From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #611 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 1 February 1996 Volume 05 : Number 611 In this issue: N.R.O. Re: Tonapah base(?) Re: pictures of Aurora Re: Tonapah base(?) Re: Flying Wing Control Surfaces Re: Loral Press Release Aviano AB, Italy - Mystery Photo Re: Aviano AB, Italy - Mystery Photo Re: Flying Wing Control Surfaces Re: Flying Wing Control Surfaces -Reply Re: Aviano AB, Italy - Mystery Photo Recent Issue of Janes... Radar Cross Section Re: Flying Wing Control Surfaces -Reply photo web site skunk-works Re: Aviano AB, Italy - Mystery Photo Self-destruct devices Flying wing range and drag. Re: Flying Wing Control Surfaces -Reply 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: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 19:16:36 Subject: N.R.O. A brief but interesting article appeared on the front page of the New York Times today, "A Secret Agency's Secret Budgets Yield 'Lost' Billions,.." Seems John Deutch in his audit of the National Reconnaissance Office found another billion plus to add to the billion he'd already found, squirreled away by the N.R.O. for a rainy day, and of course to continue with programs Congress has denied them. Their only excuss was that the Office is so secret they didnt know how much they had. And the Oversight Committee had no idea what they have been authorizing expenditures for since the progams language are too techical for them to understand. Putting this in Skunk Works context, the NRO slush fund would buy about 200 DarkStars, each having a wing span of 69 feet equals 13,800 feet, or wing tip to wing tip over two and one half miles of continuous wing. Better yet, if one invested the money conservatively the interest would permit the Skunk Works to build ten to fifteen a year, forever. Byron ------------------------------ From: "Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM" Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 18:58 PST Subject: Re: Tonapah base(?) At 08:17 AM 1/30/96 -0700, Jerzy (Jurek) Rakoczynski wrote: >I addition to other replies, I have a good friend who flew a lot of >cargo in and out of Tonapah 20-30 years ago. Those radiation badges >where checked ALL the time. He NEVER left home without it. This in interesting, as I had been told the TTR (thanks, Mary) was all but abandoned before 1981 or so. --You mean you've jumped...ROUNDS??!! (Overheard at the Clovis, NM DZ) (Of course, silly! Hasn't everyone?) Member Bonus Days Club since 1980 NeedhamE@3lefties.com ------------------------------ From: "Art Hanley" Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 22:18:49 +0700 Subject: Re: pictures of Aurora I'm sending a general message to the list because I'm too poor a typist to answer some of the questions directly. The .GIF I posted was of the mystical "A-17". The A-17 is not Aurora, although there is some speculation that Aurora may really be the A-17. The A-17 is thought to be a derivative of the F-23, or vice versa. Other artists' conceptions (those are the copyrighted ones I mentioned) make the F-23 connection more obvious. The rear planform in this depiction is more even and smooth than in others, which are almost pure F-23 (except for the deletion of the thrust reverser housings). Also, that depiction shows a smoother fuselage-body join and higher sitting twin cockpit (closer to the F-23 design) than this one does. This design shows a more abrupt end to the center body and a cockpit area that seems more optimized around the strike role. Another difference between the A-17 and the F-23 is the aft control surfaces. The missions that many ascribe to the A-17 require even more stealth than the F-23, but not its agility. Therefore the aft control surfaces are different from the incredibly innovative design that Northrop//MDD used on the YF-23. Of course, all these drawings are based on whatever crashed at Boscombe Down in 1994, rather that viewing of an intact aircraft. Art ------------------------------ From: albert.dobyns@mwbbs.com (ALBERT DOBYNS) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 22:39:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Tonapah base(?) RC> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 20:51:44 -0700 (MST) > From: Robert Christiansen > Subject: Tonapah base(?) RC> I hate to prove some so intellegent wrong, but there is no base at > Tonapah NV. Being near the NV test site and in open desert area makes it > a prime target for test plane flyovers. Other than that there is no > military significance in the area. Tonapah had nothing with the F-117 > other than a fun place to watch for possible fly-bys. RC> Robert Christiansen If by "no base at Tonopah, NV" you mean the town itself, I agree with you. The Las Vegas Sectional Aeronautical Chart I have clearly shows the town of Tonopah, a public airport near the town, and the Tonopah Test Range base/airport just inside a restricted area. This base is shown as an uncontroled airport (no control tower!?) and a single 12,000' runway oriented SSE/NNW. No radio frequencies are shown. It is marked as a private airport, which is to be expected. I noticed that there is a VOR near the public airport. If you flew over it and then flew on a heading of 120 degrees (magnetic), you would be headed directly for the long runway at TTR! So it's not hard to get there, but I wouldn't want to get too close. Whatever security forces are stationed there would spring to action very quickly. I don't know exactly what they would do, but I believe they would make your life very unpleasant for awhile. :) I have a book that shows photos of the base and a separate housing area plus the main road that connects the base, the housing area, and the town of Tonopah. The road is shown on the chart as best as I can determine. I assume the TTR "airport" is shown on the aeronautical chart because there is a town and public airport in the nearby area. Someone flying around outside of the restricted area could still use the long runway at TTR as a visual nav aid. So now I feel like I have to ask you what sources are you basing your statement on. I am very curious about TTR, Groom Lake, etc. - -Al- - --- þ SLMR 2.1a þ "Boris, my friend, we need more Titanium..quickly!" :) ------------------------------ From: Mike.Mueller@jpl.nasa.gov (Mike Mueller) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 07:38:58 -0800 Subject: Re: Flying Wing Control Surfaces Once upon a time, Charles E. Smith arranged the phosphers on my CRT to read: >As we all know, a flying wing is a pretty inefficient aircraft. It will >suffer from reduced range and speed than a conventional aircraft. Hmm. I've always heard the opposite but then I'm not in aero. The wing itself may be less efficient but the lack of fuselage and tail more than makes up for that in reduced drag which gives it better range than a conventional aircraft. ------------------------------ From: Mike.Mueller@jpl.nasa.gov (Mike Mueller) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 07:25:46 -0800 Subject: Re: Loral Press Release Once upon a time, Earl Needham arranged the phosphers on my CRT to read: >>Manufactured by Loral, the AP-102 computers were originally developed for the >>United States Air Force/Lockheed-Martin F-117 Stealth Fighter. The computers >>are used for flight control on-board a number of other aircraft currently in >>inventory throughout the world. The AP-102 computer provided a variety of >>aircraft control functions during Operation Desert Storm. > > I realize this was a press release, and not a personal-type post, >but a quick question. I was under the impression that the FLCC's inthe 117 >were originally from the F-16. Anyone have any comments on this and how it >differes from the press release? The original computers were made by IBM and were from the F-16, although they have probably also been upgraded on the Lawn Dart by now. They were called the Weapons Data Computer (WDC) and were replaced on the F-117A in the OCIP program with the AP-102 Weapon System Computer (WSC) in the late-80's. By the way, IMHO these computers are not state-of-the-art like the ones going into the F-22 (if those can even be considered state-of-the-art). The PC that you are using to read this e-mail could likely "fly circles" around any of them and I suspect that it would not be considered a major loss if one was recovered by "the enemy." ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Wed, 31 Jan 96 10:59:53 EST Subject: Aviano AB, Italy - Mystery Photo Date sent: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 23:31:31 +0100 From: mauverga@mbox.vol.it (Maurizio Verga) MORE ON THE ITALIAN HANGAR UFO In Mailing List #32 Dave commented the odd picture taken at the Aviano air base (Italy) and published by Fortean Times 84. The first reaction I had was: "God, that's just a classic Area51 / Meier disc !". Actually, what you can see (or imagine to see) is something looking like a nice domed flying saucer already portrayed by several different sources (artist Jim Nichols is one of them). The case is completely unknown in Italy: Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici (C.I.S.U., Italian center for UFO Studies) is going to launch an investigation about the subject. For a time long we have collected alleged UFO sightings coming from the Aviano area, most likely due to stealth aircraft (and RPV too) activity. The 1980 (not 1979) Aviano case published by T.Good in one of his books (originally investigated by CISU and widely reported on in its official magazine) is an interesting event for which no explanation has been found yet. The statement "Subsequent rumours have spread that the base, like many of its cousins back home, is only the outer skin of a vast underground facility. That this space may serve as a storage area for secret discoidal craft and has since become an irresistible assumption for Italian ufologists." is incorrect, as far as we know. Those "rumours" (who did collect them ?) didn't surface from Italian ufologists, who are usually quite far from "Area51-like" themes: maybe the source is somebody from or friend of the AFB staff. Be sure, all of this has not "become an irresistible assumption for Italian ufologists": I repeat, the case was unknown to us and Fortean Times is the only source available to us. I think the above information may contribute to make the Aviano photo case a little bit clearer. Eventual new info about the subject will be posted to the Mailing List. MAURIZIO VERGA e-mail: mauverga@mbox.vol.it http://www.crs4.it/~mameli/UFO/ufo1.htm (Italian) http://oasi.shiny.it/Homes/CISU/ufo1.htm (Italian) http://oasi.shiny.it/Homes/CISU/English/ufo1.htm (English) For urgent or weekend calls dial +39-368-3007835 ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 10:43:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Aviano AB, Italy - Mystery Photo > In Mailing List #32 Dave commented the odd picture taken at the Aviano air base > (Italy) and published by Fortean Times 84. The first reaction I had was: "God, > that's just a classic Area51 / Meier disc !". Oh really?? All I saw was the nose of a fighter sticking out of a hanger door. > Actually, what you can see (or imagine to see) is something looking > like a nice domed flying saucer already portrayed by several different > sources IMAGINE to see being the active words there. ------------------------------ From: turner rodney Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 12:23:13 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Flying Wing Control Surfaces would someone please send me the listserv address or the the address necessary to end mailings? thanks. ------------------------------ From: MICHAEL WEATHERSBY Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 14:48:16 -0500 Subject: Re: Flying Wing Control Surfaces -Reply I have to agree with Mike. I am not in the aero business either but everything that I have read and seen on TV (WING's mostly) says that the reason for the flying wing is for greater range and reduced drag. Wouldn't the B-2 confirm this????? Mike wrote, ...I've always heard the opposite.... The wing itself may be less efficient but the lack of fuselage and tail more than makes up for that in reduced drag which gives it better range than a conventional aircraft. ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 15:43:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Aviano AB, Italy - Mystery Photo On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, Dean Adams quoted a quote by Terry Colvin: > > In Mailing List #32 Dave commented the odd picture taken at the > > Aviano air base > > (Italy) and published by Fortean Times 84. The first reaction I had > > was: "God, that's just a classic Area51 / Meier disc !". Jeeze, I'm ashamed to even be associated with an interest in these things if that's the kind of conclusion they're jumping to these days. Then Deano sez: > Oh really?? All I saw was the nose of > a fighter sticking out of a hanger door. I have to agree with Dean, there's nothing extraordinary about that picture, except its grainyness, and the odd perspective which makes a cockpit and a wing of a Jet look like a dome and a downslope of a saucer. I admit on first glance it looks 'funny', but the angle of the downslope and the small circum. of the 'dome' leads even the most ardent fan of the U*O realize it's just a jet at a funny angle. After all, it is a Jet hanger, and there's a similar Jet queued up in front of it. Of course, realize that the original poster is NOT Terry, but is just a re-repost. regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 13:32:31 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Recent Issue of Janes... Stop me if this has been mentioned... Two articles in the Jan 17 issue of Janes Defence Weekly on Russian aviation are interseting from a skunky point of view. p. 3, "Russian Stealth Bomber For Service by 2010" claims that Tupelov is to develop a subsonic, stealthy strategic bomber to replace the Tu-95 and Tu-160. It also mentionsthe Sukhoi T-60s project to replace the Tu-22M and Su-24 in the role of "Joint Continental Bomber", and it will have a "significant degree of stealth," but apparently in both cases less than the equivalent B-2 and putative "A-17." pp. 29-30 "Russian Air Force Looks Beyond 2000" is a general survey of projects and deployment plans. A very intriguing mention is made of the claimed capabilities of the MiG-31M. Using Zaslon-M radar and R-37 long range missiles, MiG officials claim that it can engage targets flying at Mach 6, 40 000 metres and at 300 km range. Now, the MiG 25, from which the MiG-31 was developed was designed to intercept Blackbirds, and ironically, it appears that the Foxhound is meant to (among other things of course) intercept "Aurora." (I have visions of Francis Urquhart* saying "You might very well think that, but I couldn't possibly comment.") Interesting, anyway... The author of both articles is Piotr Butowski, who wrote "OKB MiG." - --Brett *Character from a British TV series: those of you who don't get it, think of a charming version of Nixon- if that's possible) ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 02:22:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Radar Cross Section Anybody know what is the scale of Radar Cross Section (RCS) of the F-22 compared to B-2 and F-117? I know that: If B-52 is 100 m^2 Therefore, B-1B is 0,75 m^2 B-2A is 0.1 m^2 and F-117 is 0.025 m^2 Does anyone know the one for F-22, SR-71 and the cancelled A-12 Dorito??? Thanks in advance... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 01:55:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Flying Wing Control Surfaces -Reply I believe one of the main factor to chose B-2 as a flying wing shape it is because of the Stealth characteristic. I barely remember read some article about one the "first flying wing" develop in the 50's, I believe it is the XB-35, when one of the test there where strange that at a certain angle that the aircraft fly, the aircraft are invisible in the radar for few seconds. Maybe this is one of the reason that they cancelled the flying wing and transfer the research to the world of "black budged". May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, MICHAEL WEATHERSBY wrote: > I have to agree with Mike. I am not in the aero business either but > everything that I have read and seen on TV (WING's mostly) says that > the reason for the flying wing is for greater range and reduced drag. > Wouldn't the B-2 confirm this????? > > > Mike wrote, ...I've always heard the opposite.... The wing itself > may be less efficient but the lack of fuselage and tail more than > makes up for that in reduced drag which gives it better range than a > conventional aircraft. > > > > > > ------------------------------ From: jaz5@ix.netcom.com Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 00:33:48 -0800 Subject: photo web site skunk-works This has probably been posted some time in the past, but the web site http://pathfinder.com/@@HUiSgCEGAAMAQDOI/twep/Little_Brown/Skunk_Works/Skunk _Works.htmlfro has some great photos of stealth and sr-71 including a stealth on one of those pylons for radar testing we keep hearing about. Its a publicity site for the skunkworks book but the photos are very good. jaz ------------------------------ From: Andy Cobley Date: Thu, 1 Feb 96 09:36:35 GMT Subject: Re: Aviano AB, Italy - Mystery Photo At 15:43 31/01/96 -0500, you wrote: >On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, Dean Adams quoted a quote by Terry Colvin: > >> > In Mailing List #32 Dave commented the odd picture taken at the >> > Aviano air base >> > (Italy) and published by Fortean Times 84. The first reaction I had >> > was: "God, that's just a classic Area51 / Meier disc !". > >Jeeze, I'm ashamed to even be associated with an interest in these things >if that's the kind of conclusion they're jumping to these days. Ok, De-lurk mode on. If any of you guys have seen the magazine "Fortean Times " you wil note it does not claim these photos show a UFO (Sorry "Flying Saucer") The actual caption to the picture reads: "Spacecraft or spyplane? Oneof the strange shapes in the hangers at Aviano base.The picture has been enhanced by computer". I believe the current working theory is the picture shows some thing very similar to the recent Testor "Area51" UFO model kit. The whole article is more about the bizzare people hanging about the base trying to get a glipse of something strange.There is also some odd seismogram readings that have been noted in the area that may be associated with some aircraft operating out of the base. Sorry to bring up the dirty "UFO" word but I just had to jump in to the defence of "Fortean Times" Andy C "I don't speak for the Fortean Times, But I do speak to them" http://alpha.mic.dundee.ac.uk/ft/ft.cgi?-1,ft Andy Cobley acobley@mic.dundee.ac.uk http://alpha.mic.dundee.ac.uk ------------------------------ From: BROWN A <92913938@mmu.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 11:39:02 GMT Subject: Self-destruct devices At last ! - Proof of the use of "Alien" technology in the B-2. >when a B-2 goes into "cloaking" mode (no kidding, that's what he >called it) Those darn Klingons get everywhere! - It's flight control, Jim, but not as we know it! Seriously though, I can't see how a system like this could have the power and sensitivity of conventional control surfaces to be useable during the bomb run. I guess they would have to disengage it then (just as they're at their most vulnerable). >Just wonder if those "secret" or high tech airplane does not have >a self-destruction device??? At least in sensitive top secret >components... > > May the Force be with you > > Su Wei-Jen > E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu >I wonder if they have (shades of ST) self-destruct mechs on board for >this sort of thing... ;-) > >regards, >________ >BaDge > From what I remember reading in a magazine article a long time back, the early U-2s had a destruct mechanism activated by the pilots foot before he abandoned the aircraft. The reason the Russians found out so much about Gary Powers 'plane was because he never had the chance to activate the destruct system, as a result of being thrown out of the 'plane by the negative g following the wings breaking off. Destruct mechanisms certainly go back as far as the early magnetrons for the RAF. They did a series of tests to find out how much explosive would be needed to prevent the Germans finding out the "secret" of centimetric Radar, ironically using a captured JU-88. They found that the amount of explosive needed to fragment the magnetron beyond reconstruction would completely destroy the aircraft, not a good situation if you're attempting a forced landing, so centimetric Radar entered service without a destruct system. Destruct mechanisms certainly make sense if you're trying to protect technology unique to your own nation, and I wouldn't be surprised if the F-117 and B-2 have them for sensitive components such as some avionic systems. A system to destroy the entire aircraft would be so large as to be impractical, and would be downright dangerous in a crash situation. The fact that RAM technology isn't unique to the US eliminates the need for a destruct system to protect that, but one for the B-2s LPI Radar would make sense. On a different tack, I've been thinking recently, if an IR linescan can show you where recently departed aircraft have been parked from the slight temperature difference of the tarmac, then an imaging IR seeker should have no trouble locking-on to a stealth plane, no matter how diffuse the jet efflux is. Some of the Russian AAMs especially have the body diameter to accommodate a really large imaging seeker, enabling lock-on at fairly long range. What do you think, is this a valid approach or not? BTW, the new Flight International has a (very) small artists impression of a Russian stealth project, which looks like a gone- wrong B-2. I don't think it says who's responsible for it, but it's apparently a genuine project. Also, one of the U*O magazines makes a couple of interesting claims about the "Sea Shadow". According to them, there are actually three ships in existance, used for special forces insertions, and they're submersible. Looks like someone's got confused between it and the stealth sub project (unless someone out there knows different). Adrian Brown (92913938@mmu.ac.uk) ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 04:18:20 PST Subject: Flying wing range and drag. Its off topic but enough interest to continue. One of the most common misconceptions in aerodynamics is that a flying wing is the most effiecient planform. Without going into the math and putting everyone to sleep-I`ll offer up some qualitative concepts. 1) Mother Nature abhors a flying wing much more than a vacuum. Soaring birds, migrationary birds, all have tails- in fact its common for designers to refer to the empanage as the`tail feathers". 2) High performance sailplanes opt for conventional planforms. It comes down to the volume you need to enclose. A fuselage will usually cause less drag than a thick wing. Remember that a few days after the Northrop YB49 set a speed record from CA to DC, it was destroyed by the Boeing company. The B47 has a thin wing and could fly much faster than the lumbering YB. The real reason the flying wing program was cancelled ( as far as I`m concerned) is that the people at Cornell Aero Labs (later Calspan) reveiwed the Northrop range calculations and found a serious error. It turns out that for a turbojet aircraft - a flying wing IS THE WORST POSSIBLE planform! The B2 is not a flying wing per se. It is actually a "tailless aircraft." The difference is a picky thing but since this is an area of intensive study for me I`ll be pissy on nomenclature. And for more controversy: After talking with friends, reveiwing data, and pushing the pencil around... I`m going on record as saying it appears that the B2 is a descendant not of the Northrop XB/YB/YRB program - but of the Horton jet powered flying wings. I`ve even had three people offer up an opinion the the F117 is derived from the same lineage after I bounced the idea off them. What it appears to me is the B2 is based on Horton planforms with the "scoop" rudders replaced by the spit airbrakes ala Northrop. i.e., a "traditional" Northrop control system. Chuck ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 07:47:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Flying Wing Control Surfaces -Reply On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Wei-Jen Su wrote: > I believe one of the main factor to chose B-2 as a flying wing > shape it is because of the Stealth characteristic. I barely remember read > some article about one the "first flying wing" develop in the 50's, I > believe it is the XB-35, when one of the test there where strange that at > a certain angle that the aircraft fly, the aircraft are invisible in the > radar for few seconds. Maybe this is one of the reason that they > cancelled the flying wing and transfer the research to the world of > "black budged". > Unfortunately, Su has stumbled on the new AF stealth prototype, the "Black Budgie", notable because of it's small development costs, referred to in the initial R&D as "chicken feed". Since the debut of the prototype was due to be released soon, we've decided to rescind the extreme prejudice protocol normally called for in such circumstances, and assign him a code-name, 'Agent Purple dinosaur'. > May the Force be with you > > Su Wei-Jen > E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ;-D regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #611 ********************************* 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).