a test flight of this target or an advanced version of it, over the White Sands Missile Range. Any comments? - -- 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: FR8Driver@aol.com Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 14:42:26 -0500 Subject: Re: secret testing at WSMR I spent two years flying out of Holloman AFB in 1977/78. On occasion, we were assigned to fly in an area called Yonder. Yonder was due west of Holloman. To get there you flew directly over the mostly dry lake bed that supplied the gypsum for the White Sands National Monument. Painted right down the middle of the dry lake bed were the black markings of a runway: Northrup Strip. Talking to pilots who had retired/seperated and were working for the contractor Flight Systems, Inc. (now Tracor-Flight Systems), they claimed to have actually flown that company's Sabre jets from Northrup Strip. We had no reason to disbelieve them. Also while stationed there, we often heard the NASA callsign on the radio with Cherokee Control (WSMR controlling agency) as they practiced shuttle landing approaches to Northrup Strip with their reconfigured Gulfstream. The existance of Northrup Strip has long been known. It would be totally invisible from the west side roads (mountains in the way), well over 25 miles from any public roads to the north, at least15 miles from roads to the east, and only marginally visible from the road to Las Cruces to the south. That road was often blocked for hours during the daytime for missle test shots. It would be no problem to block it day or night and thus make the nearest road to the south approx 30 miles away! The problem would be to block the public's view of the airspace above, since the terrain to the north and east is very flat. A good, high power scope would give away their secrets. Night could help some, but as far as I knew then, Northrup Strip was not lighted. Makes for a tough landing in the dark. Delurk tuned on again Joe Vincent ------------------------------ From: Greg Fieser Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 14:47:37 -0600 Subject: Re: Boscombe Down UK David Windle wrote: > > may have been the F-111 replacement..which may also be the same a/c that > made a forced landing at Boscombe Down UK last year. > I'm not familiar with this incident, could you (or someone) elaborate? Thanks, Greg Fieser ------------------------------ From: jstone@iglou.com (John Stone) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 18:18:20 -0500 Subject: Ad for Helicopter for sale, that I saw.... Hey I've seen this ad in a British Racing Car publication for the past 3 weeks, in their Aircraft for Sale ads: "1993 & 1995 Bell/Textron AH-18 "Cobra" Helicopters, zero time SMOH, All new components, radios, instruments and wiring. With IR suppression system, wire strike kit. Painted IR flat black, fully FAA certified with new birth certificates. Many options and configurations, available, upgrade capable. $5.5M USD." and then it give the guys address. Are these things "army surplus" anybody got any ideas.... Thanks, John Stone | / ^ \ ___|___ -(.)==<.>==(.)- --------o---((.))---o-------- SR-71 Blackbird U-2 Dragon Lady John Stone jstone@iglou.com U-2 and SR-71 Web Page http://wl.iglou.com/blackbird/ ------------------------------ From: "Art Hanley" Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 22:04:03 +0700 Subject: Bland Navy planes (from SR-71 paint) /Optical guidance Regarding the USN's "de-coloring" of their aircraft. As I remember it, the official reason given for the decoloring of naval aircraft was for air combat purposes. This was supposed to make the aircraft harder for an enemy pilot to see. The Air Force had actually gone to removing individual unit markings first, and the Navy followed. Fighter pilots I talked to said, however, that in most cases the bright colors used for naval aircraft really didn't make them much more visible at the distances most encounters took place, and the removal of the bright unit markings had a detrimental effect on morale. USAF, to its credit, realized this and backed off somewhat on the coloring requirements of its aircraft, and started permitting more individuality in unit markings. However, the real reason that I heard from more than one squadron, and from some press reports, was simply that it was cheaper not to have the brihgt markings because they cost more to paint and to maintain. Unit pride wasn't even figured in. Since this started during the Carter years, this is somewhat believable. There is a tie-in to the list. Part of the post I'm responding to talked about optical sensors. Now, we know that an optical guidance seeker heads for air-to-air missiles is well within current technology. This poses a question for stealth aircraft design. Let's say 10 years or so from now, the F-22 is supercruising along at M1.3 or so during the day. With a good IRST, which virtually every contemporary fighter except the F-22 will have, the skin heating from friction will be enough that the aircraft should be both detectable and trackable from a goodly distance. If our IRST-equipped foe gets reasonably close and launches a missile that guides optically, what is the counter? More importantly, does this sort of negate some of the rationale for the compromises made to give the F-22 the excellent stealth it enjoys? Art ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #512 ********************************* 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).