From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #624 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Monday, 19 February 1996 Volume 05 : Number 624 In this issue: SR-71 ops From 54,000 feet; Mach 2.00 At 56500 feet etc. Stealth and Ursa Blanc Re: From 54,000 feet; Mach 2.00 At 56500 feet Re: Coming soon, new tech. actually worked. re: Daylight Stealth Using Floodlamps Re: From 54,000 feet; Mach 2 Project Yahudi, UK Re: Daylight Stealth Using Floodlamps Re: From 54,000 feet; Mach 2.00 new NTS/TTR frequencies more on Area 51 and the Newton Re: Re[2]: BROKEN ARROW defin re: Daylight Stealth Using Floodlamps Re: 1) Air spikes. Books on MiG Bureau RE: Daylight stealth with floodlights Weekday WINGS and other Aviation TV Re: Project Yahudi, UK 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: tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com (Tom Robison) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 08:34:12 +0500 Subject: SR-71 ops In a previous lifetime, I spent about a year and a half on Guam, at Andersen AFB, which of course was North Field during WWII. The other WWII base, Northwest Field, was allegedly "abandoned". But there was obviously some activity going on there, even in the 1970's, as we could see lights on the horizon obviously coming from that area. We drove up there once, but could see nothing but dense jungle through an obviously new and well kept chain link fence. I was told that the base was sometimes used to recover and/or launch SR-71's, to/from where? Does anyone know the facts of this? Was this "abandoned" bomber base used for SR-71 ops? Sounds like a Tom Clancy story to me. Tom Tom in Indiana tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com or TCRobi0648@aol.com ' (oo) - -------oOOO-()-OOOo-------- ------------------------------ From: fmarkus@pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 13:29:54 -0500 Subject: From 54,000 feet; Mach 2.00 A personal emergency has forced me to return to the States from London as quickly as possible. So here I am on the Concorde. And I have some questions which are relevant to this list. I had expected that there would be no turbulence at the altitude at which Concorde flies. However, that has not been the case. Throughout the flight, there have been incidents of definite 'lumpiness' ... nothing heavy or disturbing, but noticable nonetheless. What is the cause of this phenomenon and at what altitude (if any) does the atmosphere become uniform? Is the turbulence that we have experienced a possible cause of the unstarts that trouble the Blackbirds? Next question. I am in the window seat and have been trying to decide whether I can see the curvature of the Earth. I think that I can but it is subtle at best. At what altitude should it be clearly perceptible? Finally, a question of geometry: Although aircraft generally go faster at higher altitude (or go to a higher altitude to fly faster), they are also flying a greater distance between two points on the Earth's surface (because the circumference of the circle flown becomes greater as the radius from the earth's center and the distance from the surface increases). What is the tradeoff between altitude and the distance made good between two points on the surface? Is it significant? ------------------------------ From: fmarkus@pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 13:27:20 -0500 Subject: At 56500 feet etc. A note to my previous message. While writing that message, the Concorde climbed 2500 feet. It makes a surprising difference. From this altitude, the curvature of the Earth is more noticable -- not enormously, but significantly so. ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 10:30:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Stealth and Ursa Blanc On 16 Feb 1996, Scott Binkley wrote: > and radiates no heat, but acts as fiber optics, and guides sunlight right > past the thick coat to the black skin underneath, and helps keep the bear > warm. > Sorry, way off topic though Scott, I don't think it's as far off topic as you might first imagine, because masking of EM signature is an important component of Stealth, and this information, even in such odd circumstances can eventually have application to this field. Your additional input as far as the 'fiber optic' component ties it in quite nicely, IMO. regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: freeman@netcom.com (Jay Reynolds Freeman) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 11:16:25 -0800 Subject: Re: From 54,000 feet; Mach 2.00 Curvature of the Earth is noticeable from even lower altitudes if you know what to look for. I once used the liquid in one of those thin-wall plastic disposable glasses that airlines use as a level, and sighted out the window of a TriStar at 41,000 feet, and found the horizon noticeably depressed, by an amount which I calculated later to have been exactly what was expected (I think a degree or two, but am not repeating the calculation at present). And, once in a Citabria at 10,500 feet, on a beautiful CAVU day in California (that means "Clear Air, Visibility Unlimited, and from above the Feather River Gorge I could see everything from Mount Shasta to Mount Whitney, and somewhat beyond), I had a distinct sense of the swell of the body of the planet, augmented no doubt by the 330-degree sweep of the windows around me. -- Jay Freeman ------------------------------ From: fmarkus@pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 14:09:31 -0500 Subject: At 56500 feet A note to my previous message. While writing that message, the Concorde climbed 2500 feet. It makes a surprising difference. From this altitude, the curvature of the Earth is more noticable -- not enormously, but significantly so. ------------------------------ From: "Robin J. Lee" Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 13:13:31 -0800 Subject: Re: Coming soon, new tech. actually worked. At 07:51 AM 2/16/96 -0500, Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: >The news agency report was not directly quoted from Flight International >(which I don't get anymore since I am in the USA), but Urban Fredriksson >posts a weekly Flight International summary at the r.a.m newsgroup, where he >wrote: > >"Nautilus, a US/Israeli laser anti-missile system was test fired on Feb. 6th >against a BM-21 rocket, which it hit." > >I don't know what a "BM-21 rocket" is, but it definitley is an unguided >system. BM-21 is a fairly common, Soviet-made type of 122mm rocket artillery. It is typically trucked around in a rack of forty tubes on a wheeled vehicle, and like most MLRS munitions is fired in large salvoes. I believe that it is more or less obsolescent by now, having been superseded by the 220mm BM-27, but I suppose that to a certain extent a rocket is a rocket. Incidentally, the BM-21 has seen extensive service in Africa, the Iran-Iraq War, and supposedly modified BM-21 type rockets were used by the Viet Cong in Vietnam, so I imagine that there are quite a few lying around to expend on testing. ____________________________________________________________________________ Robin J. Lee amraam@netcom.com Vulture's Row World Wide Web Page URL: http://webcom.com/~amraam/ ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Fri, 16 Feb 96 15:53:05  Subject: re: Daylight Stealth Using Floodlamps This was first pioneered by the Germans in WWII. They found that the eye (and brain) would not distinguish something individually that had the same lluminesence as the background sky. Someone could look right at it and not notice it. If the object was pointed out to them and they concentrated, they could differentiate it. However, by just looking, or even searching intently, it was extremely difficult to see the aircraft [Sort of like those "Mind's Eye" books]. In other words, you almost had to know Exactly where it was already in order to find it. The Navy also experimented with this in the late '50s or early '60s and got the same results. USAF put some lights in the intake of an F-16 for tests, and the plane seemed to "disappear" nose on. I have also heard that it was tried on armor with similar results. The problem there is that if the armor is moving the surrounding luminesence changes so much that the lights very quickly no longer match the background and the armor becomes "visible". Art Hanley Despite all appearances to the Contrary, my employers have nothing to do with any of the above ------------------------------ From: "Matt Velazquez" Date: 16 Feb 1996 16:11:01 U Subject: Re: From 54,000 feet; Mach 2 Reply to: RE>From 54,000 feet; Mach 2.00 Not sure about the clear-air turbulence, but big storms have been known to rise to 60,000 ft+. Mary? The altitude at which it becomes less time-efficient to be higher is much higher than you can get in an airplane. Think about it, you're planning on traveling a couple of thousand miles at ~10 miles up. The angles involved are really small. In a speed sense, the "point of diminishing returns" is somewhere between LEO and GEO, since you quit moving wrt the planet at GEO. -T ------------------------------ From: "I am the NRA." Date: Fri, 16 Feb 96 19:42:21 EST Subject: Project Yahudi, UK >Subj: re: Daylight Stealth Using Floodlamps >This was first pioneered by the Germans in WWII. hmmmmmm. The ONLY refs i have seen (including a rather curious translation from the German on 'secret weapons') describe this as a UK development, code named 'project yehudi' (spelling optional...) They found that asw ac were being spotted by eye because they were dark against a daylight sky. By ADDING light the contrast diapeared, (I have had a chance to play with summat similar, on a lab scale, the effect is VERY striking.... >They found that the eye (and brain) would not distinguish something >individually that had the same lluminesence as the background sky. At the risk of assing on the subject of 'luminance' if its the same luminance it s the same brightness... >Someone could look right at it and not notice it. If the object was pointed >out to them and they concentrated, they could differentiate it. However, by >just looking, or even searching intently, it was extremely difficult to see the >aircraft [Sort of like those "Mind's Eye" books]. In other words, you almost >had to know Exactly where it was already in order to find it. Yep. But i think it was UK ASW a/c, not German. regards dwp ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 23:27:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Daylight Stealth Using Floodlamps I believe I got the information in Popular Science. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, BaDge wrote: > Just so the group won't think Su is dreaming, I can confirm that part of > his post about the tracking of the Polar bear, where they lost the > infrared due to the hollow outer hair shafts not radiating heat, losing > the imaging qualities in that spectra. > > regards, > ________ > BaDge > > > > ------------------------------ From: fmarkus@pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 00:00:46 -0500 Subject: Re: From 54,000 feet; Mach 2.00 On Feb 16, 1996 17:36:00, '"Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM" ' wrote: >How did you post your messages from the Concorde? An audio modem to >a Flitephone, or similar? Interesting idea... Sorry ... no such technical magic. There is no public airphone on Concorde. (The captain and crew were very particular in always refering to their aircraft as Concorde as opposed to THE Concorde.) I used my laptop and connected to a land telephone as soon as I had the opportunity. My first attempt to do so was a bit confused which explains why there was a double-posting of one or both of my messages. I should probably add one more observation concerning my flight. Unlike every other commercial aircraft that I have been on, the door to the flight deck of Concorde was open throughout the flight. If one was in a aisle seat in the front cabin or simply headed to the forward toilet, one could look forward and see the crew and -- more wonderful -- the view out of the front windows (which are surprisingly large.) I should note that I discovered this on my way to the john because I was very certainly in a window seat! ------------------------------ From: TRADER@cup.portal.com Date: Fri, 16 Feb 96 20:40:55 PST Subject: new NTS/TTR frequencies [February 16, 1996] While doing some research, I found a couple of new frequencies for the Nevada Test Site and Tonopah Test Range, plus Test Site TV!! Nevada Test Site - ----------------- 452.425 MHz (repeats 457.425 MHz), 452.825 MHZ (repeats 457.825 MHz) - -- K T Contract Services, license WNNT762 Tonopah Test Range - ------------------ 462.15 MHz (repeats 467.15 MHz) - -- Electrocom, Inc., license KXE997 Test Site TV! - ------------- According to FCC records, Hurschel C. McKenzie has been licensed to provide low power television repeater service at the Nevada Test Site. The Rainier Mesa location (home of the P-Tunnel horizontal shafts for nuclear testing) should be receivable by the workers at Groom Lake. You'd probably have to be on the Nevada Test Site or Groom Lake to pick up these TV signals, but it makes an interesting catch. Perhaps a battery powered TV might work, just outside the border. license channel transmitter location - ------- ------- -------------------- K03BW 3 Rainier Mesa K06CR 6 Mercury K10EH 10 Rainier Mesa K10EI 10 Mercury K12DS 12 Mercury K12DT 12 Rainier Mesa One wonders if the bored workers sit around watching "The Jerry Springer Show" or old "Gilligan's Island" reruns while waiting for things to happen on their secret projects... Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com / PaulMcG@aol.com http://www.portal.com/~trader/secrecy.html ------------------------------ From: TRADER@cup.portal.com Date: Fri, 16 Feb 96 20:39:45 PST Subject: more on Area 51 and the Newton There had been some discussion about a hidden feature of the Newton 2.0 operating system showing the location of Groom Lake (Area 51, also known as "Watertown Strip" or "Dreamland") on the Map, and having the CIA complain about it. Check out the picture on page 52 of the January/February 1996 issue of "Pen Computing Magazine". !! It sure looks like the guy in the picture is playing with his Newton near one of the old Groom viewpoints... Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com / PaulMcG@aol.com http://www.portal.com/~trader/secrecy.html ------------------------------ From: albert.dobyns@mwbbs.com (ALBERT DOBYNS) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 96 22:57:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Re[2]: BROKEN ARROW defin TC> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 96 09:27:25 EST > From: "Terry Colvin" > To: Xelex@aol.com, BaDge > Cc: skunk-works@mail.orst.edu > Subject: Re[2]: BROKEN ARROW definitions ......snip...... TC> ______________________________ Reply Separator ____________________________ > Subject: Re: BROKEN ARROW definitions > Author: BaDge at smtp-fhu > Date: 15/02/1996 1030 TC> Boy, they come outta the woodwork from time to time, eh? TC> Great post. TC> One thing I was wondering about... TC> Where did I get the impression that Faded Giant was called where there > was merely an airspace incursion? Fawcett/Clear Intent? I wouldn't be > surprised if he was reaching, because that was the first place I heard > that term and Peter's glossary looks pretty firm. I don't know about Faded Giant, but I remember reading in Paul Crickmore's 1986 SR-71 book that aircraft flying near the former border of West Germany and East Germany, pilots would get lost for various reasons. Straying into East German airspace was often met with AAA (maybe missiles too?). After the loss of a plane and its crew, controllers who monitored the flights were told to issue a "Brass Monkey" call. An example would be "Brass Monkey, Brass Monkey, Brass Monkey -- turn West immediately". I guess "Brass Monkey" was used as a generic call-sign and any pilot hearing it was supposed to take appropriate action if it applied to them. TC> regards, > ________ > BaDge > And regards from Al - --- þ SLMR 2.1a þ "Be quick, be quiet, be on time" -Kelly Johnson ------------------------------ From: "Joe Pialet" Date: Sat, 17 Feb 96 11:42:57 +0000 Subject: re: Daylight Stealth Using Floodlamps >This was first pioneered by the Germans in WWII. They found that the eye (and >brain) would not distinguish something individually that had the same >lluminesence as the background sky. Someone could look right at it and not >notice it. If the object was pointed out to them and they concentrated, they >could differentiate it. However, by just looking, or even searching intently, >it was extremely difficult to see the aircraft [Sort of like those "Mind's Eye" >books]. In other words, you almost had to know Exactly where it was already in >order to find it. > >The Navy also experimented with this in the late '50s or early '60s and got the >same results. USAF put some lights in the intake of an F-16 for tests, and the >plane seemed to "disappear" nose on. I have also heard that it was tried on >armor with similar results. The problem there is that if the armor is moving >the surrounding luminesence changes so much that the lights very quickly no >longer match the background and the armor becomes "visible". > > Art Hanley > I believe there was an episode of Nova that demonstrated the effect for aircraft and tanks. As you say, the effect of a tank at a distance on the horizon "disappearing" when the lights were turned on was impressive. ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 12:35:37 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re: 1) Air spikes. One thing that appears to have been missed is the power source: in all I've read by and about Myrabo, he's a real enthusiast for _external_ power sources with the energy transmitted by laser in the earlier proposals and by maser in more recent versions- such as the concept using the Air Spike. Efficiencies comparable to early turbojets are claimed for the benchtop tests... which is pretty good for infant technology. No need to panic about huge gigawatt reactors flying about over our heads. Of course I'm waiting for my issue of New Scientist to show up... - --Brett ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 13:15:44 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Books on MiG Bureau I have a _little_ bit of money to spare and I was wondering which was the best book available on the MiG bureau -Belyakov's (with Jay Miller?) or Butowskii's "OKB MiG"? I'm mostly interested in the MiG-25 and 31 development. Thanks --Brett ------------------------------ From: JOHN SZALAY Date: Sun, 18 Feb 96 12:31:35 EST Subject: RE: Daylight stealth with floodlights Subj: re: Daylight Stealth Using Floodlamps > plane seemed to "disappear" nose on. I have also heard that it was tried on > armor with similar results. The problem there is that if the armor is mov > the surrounding luminesence changes so much that the lights very quickly no > longer match the background and the armor becomes "visible". > > Art Hanley > > I believe there was an episode of Nova that demonstrated the effect for > aircraft and tanks. As you say, the effect of a tank at a distance on the > horizon "disappearing" when the lights were turned on was impressive. That NOVA episode was from the 1990-91 season and was called "DISGUISES OF WAR" It detailed the art of stealth and camouflage from the early years to the present. its probably available from the NOVA video library.. John Szalay jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 22:58:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Weekday WINGS and other Aviation TV For your Monday: ----------------<>----------------- Monday 2/19/96 EST Wings [DISC 1800-1900 ] [Documentary] "Straight Up". The Soviet Union invents a plane that can take off and land vertically from smaller ships. Sci-Trek [DISC 2100-2200 EST] [ Science] "Infinite Voyage: Sail On, Voyager!". Footage taken from Voyagers I and I depicts active volcanos on one of Jupiter's moons and the beauty of Saturn's rings. ----------------<>----------------- regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: John Burtenshaw Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 09:25:11 -0100 Subject: Re: Project Yahudi, UK At 19:42 16/02/96 EST, you wrote: >>Subj: re: Daylight Stealth Using Floodlamps > >>This was first pioneered by the Germans in WWII. > hmmmmmm. The ONLY refs i have seen (including a rather curious > translation from the German on 'secret weapons') describe this as > a UK development, code named 'project yehudi' (spelling optional...) > They found that asw ac were being spotted by eye because they were > dark against a daylight sky. By ADDING light the contrast diapeared, > (I have had a chance to play with summat similar, on a lab scale, the > effect is VERY striking.... Yep it was British. The RAF fitted high-powered lamps on the nose and leading edge of their U-Boat hunters (Sunderland flying boats etc). During an attack one of the crew would control the brightness of the lamps so that the aircraft would blend in with the sky. It appears that the US copied the idea for their sub hunters in the Pacific, but I've got little info on that. Another aspect of the RAF's U-Boat killers were their microwave radars. I recently attended a conference on radar at which a real old-timer spoke about how he developed a system so that the microwave radar fitted on the RAF sub hunters would give the appearance of the aircraft going in the opposite direction. The U-Boat would sit on the surface recharging its batteries in the safe knowledge that it had not been seen, then -POW!!- the RAF would bomb it. Fascinating stuff. Regards John =========================================================================== "Buy an Apple Mac - I'd rather buy a Big Mac" John Burtenshaw Systems Administrator, The Computer Centre, Bournemouth University - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Postal Address: Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, POOLE, Dorset, BH12 5BB U.K. Internet: jburtens@bournemouth.ac.uk Phone: 01202 595089 Fax: 01202 513293 AX.25: g1hok@gb7bnm.#45.gbr.eu. AMPRnet: g1hok.ampr.org. (44.131.17.82) CompuServe: 100336.3113@compuserve.com =========================================================================== ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #624 ********************************* 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).