From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #664 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 5 June 1996 Volume 05 : Number 664 In this issue: Spaceships on TV The Book: "SR-71 Revealed -- The Inside Story" Unmarked Black Helicopters!!! (fwd) (Fwd) Re: Unmarked Black Helicopters!!! (fwd) RE: 'low observables' RE: Skunky Noise Reduction Potential ? (Fwd) Re: Unmarked Black Helicopters!!! (fwd) Re: Unmarked Black Helicopters!!! (fwd) Re: Unmarked Black Helicopters!!! (fwd) radar stuff the black helicopters Blowing smoke ? spoofing SR-71 Glide Landing [new subject] Re: Blowing smoke ? L/D vs. AR Re: L/D vs. AR Re: L/D vs. AR re:AR lifting body RE: Unmarked Black Helicopters Fwd: Majordomo results !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 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: "Terry Colvin" Date: Tue, 04 Jun 96 09:01:15 GMT Subject: Spaceships on TV Date: 3 Jun 1996 23:04:44 GMT From: Simon Bradshaw Subject: DC/XA on TV 20+ Years Ago > From: pp000166@interramp.com (Robert Munck) > Newsgroups: sci.space.tech > Subject: DC/XA on TV 20+ Years Ago > Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 15:19:20 GMT > I recently saw an episode of the old British series U.F.O in which > something that looked a great deal like a Delta Clipper landed > and took off. > > This seems to be a remarkable prediction. Admittedly, the > take-off left behind a lander stage more like the Apollo moon- > landers, but the shape of the vehicle was exactly on target. Yes - Some friends and I wandered into one of the video rooms at Intersection (last year's Worldcon, in Glasgow) just as this scene was being show. "Bugger me, that's DC-X" we all went, having only the previous day watched Mitch Burnside Clapp showing his "and there I was watching Pete Conrad fly it when bits started falling off" video. However Mitch had already departed for the whisky shops of Edinburgh by then so we couldn't show him it, which was doubly unfortunate as he'd actually been on Bill Higgins' panel on the technology of Gerry Anderson TV shows. > I'm not sure how long ago UFO was produced, > but I'm pretty sure it was at least the early '70s if not the late > '60s. Remember the women crew in the moonbase with purple > hair and extremely short silver dresses? The little salt-shaker > alien ships that went wheep-wheep-wheep as they flew through > space? About 1970 - it was Gerry Anderson's first foray into live action TV SF after his various puppet TV shows (or 'SuperMarionAtion' as he called them) such as Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet. It was set in 1980 with a scenario rather like the computer game 'UFO: Enemy Unknown' - covert intergovernmental organization battles hostile alien incursions and ran (IIRC) for only one season. Pretty good model SFX, silly costumes and a great line in spinoff toys (and if I still had mine they'd be worth quite a bit by now). Was replaced by SPACE:1999, whose scientific sillinesses could fuel whole threads of discussion in this topic. Now if *really* want to see a GA TV series influence on a SSTO project, dig out FIREBALL XL5 and then have a look at Alan Bond's SKYLON design (the successor concept to HOTOL). Are they by any chance related? I Think We Should Be Told... ### Simon Bradshaw sjbradshaw@cix.compulink.co.uk ### ### http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/eem2sb ### ------------------------------ From: John Stone Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 14:19:44 +0100 Subject: The Book: "SR-71 Revealed -- The Inside Story" Hi, If your interested in getting a copy of Richard Graham's just released book "SR-71 Revealed -- The Inside Story". You can order a copy from Zenith Books at 1-800-626-6600, item #122803AP for $16.95 plus shipping OR you can order one from the author and have it signed by him........for $18.95, which includes shipping. Richard said to send him a check made out to him "Richard Graham" and send it to Richard Graham, 3501 Hearst Castle Way, Plano, TX 75025-3702, and Texas residents need to add $1.40 for tax. He will autograph your copy and send it to you.... Rich also asked me to mention that all proceeds for the book go to the "J.T. Vida Award", which is given every two years at the Blackbird Reunion to the person that has contributed to keeping the spirit of the SR-71 alive. Also Rich is working on a J.T. Vida memorial at Blackbird Airpark. Thanks, John | / ^ \ ___|___ -(.)==<.>==(.)- --------o---((.))---o-------- SR-71 Blackbird U-2 Dragon Lady John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web Page:http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ From: BaDKaRmA Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 22:15:08 +0100 (BST) Subject: Unmarked Black Helicopters!!! (fwd) got this from a mailing list, thought it was worth posting - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 15:05:38 E From: David D. DeHart To: Multiple recipients of list HORROR Subject: Unmarked Black Helicopters!!! Hi All, I'm not sure if anyone heard this on the news, but it was on our local radio news atHappened on the other side of Pennsylvania from which I live, Pittsburgh, PA....(perhaps someone in Pitt. can add a bit here?). Anyways, the news went on to say that last night (June 3, 1996 nerous city residentsaw these unmarked black helicopters flying in and out of tunnels, and over, under and around bridges. And as they were flying, they were making booming, explosion noises. The FAA stated that the "Military was doing training exercises". The helicopters were found to have mostly come up from Kentucky. The news went on to ask why the Pittsburgh was selected, and they could only find that Pittsburgh is the second city in the world, only to Venice in having the most bridges (Venice has two longer ones....but probably not kept up as well :-)..). But what terrain were they trying to simulate? The only thing is perhaps similiar to Montana, but I don't think that Pitt. is really like Montana with the Freeman Standoff?? However on the news the other night, I did see what looed like a unmarked black helicopter flying low over the Freeman compound. Anyone else hear about this, or have any ideas?? I really don't have anything truely horror related, but perhaps we can "bend" the horror a bit to this?? :-) ______________________________________________________________________________ (md1br@herts.ac.uk) [32-11-42-13-51-24-42-34] [#9010-3425-3498-AEG-DIN-TOP] 'If you never happen to get this mail, Will anybody read it? I hope it makes the journey. The words I write matter to me, it would be a shame if they were wasted, and lost in an electronic void, for an eternity' -P.Joyce 1996 ______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ From: "Paul Heinrich" Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 17:23:27 +0000 Subject: (Fwd) Re: Unmarked Black Helicopters!!! (fwd) Forwarded message: From: Self To: BaDKaRmA Subject: Re: Unmarked Black Helicopters!!! (fwd) Cc: skunkworks Reply-to: plheinrich@ucdavis.edu Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 15:40:06 God! This is the silliest thing I've ever seen on this list. Do you really think that the Army (or whoever) would risk the lives of their pilots (not to mention the helicopters which are a bit expensive) doing something as pointless as flying in and out of tunnels? or under bridges? Yhy not just fly over? Do you think the government of the city of Pittsburgh would allow crazy Army pilots to endanger the lives of citizens (ie. voters). Finally, the freemen are held-up on a ranch in bum-fuck Montana, not a major city. There probably aren't too many bridges or tunnels big enough to fly a copter through/over around there. Also, the aircraft being used by the FBI are painted olive drab (probably borrowed from the National Guard) and have great big FBI signs painted on them (at least all the ones I've seen on TV and in the newspapers). Paul Paul Heinrich phone: (707) 875-1937 Webmaster fax: (707) 875-2089 Bodega Marine Laboratory www: www-bml.ucdavis.edu Bodega Bay, CA 94923 ------------------------------ From: "Mark E. Schmidt" Date: Tue, 4 Jun 96 14:26:41 UT Subject: RE: 'low observables' Veeeeeery interesting. *Observables*, huh. Humans are so visual dominant... How about *low detectables* - OK, I must be more influenced by todays pc (PolitCorrect) than I realized. - ---------- From: owner-skunk-works@mail.orst.edu on behalf of THIS SPACE LEFT BLANK Sent: Monday, June 03, 1996 3:53 PM To: @skunkworks; skunk-works@mail.orst.edu Subject: 'low observables' >Skunkers talk a lot about radar and IR stealth, with one recent thread about >visual stealth, so here's something that may be heading for noise stealth . .. Professionals, to the extent they discuss it publically, have always referred to 'low observables' which includes (and always has) RADAR, IR, Visual and acoustic signature... regards dwp ------------------------------ From: "Mark E. Schmidt" Date: Tue, 4 Jun 96 14:19:04 UT Subject: RE: Skunky Noise Reduction Potential ? Sounds (sorry;') like a form of boundary layer control to reduce cavitation of sorts ? - ---------- From: owner-skunk-works@mail.orst.edu on behalf of OnLine Sent: Monday, June 03, 1996 6:56 PM To: Mark E. Schmidt; SKUNK-WORKS@mail.orst.edu Subject: Re: Skunky Noise Reduction Potential ? Mark writes : >Sunkers talk a lot about radar and IR stealth, with one recent thread >about visual stealth, so here's something that may be heading for noise >stealth .... ==================================== Prof Ian Waitz at MIT is doing some very interesting work to reduce engine fan noise by blowing air through the trailing edge of the turbine blades. It seems pockets of still air that create a lot of noise collects directly behind the blades in much the same way that there is a pool of still water behind a rock in a fast moving stream. I hope I haven't simplified this concept to a point at which it makes no sense...if so, it's my fault not his :) Any comments would be very welcome...in the meantime, I'll dig out the information I have on his project...that's if anyone would like to know more of course. Best David ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 96 6:16:35 EDT Subject: (Fwd) Re: Unmarked Black Helicopters!!! (fwd) This is pretty ironic. How can someone who calls themselves a "webmaster" use that kind of language on the internet? > > Paul > Paul Heinrich phone: (707) 875-1937 > Webmaster fax: (707) 875-2089 > Bodega Marine Laboratory www: www-bml.ucdavis.edu > Bodega Bay, CA 94923 > - -- Douglas J. Tiffany dougt@u011.oh.vp.com ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 03:39:57 PDT Subject: Re: Unmarked Black Helicopters!!! (fwd) Probably National Guard doing NOE training. I live on the edge of a 200` gorge, and see similar activity about every other month. Could be regular army too. The "unmarked black helicopter" phenomina is really funny. All army helicopters are really dark OD, with black markings. I guess if it doesn`t look like the USCG orange on Baywatch its evil. Pamela Anderson ...rrrrrrrrrrrr. Barb Wire. Best commando since the girl popped out of the cake in Under Seige! Chuck ------------------------------ From: CRM114@aol.com Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 07:25:36 -0400 Subject: Re: Unmarked Black Helicopters!!! (fwd) > The helicopters were found >to have mostly come up from Kentucky. Yes, they are based at Ft Campbell, Kentucky ------------------------------ From: BaDKaRmA Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 12:24:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: radar stuff would it be possible for a 'stealth aircraft' to absorb incoming radar, and to send out its own , different reflection to give the illusion of being furthe away or of a different aicraft size?? we await the response of the enlightend ones pat joyce. . .Domentrentologist ______________________________________________________________________________ (md1br@herts.ac.uk) [32-11-42-13-51-24-42-34] [#9010-3425-3498-AEG-DIN-TOP] 'If you never happen to get this mail, Will anybody read it? I hope it makes the journey. The words I write matter to me, it would be a shame if they were wasted, and lost in an electronic void, for an eternity' -P.Joyce 1996 ______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ From: BaDKaRmA Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 12:31:08 +0100 (BST) Subject: the black helicopters thanks for the response i live in a 'quiet' country call England, nothing ever seems to happen here, or perhaps our secret forces are better at it :) I also was amused by the black helicopters post, it sounded a bit dodgey to me but as it was american based i could not just write it off, without first consulting a few 'experts' thanks again ______________________________________________________________________________ (md1br@herts.ac.uk) [32-11-42-13-51-24-42-34] [#9010-3425-3498-AEG-DIN-TOP] 'If you never happen to get this mail, Will anybody read it? I hope it makes the journey. The words I write matter to me, it would be a shame if they were wasted, and lost in an electronic void, for an eternity' -P.Joyce 1996 ______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ From: JOHN SZALAY Date: Wed, 5 Jun 96 09:12:46 EDT Subject: Blowing smoke ? There is a discussion going on over in the sci.space.tech newsgroup concerning the SR-71(& others) and the jest of it is. It has been stated that it is COMMON PRACTICE for the SR to make un-powered landings. I, for one have a very hard time believing that any pilot would deliberately run fly an aircraft until the fuel is exhausted or shutdown the engines on approach . Short of gliders, (shuttle included) it does not make a whole of sense. My flying experence tells me that an engine off condition (while it is practiced) is not a normal procedure, and is something to be avoided at all costs. IE: 6P Opinions ? Are they blowing smoke, or have I missed something here ? 6P=Prior planning prevents P--- poor performance ! \\ ~ ~ // ( @ @ ) -----------oOOo-(_)-oOOo---------- | | | jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com | | | ------------------Oooo.----------- .oooO ( ) ( ) ) / \ ( (_/ \_) ... Non Grantum Anus Rodentum ... ------------------------------ From: THIS SPACE LEFT BLANK Date: Wed, 5 Jun 96 10:25:16 EDT Subject: spoofing >would it be possible for a 'stealth aircraft' to absorb incoming radar, >and to send out its own, different reflection to give the illusion of >being further away or of a different aicraft size?? Any a/c can carry equipment to do the latter. BUT. It takes a LOT of equipment. And weight. And the antennas to do it tend to make the a/c non stealthy. "radar" can operate on ANY frequency from (say) 5 MHz on up to daylight (at which point its called lidar....). It can have any 'rep rate', have coding on it, and varying frequency sweeps. Its REAL hard to be able to mimic that effectively. It can be done over portions of the range, and against defined threats. If a 'strike package' is going against a site with an 'earwig one' air defense system (imaginary), then THAT radar can be countered to some extent. a different target, a different a/d threat and the whole thign needs to be reprogrammed, and may need whole new (different) set of equipment. regards dwp ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Wed, 05 Jun 96 08:04:08 GMT Subject: SR-71 Glide Landing [new subject] Date: 4 Jun 1996 22:36:20 GMT From: Chuck Buckley Subject: HL vs VL landing. Re: DCX-A a joke re: SSTO? In article <4p0b14$6mv@clarknet.clark.net>, Pat wrote: >In article <4ov1ri$1vl@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, >Chuck Buckley wrote: >>In article <4opohi$k6o@clarknet.clark.net>, Pat wrote: >>>In article <4on66u$r76@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, >>>Chuck Buckley wrote: >>>>In article <4oj9g0$59f@clarknet.clark.net>, Pat wrote: >>>>>In article <4og9er$obu@news2.delphi.com>, burnside wrote: >>>>>>Logic Technology Development (kleinr@brahms.amd.com) wrote: >>>>>>: Tim Long wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>> >>>> Well, glide landings are actually very common in operational >>>>aircraft now. You are familiar with a couple that had problems, >>>>but the SR-71 quite often glide landed in it's daily operations. >>> >>>but the SR-71 was not required to do glide landings, i suspect >>>this was just a method of extending operations, reducing costs >>>and reducing clean-up. >>> >> >> Well, for the SR, it is simple. If they wanted to landed powered, they >>would have had to increase the number of refuelings. It glide landed >>because it was usually out of fuel. > >given that I have watched a SR-71 land under power and Mary shafer has >described how the 71 used to make a cool powered fly-over before landing >at dryden, i suspect the glide landing was a minor trick to extend range. > >do you have any numbers to indicate this was a routine method of doing business >or are you going to roy langston on us? > 3 years of personal experience attached to Det 4, 9th SRW at RAF Mildenhall UK from May 1984-87. I can not speak for NASA's useage now, but it was standard operating procedure for the SR to land dry during my tenure with the aircraft. > >> >> C-5's have sufficient L/D for their powered flight. Not enough for a >>glide. Same applies for the 747. When you discuss L/D ratio, the gliders >>have much, much higher ratios. Very high L/D ratios for powered aircraft >>get laughed at in glider circles. > >however how does the L/D ratio of aSR-71 compare to a 747? > given i used >to fly gliders and even so came frighteningly close to the fence posts >on more hten one occasion, i am not impressed by your stories of >L/D ratios. > The SR-71 has better L/D. Relative to the aircraft, the SR has much more lifting surface. I can not speak for how well you pilot a glider. - -- Charles Buckley | I took a multiple choice test once: cbuckley@swttools.fc.hp.com | I checked "All of the Above"... (970) 229-7607 | "None of the Above".. I definately do not speak for HP | Then I set the test on fire ------------------------------ From: Earl Needham Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 09:50:36 -0600 Subject: Re: Blowing smoke ? At 09:12 AM 6/5/96 EDT, JOHN SZALAY wrote: >It has been stated that it is COMMON PRACTICE for the SR to make un-powered >landings. I, for one have a very hard time believing that any pilot would >deliberately run fly an aircraft until the fuel is exhausted or shutdown >the engines on approach . > Opinions ? Are they blowing smoke, or have I missed something here ? I think possibly the problem is in "semantics" -- an "unpowered" landing, to me, is a landing with the engines at idle, not completely shut down. As large as the wing on the SR is, a landing at idle should be normal. Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM Commercial Pilot, ASEL, Instrument Airplane, Private Priveleges, Single-Engine Sea Have you really jumped ROUNDS? (Overheard at the clovis DZ) ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 09:41:49 PDT Subject: L/D vs. AR Chuck Buckly writes: >The SR-71 has better L/D. Relative to the aircraft, the SR has much more >lifting surface. >I can not speak for how well you pilot a glider. Soory Chuck, but the SR71 should have the L/D of a manhole cover. The L/D is not a function of area, but of aspect ratio. One of the highest L/D`s flying is the 747. Even better is the B52. The aspect ratios here are equal to or higher than modern sialplanes! If my beer sogged mind recalls, L/D is calculated as 1/Pi x e x AR where e is the Oswald efficiency ratio and has to do with how eliptical the lift distribution is for the wing. Typically its about .8 or .9. AR is the aspeect ratio. The delta configuration is one of, if not the, worst L/D planforms due to its extremely low AR. A low L/D is, by the way, not always a bad thing. The Rockwell orbiter was designed to have a low L/D since it has to burn off so much energy to get from free-fall to stopped. Any yahoo can fly a sailplane. Chuck ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:30:28 PDT Subject: Re: L/D vs. AR oooooooppps. I think that formula would be for Induced Drag. The "form drag" term gets tacked on. Take the derivate you want, set it = 0, and when the form drag equals the induced you get L/D)max. But you get the picture. Its really AR that sets L/D (unless CDf is wacky due to a lifting body or some goofy config.) Sorry bout that! Chuck "10 to the 22nd, 10 to the 23rd, big deal. Iwas only off by 1." ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:29:45 PDT Subject: Re: L/D vs. AR oooooooppps. I think that formula would be for Induced Drag. The "form drag" term gets tacked on. Take the derivate you want, set it = 0, and when the form drag equals the induced you get L/D)max. But you get the picture. Its really AR that sets L/D (unless CDf is wacky due to a lifting body or some goofy config.) Sorry bout that! Chuck "10 to the 22nd, 10 to the 23rd, big deal. Iwas only off by 1." ------------------------------ From: David Hughes Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 13:57:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: re:AR What about the Space Shuttles? The joke is it has the aerodynamics of a pair of pliers,and it glides. It does come in at,what looks like,a 60 degree angle though.Wow! David. ------------------------------ From: David Hughes Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 13:35:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: lifting body Isn't the Lifting Body design(aka the Steve Austin plane)awful close to a flying saucer shape? The flying saucer shape does seem to be the perfect shape. A curved top a flat,slightly concave bottom.A great aerofoil. The only problem being the isn't any openings for engine output. How about MHD in the air.Maybe that Should be MAD.The 'A' for air. Just a thought. David. ------------------------------ From: Paul.Biondolillo@scismail.sci.com Date: Wednesday, 5 June 1996 1:49pm CT Subject: RE: Unmarked Black Helicopters Does anyone happen to know WHAT KIND of helicopters were observed? Paul ________________________________________________________ "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." -Richard Nixon ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Nimmo Date: Wed, 05 Jun 96 20:17:59 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Majordomo results !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - -- [ From: Geoffrey Nimmo * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- ------- FORWARD, Original message follows ------- Date: Wednesday, 05-Jun-96 05:08 PM From: Majordomo@mail.orst.edu \ Internet: (majordomo@mail.orst.edu) To: Geoffrey Nimmo \ Internet: (nextwave@one.net) Subject: Majordomo results - -- >>>> -- [ From: Geoffrey Nimmo * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- END OF COMMANDS - ------- FORWARD, End of original message ------- If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, you can send mail to "Majordomo@mail.orst.edu" with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe skunk-works nextwave@one.net - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????? GEOFFREY NIMMO NEXTWAVE@ONE.NET ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -- "Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger!" -Abbie Hoffman ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #664 ********************************* 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).