From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #516 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 21 November 1995 Volume 05 : Number 516 In this issue: RE: Skunk Works Digest V5 #513 SR-71 Overflight Re: MAKING TURBULENCE OBSOLETE Re: Air Force News Service 15nov95 Re[2]: Boscombe Down UK [none] Re: SR-71 Overflight Re: Air Force News Service 15nov95 Re: Air Force News Service 15nov95 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: Greg Fieser Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 09:09:15 -0600 Subject: RE: Skunk Works Digest V5 #513 > > From what I've heard on this incident, the mystery plane was most probably > an F-111 with its wings swept. The planes were probably not line abreast, > but one refueling with the other 2 at a lower flight level, but next to > eact other. This isn't an odd formation. > Although I'm not an expert on F-111s, it seems unlikely that an F-111 would attempt refueling with wings in the swept position. At the relatively slower speeds at which refueling is done, a wing swept configuration would seem to be inappropriate, if not impossible. Also, the posting seems to infer that the two "identified" a/c were F-111s with wings swept forward. This in itself would suggest that the "proper" configuration for F-111s refueling is in the swept forward position... Greg Fieser ------------------------------ From: Erfunc@aol.com Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 11:46:42 -0500 Subject: SR-71 Overflight I monitored a high flyer with Oak Center on 296.7 MHZ and forgot to take accurate notes on the flight. It was the afternoon of Nov 17 callsign "XX 32", "above flight level 60" "southbound" - "RTB - direct PMD(Palmdale) - will make left turn in 40 miles". There was no sonic boom in the area (San Rafael, CA, 20 miles north of San Francisco) This frequency is only used by TR-1's and SR-71's over the past 10 years. Ed Flynn San Rafael, CA erfunc@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Clyde Prichard Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 10:42:05 -0700 Subject: Re: MAKING TURBULENCE OBSOLETE Thanks for the info. I agree that .. >There's some great science going on in the USA :). I'm also sorry to see it dwindling to almost nothing since advanced research detracts from near term profits, and thus impacts stock prices. Only wild-cat businesses, such as pharmaceuticals, which can reap fantastic returns seem to be keeping their R&D healthy. Sad. - -- - - Clyde - CLYDE PRICHARD EMAIL: pricharc@agcs.com ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Mon, 20 Nov 95 11:12:51 EST Subject: Re: Air Force News Service 15nov95 ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Air Force News Service 15nov95 Author: Terry Colvin at FHU2 Date: 11/17/95 2:08 PM Douglas J. Tiffany posted the following > I received this from the Air Force News Service today: > "... those who fly the sleek, black bomber say critics are forgetting > that, like the bombers that brought the Third Reich and Japan to > their knees in World War II..." To which I must respond "Pardon me while I puke." The Strategic Bombing surveys proved, to anyone not wearing an AF blue uniform, that this is not true. One need only consider the fact that German war production was higher at the end of the war than it was at the beginning. The bombers were important, but not decisive. The infantryman and his rifle was the decisive weapon system in WWII, not the B-17 or B-29. In spite of all the claims, there has only been ONE decisive bombing campaign, and that one consisted of only two missions: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And even that one was dependent on the infantryman to provide the necessary bases. Also, I wonder if it would have been as decisive in 1942 as it was in 1945? Bill Riddle Army Aviator (Retired) and Graduate of the Ft Benning School for Boys ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Mon, 20 Nov 95 11:14:11 EST Subject: Re[2]: Boscombe Down UK ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Boscombe Down UK Author: Terry Colvin at FHU2 Date: 11/17/95 3:04 PM In partial answer to the following: > On the North Sea sighting...could someone tell me if it's normal for a/c > to fly in line abreast whilst waiting to re-fuel ? The 2 F-111s were on > the port side of the KC135 as the mystery a/c appeared to take on fuel. > Is that how it happens or does it appear more like the action of chase > planes ? I believe that the normal technique has the a/c waiting for its (their) turn at refueling to fly on the wing of the a/c currently refueling. That might look like "in line abreast," but it is really a stepped back echelon formation. I was fortunate enough to have been allowed to ride along on a KA-6 from USS Saratoga in 1980. One of my most indelible images is looking out and seeing four F-4s in echelon left, one drinking and three waiting. Bill Riddle Army Aviator (Retired) ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Mon, 20 Nov 95 11:50:49 EST Subject: [none] Date: 13 Nov 1995 22:41:44 GMT From: David Thomas Richard Given Subject: starflight and UFOs (Re: A NASA Employee's Opinions) In article <47nund$5e8@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>, Sea Witch wrote:>Brian Zeiler wrote: >>Yes, but there is growing theoretical support for spacetime distortion>>propulsions. Alcubierre has shown the warp drive theory is plausible, >>although his exotic matter with negative energy density remains >>theoretical. A professor in the UK has just produced a paper on stable >>wormholes. And Dr. Euejin Jeong has a paper being reviewed for >>publication on a rotating hemisphere that can induce spacetime distortion>>that will allow for a propulsion to enable interstellar travel to become>>as easy as transoceanic flight. In other words, they're just theories, >>but I wouldn't marry myself to a premature conclusion that linear travel>>is the only way. >> Where are copies of these papers available? Are they online, and if not, what journals are they in? I am most curious. Self thusly. (Well, it's better than `me too'...) I've seen (and ploughed my way through) Michael Alcubierre's paper (with the help of the commentary). I may even have the TeX source somewhere. But I haven't seen the others. The third one sounds fascinating... -- Why do people surf the Information | GCS -d+(?)(++) p(-+)(---) c++++ !l+(+) Superhighway? Won't they get run | u++ e*(++) m*(++) s !n h+(++) f+ g+ over? | w+(+++) t--(+) r y? (Archimedes owner) http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk:80/~www_sa/socs/virtual (Use at your own risk) ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 15:46:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SR-71 Overflight If it was early afternoon, it could have been a Blackbird. My latest copy of hte schedule showed an 0900 T/O. 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.... On Mon, 20 Nov 1995 Erfunc@aol.com wrote: > I monitored a high flyer with Oak Center on 296.7 MHZ and forgot to take > accurate notes on the flight. It was the afternoon of Nov 17 callsign "XX > 32", "above flight level 60" "southbound" - "RTB - direct PMD(Palmdale) - > will make left turn in 40 miles". There was no sonic boom in the area (San > Rafael, CA, 20 miles north of San Francisco) This frequency is only used by > TR-1's and SR-71's over the past 10 years. > Ed Flynn > San Rafael, CA > erfunc@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 19:23:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Air Force News Service 15nov95 On Mon, 20 Nov 1995, Terry Colvin wrote: > The Strategic Bombing surveys proved, to anyone not wearing an AF blue > uniform, that this is not true. One need only consider the fact that > German war production was higher at the end of the war than it was at > the beginning. > > The bombers were important, but not decisive. The infantryman and his > rifle was the decisive weapon system in WWII, not the B-17 or B-29. > In spite of all the claims, there has only been ONE decisive bombing > campaign, and that one consisted of only two missions: Hiroshima and > Nagasaki. And even that one was dependent on the infantryman to > provide the necessary bases. Also, I wonder if it would have been as > decisive in 1942 as it was in 1945? > > > > Bill Riddle > Army Aviator (Retired) and > Graduate of the Ft Benning School for Boys > > If I remember, I understand that one of the main reason that the Germany lost the WWII it is because they run out of the fuel!!! May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: sschaper@pobox.com (Steve Schaper) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 00:17:25 -0600 Subject: Re: Air Force News Service 15nov95 At 7:23 PM 11/20/95, Wei-Jen Su wrote: >On Mon, 20 Nov 1995, Terry Colvin wrote: > >> The Strategic Bombing surveys proved, to anyone not wearing an AF blue >> uniform, that this is not true. One need only consider the fact that >> German war production was higher at the end of the war than it was at >> the beginning. If that is all that it is based on, then that proves nothing. American production was up, too. How much _less_ was German production at the end of the war than it would have been without bombing would be more to the point. I also seem to remember that the Army was mighty glad to finally get air cover again towards the end of the Battle of the Bulge. >> The bombers were important, but not decisive. The infantryman and his >> rifle was the decisive weapon system in WWII, not the B-17 or B-29. Absolutely essential, but not decisive weapon _system_ I think. ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #516 ********************************* 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).