From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #683 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Friday, 19 July 1996 Volume 05 : Number 683 In this issue: RE: What is this plane ? Re: Orbital Mach No. and Lockheed Skunk Works Orbital Capability Re: Whats that plane!! Re: Radar Ranges of the Mojave Desert Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #679 Re: Whats that plane!! Sweetman article (fwd) Re: Mach Numbers and space Re: Saw my first B-2 fly on Sat.! -Reply Re: Mach Numbers and space Re: LPI Radar Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #681 Re: Saw my first B-2 fly on Sat.! 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: JOHN SZALAY Date: Thu, 18 Jul 96 12:14:12 EDT Subject: RE: What is this plane ? > From:"I.J.Deeley@sussex.ac.uk" "Ian Deeley" > Subj: Whats that plane!! > be appearing everywhere, the bike is seen in front of an aircraft which on > first glance is an SR-71, but closer inspection reveals it isn't. I think > it's a composite of a SR-71 & a B-1, can you let me know what you think it > is. Is it a real aircraft or a made up one? > > The poster can be seen at http://www.bikenet.co.uk/news/sbb/poster.jpg Opinion: Artists concept. Rendering of composite SR-71/F-16 & B-57 Canberra engine cowling, Maybe Mig-21. Wing joint inboard of the engine similiar to the Northrup Bat ? 3 rudders ?, assuming another engine & rudder on the wing off the screen. Single wheel main gear. Nice touch was to put it in front of one of the type of hangers used at Beale AFB. John jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 12:09:55 -0700 Subject: Re: Orbital Mach No. and Lockheed Skunk Works Orbital Capability >> Date: Mon, 08 Jul 1996 15:42:20 -0400 >> From: Peter Bellini RI-Roger Lepsch Subject: >> Lockheed X-33 >> >> The F-117 and SR-71 are well and good, but how many skunk works engineers know >> how to design something that goes to orbit (Mach 25)? >> >> Pete Bellini >> >I think Mach 25 is pretty fast for orbit. Oops, I missed this one. Chuck scoops it up! I don't know how many Lockheed Skunk Works engineers know how to design a system that goes to orbit, but the real point is that the Skunk Works could indeed design and field such a system. They've been a part of many such studies going way back. They obviously convinced somebody, as they won the X-33 bid, even against Rockwell, who was bidding a Shuttle evolution. Mach 25 is about orbital velocity. About 17,500 mph. You are correct Chuck about the wierdness about mach number and velocity in some of these regimes. My favorite effect is the effect at hypersonic speeds. For those who aren't so familiar with this: At hypersonic speeds, with hypersonic high temperature effects, the Mach number and the velocity can become quite out of sync due to what the high temperature does to speed of sound (it raises it): speed of sound = sqrt(lamda x R x Temp). So as Temp goes up, speed of sound goes up. And: Mach number = velocity/speed of sound. So, as speed of sound is large, due to temperature effects, the Mach number reads lower. So, given a very high hypersonic velocity, the Mach number, due to high temperature, would read much lower. >The fastest manmade thing ever to move through the atmosphere >that I`m aware of was Apollo 13, which should have been at >Mach 25 at its highest Mach number. >That was not an orbit, but a return trajectory from the moon. Actually, escape velocity from earth orbit is higher than orbital velocity. I do believe that the Apollo missions first hit the atmosphere at around Mach 32 or so on their returns, which is close to earth escape velocity. In fact I think that is the current official record for fastest manned vehicle (or whatever it's officially called). >"Houston, Apollo 13 reporting over moon, on long final for Earth." >"Roger Apollo 13, check wheels down, you`re cleared to land." Very Cool! :) > ... >If memory serves, the Rockwell Orbiters hit about Mach 16 or 17 >depending on the inclination. I think you got confused with 17,000 mph. Actually, depending on the deorbit burn, you may be right. I don't know the details of Shuttle reentries. >Here`s a question for `yall. Why not launch straight up then >as you coast turn and fire for the tangential velocity >you need. Turns out to be a fun little math problem. Yes. I always like what the gravity vector does when the vehicle trajectory is not exactly opposite it. I of course, like the airbreathing trajectory. Achieve Mach 25 + about 2 more Mach at a very high altitude, still in the atmosphere, and then aerodynamically pull up into orbit, bleeding off your overspeed and settling into a Mach 25 orbit. Burn rockets to customize your orbit. Or, for more fun. the endoatmospheric orbit or partially endoatmospheric orbit. ------------------------------ From: OnLine Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 22:22:53 Subject: Re: Whats that plane!! > no prizes for guessing what they're >using in the advertising campaign! However in the main poster that seems to >be appearing everywhere, the bike is seen in front of an aircraft which on >first glance is an SR-71, but closer inspection reveals it isn't. I think >it's a composite of a SR-71 & a B-1, can you let me know what you think it >is. Is it a real aircraft or a made up one? That's not a Blackbird...but I want one..:) It's similar in overall design but it's a computer mock up I imagine...nice bike too.. Whenever I use NASA photographs, they say if you want to use them to imply a product endorsement, you must talk to them first. Lockheed will operate the same type of clause in all probability. Maybe they both refused and so Honda got around the problem by using something that looks very "Blackbirdy"...hmmm > >PS. All UK members of the list, don't forget the program tonight (thursday) >on Channel 4 about 'Concordski'. It's promised that some "previously >un-released" material will be seen. The word is that a French spy plane was filming the Tu-144 and caused the Soviet pilot to take evasive action to avoid a mid air...the resultant stresses on the airframe caused it to fail...hence the disaster. The programme has been re-scheduled due to the TWA tragedy...a small, but welcome token of respect for the victims, their friends and relations. Sad times... D ------------------------------ From: Brentley Smith Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 18:20:02 -0400 Subject: Re: Radar Ranges of the Mojave Desert At 07:16 AM 7/18/96 -0700, Tom wrote: >Just a pointer to let Skunk Works afficionados know I've just opened a new >part of my web page dealing with the radar cross section facilities in the >Mojave Desert. Why is it Skunky? Well, in addition to the very closed >mouth attitudes of the companies that run these facilities, it turns out >that the the real gem of the RCS facilities, located at Helendale, is owned >and operated by the Skunk Works. > >To get directly to the RCS page: >http://www.serve.com/mahood/RCS/rcs-main.htm > So what's up with the Lockheed pole-caps? [ http://www.serve.com/mahood/RCS/hd-polec.jpg ] To my unknowing eye, they appear rather large just to cover the ugly bits of the pylon end. Especially when I recall that regardless of the scale of an object, the RCS is the same. So why not use a pole-cap 1/2 or 1/3 the size of that monster? In Ben Rich's "Skunk Works" book, he mentioned that the wooden partial-scale model of the eventual F117 was the ideal stealth shape, using the facet-based RCS calculations. Is Lockheed's new "pole-cap" the ideal continuous-curve stealth shape? Should we expect an aircraft based on this shape? While we're on the subject, why are pole-caps even needed at this facility? When the pylons are empty, I get the impression that they are stored retracted. BTW, great pages Tom! Always curious, Brentley Smith / bsmith@zippynet.com ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 16:06:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #679 > We have been watching these flights of very fast and high flying craft > (UFOs) that look like stars, for the past week. They are moving from > South to North, and North to South, but on occasion from the North > North-West to the South South-East. On some occasions they are less than > five minutes apart. They are called satellites. > On at least two occasions, the craft seemed to pulsate (dim to bright, > then back to dim) as they moved from North North-East to South > South-East, and once when moving directly North to South. The pulsations > were not Navigation lights, as I have been a pilot and I am familiar with > transponder, landing and navigation lights. The "pulsating" is due to the fact that many satellites are rotating. > I found these fast moving, high flying lights (somewhat dimmer that a > medium bright star) fascinating because I am under the impression that > satellites are usually in orbits that carry them from West to East or > West North-West to East South-East. Am I wrong? Could these be LEO > satellites placed in a Polar orbit? Most certainly. > I was under the impression that only > GEO satellites were placed in Polar orbit No, GEO satellites are (naturally) placed in a GEO (geostationary) orbit. > but I know that there is a lot > of academic interest in the study of the ozone layer by the use of LEO > satellites. Earth resources, surveillance, and various other types of satellites and rocket bodies can be found in LEO (low earth orbit). ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Thu, 18 Jul 96 16:42:21  Subject: Re: Whats that plane!! Something to keep in mind is that Lockheed does not own any of the SR-71s. They were the property of the US Government. Lockheed really has no say in how they are used, and the Government is Very leery of allowing anything of its to be used in even an implied endorsement (most fighters you see in commercials are privately owned) except by the manufacturer endorsing its own products. Even those Blackbirds in museums probably still have some strings attached forbidding their use in advertising or commercial enterprises. Art Hanley Not only do my employers not endorse the views above, they aren't even aware of them. ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 17:20:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Sweetman article (fwd) [From: The Washington Post, July 7, 1996] The Budget You Can't See In a Shrinking Defense Pie, the Stealth Slice Is Growing Thicker Each Year By Bill Sweetman Late in May, on a bright afternoon in Dayton, Ohio, a group of engineers in their fifties and sixties posed happily for cameras in front of a strange blue airplane, with a bluff nose and tapering, flipper-like tail that had earned it the nickname Whale. It could have been the public debut of any new aircraft, with one exception the plane had been completed 14 years earlier. The Whale, a prototype radar plane officially known only as Tacit Blue, had made its first flight in 1982 and its last flight in 1985 when somebody eliminated its mission. The Air Force won't tell you where it spent the next 11 years because the Whale is a creature of the military's "black world," in which tens of thousands of people work on projects in an environment of pervasive, rigorous secrecy. The massive growth of a clandestine military was one of the most criticized features of the Reagan-Bush defense build-up. Over 12 years, hundreds of billions of dollars were spent in secret on airplanes and spacecraft, on test facilities and bases and on covert operations. With the end of the Cold War and a new administration, some people predicted that the Pentagon might cut back and bring these projects into the light. They were wrong. Under the Clinton administration, clandestine projects are still expensive and still secret. That part of the black military budget that can be glimpsed stands at more than $14 billion -- close to its 1980s peak. But this is mostly for research and development as well as some production. It does not include undiscoverable billions spent for operations, support and construction projects. Pushing this trend is a Pentagon led by a substantial number of civilian and military officials with extensive black budget experience. Starting with Secretary of Defense William Perry, they believe that the clandestine development of costly, high tech weapons is the best way to provide the United States with a battle field advantage. Coming at a time when much other military spending is declining, the effect is a shift in Pentagon priorities that has not been debated. For instance, under the Clinton administration's budget request for next year, the Air Force, which has historically handled the bulk of black programs -- plans to spend two-thirds more on secret research and development than it did under the last budget that George Bush sent to Congress, a $2.1 billion increase. Clinton wants to spend another $5.9 billion of the Air Force budget on producing secret weapons, a small reduction from the last Bush budget, but more than offset by the surge in research. In 1997, almost 40 cents of every dollar that the USAF will spend on equipment will be spent on secret projects. The secret Air Force spends 25 percent more on weapons development than the entire United States Army. The same trend is repeated, to a lesser degree, in the Navy. Despite generally lower budgets, the Navy still spends a relatively steady $1.6 billion a year on secret research projects. You won't find these numbers in a public document, but it is possible to estimate the cost because some of the figures are only thinly concealed in the unclassified version of the Pentagon budget. Three methods are used: + In the research and development budget, the line items listed for "operational systems development" do not add up to the total for that section. The difference -- $4.8 billion in the Air Force budget -- is accounted for by classified programs. + Generic line items cover many programs. The best example is the "Selected Activities" line in the Air Force procurement budget: At $4.67 billion, it is the largest line item in the entire budget. It is much more than the Air Force will spend on buying airplanes. + Some programs are listed but carry code names. The Air Force uses a random Pentagonese name generator to produce "Advanced Program Evaluation" or "Special Evaluation System" while the Navy hits the garden-center catalog for "Link Laurel" and "Retract Maple." Where all this money goes is a deepening mystery. In the 1980s and early 1990s, most secret spending went for two items stealth aircraft and satellites developed by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). But the biggest stealth projects -- such as the B-2 and F-117 -- have been brought into the white world. At the same time, satellites last longer -- something which may explain the drop in secret production funds. It is hardly surprising that many people do not believe the CIA and the Air Force when they deny the existence of large programs like the rumored 4,000-mph Aurora spyplane. The key number is the surge in research and development -- which often precedes much larger spending when it comes time to build the weapons. Every morning in Las Vegas, between 700 and 1,000 people board anonymous 737 jetliners and fly to Area 51, the Nevada flight-test base which has been the home of classified airplane projects since 1955. In 1992, McDonnell Douglas set up the Phantom Works to pursue classified research and development projects. Its success is one of the reasons why the company's Pentagon business has stayed high despite the winding down of orders for its fighters. Lockheed Martin's renowned Skunk Works employs 4,000 people even though the only aircraft it is known to have built since 1990 are two small spy drones. The Air Force's research campus at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, in Dayton, is bustling. Construction continues on a new office complex -- a strange sight in the midst of a defense drawdown. And these are no ordinary offices: with nine-inch-thick internal doors, two basement levels with separate staircases, and high security video-conference facilities. There is no doubt that part of what the black budget is paying for is aircraft that are as yet undisclosed. Area 51 was significantly expanded just after the Whale -- its most recent known resident -- ended its flying career. Another enigma centers on the secure air base at Tonopah, Nev., where the F-117 Stealth fighter became operational in 1983. Just after the Gulf War, the Stealth fighters were evicted and moved to Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. Yet Tonopah is still active. Support for these ventures comes from the top. When Les Aspin, Clinton's first defense secretary, conducted a "bottom up" spending review in September 1993, he left secret programs unscathed. When Aspin unexpectedly resigned after less than a year, Clinton turned to Aspin's deputy, William Perry, a defense entrepreneur. Sometimes called "the godfather of Stealth," Perry had been instrumental in the development of the first stealth airplanes -- as a key member of President Carter's Pentagon team in the late 1970s. During Perry's tenure, the upper Pentagon ranks have filled with people who have similarly long backgrounds in classified programs. Paul Kaminski, the senior official in charge of Pentagon research, was Perry's special assistant on the stealth program. Air Force Secretary Sheila Widnall is a former trustee of the Aerospace Corp. in Los Angeles, a low-profile non-profit company which manages many of the Air Force's classified space projects. The Air Force's senior official in charge of research and development, Arthur Money, came to the Pentagon after 23 years at ESL, the electronic surveillance equipment company that Perry had founded. In the uniformed services, Gen. Joseph Ralston, the new vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was a member of the small Pentagon team which developed the F-117 concept in 1976-79. Arthur Money's uniformed counterpart is Lt. Gen. George Muellner, former commander of the Air Force's 6513th Test Squadron -- one of its classified flight-test units. The first operational stealth fighter unit, the 4450th Tactical Group, existed for only six years and was smaller than a normal Air Force wing -- yet seven of its former group and squadron commanders are now generals. The White House has been cooperative with the Pentagon's requests in expanding its secret world. Take the case of Area 51, which the Air Force refuses to admit exists even though photographs of the base have appeared in dozens of magazines. When the Air Force decided to seize two tracts of public land that overlooked the base, the Department of the Interior was told to comply. When an attorney filed a lawsuit on behalf of some Area 51 workers who claimed to have been injured by toxic materials, President Clinton signed an "exemption," telling a United States district court judge that the Air Force need not disclose any documents relating to the base. The direct cost of this secrecy is substantial. Between 10 and 15 percent of the cost of a black program is absorbed by security measures: from the establishment of separate financial and administrative systems for every project to the cost of flying people to work every morning. When Tacit Blue was unveiled, one of the program managers told me that Pentagon undercover agents were assigned to contact the spouses of people on the program, attempting to find out if anyone had violated the law by answering the question "How was your day at work, dear?" Accountability is the real issue. Congressional national security and intelligence committees, in theory, oversee black programs. Judging by fact that the NRO has confessed to losing track of $4 billion in surplus funds, this oversight seems less than effective. It does not cover the blackest of all black projects -- the "waived" programs, which are secret even from the committees. The black world prospers and becomes ever more established while a compliant administration overrides the judiciary at its request. The Pentagon's leaders are immersed in its culture. It briefs a few members of Congress who are cleared into some -- but not all of its programs, and who lack the data and the time needed to map the secret labyrinth. Most citizens accept the need for secrecy in times of crisis. And most would accept the need for the country to pursue technical breakthroughs sheltered from prying eyes. But the question is whether a secret military should be such a thriving, unaccountable institution when the security of the nation is less threatened than it has been for decades. ----- Bill Sweetman, who specializes in aerospace and defense issues, writes for Popular Science and Jane's International Defense Review. His most recent book is "Aurora -- The Pentagon's Secret Spyplane." [End] ------------------------------ From: Adam Maas Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 21:33:45 -0400 Subject: Re: Mach Numbers and space Two Things: 1. There are no mach numbers for interplanetary space as the mach scale is based on the speed of sound through the ATMOSPHERE. 2. Mach 25 in the earth's atmosphere is close to the earth's escape velocity so you often see it quoted as the speed of an orbiter or sattellite. ------------------------------ From: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 21:55:50 -0700 Subject: Re: Saw my first B-2 fly on Sat.! -Reply MICHAEL WEATHERSBY wrote: > > On the topic of seeing your first B-2's.... > > The flyover was timed to perfection and at just the right angle for > some great pictures. With the beast in flight and on a straight and > level course it is almost impossible to see from a few miles distance > but when it turns it almost looks like a boomerang. Oh well, > hopefully they will return again some day.... > Saw my first one (two, actually) at NAS Dallas (Hensley Field) in late 1994. One on the ground, strategically positioned between the crowd and the early morning sun (i.e. lousy photo op). Unfortunately, the entire thing turned out to be one big campaign stump for Ann Richards and Kay Bailey-Hutchinsen (sp?), Texas' own polly-ticians ("B-2s mean more jobs for Texans!!!" was all we heard for two hours), and they occupied a large grandstand, also placed between the B-2 and yours truly. A second B-2 made one pass (at ~1000 ft agl) - I visually spotted it turning towards the airfield when it was between 8-10 miles away, but only because it was in a bank... at least I was able to photograph the bottom of a B-2! Greg Fieser Since I'm self-employed, the above views DO represent those of my employer... ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 03:16:49 PDT Subject: Re: Mach Numbers and space Sorry folks, Your dead wrong. The Mach number is really nothing more than the speed that molecules are traveling (RMS) as a result of temperature. - -in a gas- The Earth`s atmosphere IS NOT a contimuum. In fact, it is MOSTLY EMPTY SPACE! Also, atmospheres do not stop at a finite distance. The Earth`s atmosphere mixes with the Sun`s which mixes with other Stars and on and on. BTW - to all you doubters, by all the most plausible theories YOU are made up of the parts of stars via the interstellar atmosphere. To say there is no Mach number in space - absurd. As I said, one of the cool things Voyager 2 did was record the shock wave of a panet. The ionization causes a RF spike that the spacecraft transmits back. This was an important observation since it helped verify the theoretical density and temperature of interplanetary space. Calculating the Mach number for a planet is usually given as a homework or test question for budding engineers. It shows the effects of the Cp/Cv ratio on molecular speed. It also reinforces that Mach number is a TEMPERATURE effect, NOT DENSITY effect. (Although "space" isn`t vey dense by earthling standards it still is an atmosphere.") if you become a rocket scientist you must learn a subject called "statistical aerodynamics" which applies to very high flying aircraft and- believe it or not- spacecraft. When the intermolecular distances become about the same order of magnitude as the body in motion through the fluid, you use this approach. This is part of the "scoop fuel up as you go" approach to space travel. The inlet would be a supersonic diffuser compressing the interstellar matter as you fly along. Wouldn`t work to well without a Mach number, would it? Don`t feel bad. You`re teachers are to blame. I remember my high school science teacher telling me there was no gravity in space! Thats why astronauts float around, right? Also- Elvis is dead. There are no alien spacehips in NM. The Masons are not a secret world government. Alice Cooper is not Eddy Haskel. Paul is not Dead. Harleys are not American made, just assembled. Lets move on. Chuck ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 03:39:48 PDT Subject: Re: LPI Radar Chris, I wonder if std. Fourier would be used. I`d use an FFT system for any type of signature analysis. Maybe I`m picking nits and this is what you meant anyway. Chuck ------------------------------ From: clarence@spooky.chinalake.navy.mil (Clarence Dent) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 09:53:04 -0700 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #681 From: John Hendricks >We have been watching these flights of very fast and high flying craft >(UFOs) that look like stars, for the past week. They are moving from >South to North, and North to South, but on occasion from the North >North-West to the South South-East. On some occasions they are less than >five minutes apart. They are never traveling along the same path. Satellites. >On at least two occasions, the craft seemed to pulsate (dim to bright, >then back to dim) as they moved from North North-East to South >South-East, and once when moving directly North to South. The pulsations >were not Navigation lights, as I have been a pilot and I am familiar with >transponder, landing and navigation lights. Rotating satellites. We see 'em here too! Makes for an unusual time exposure (blurry streaks) shot when you are shooting stars or 4th of July fireworks, or trains... Clarence Dent - -Computer Scientist, Systems Engineer, Recording/Concert Sound Engineer, Photographer, Woodworker, and Modeller. I'm looking for work in S. Colorado, or Seattle areas. email: clarence@spooky.chinalake.navy.mil 226 Springside st. Ridgecrest, CA 93555 Home address of the Eastern Sierra Railroad Club Why is it that "common sense" isn't very common?... This world is not my home........I'm just ...passin' ...through..... ------------------------------ From: clarence@spooky.chinalake.navy.mil (Clarence Dent) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 09:38:32 -0700 Subject: Re: Saw my first B-2 fly on Sat.! Larry wrote: >I saw a B-2 for the first time on Sat and the Portland Rose >Festival Airshow. > >WOW, what a COOL plane! Definitely. >It's rather quiet. It made 2 passes and you could hear turbofan engine >noise but it was definitely on the quiet side. However, when the aircraft >left the show, they hit the throttles and we got quite a roar as they >climbed out quickly as they departed. Stealth! > >The people next to me said they thought it looked like a >real thin piece of sheet metal shaped like a wing. Stealth! I've a photo of it that makes it look just like a raven from the low side angle. Most artistic photo of it I've ever seen. But I don't own the license to freely distribute it! >We were especially lucky as a B-17G had just proceeded the B-2, just >finishing its show routine just before the B-2 flew by. It was quite a >contrast. 60 years of technology! Now that would be really cool to see! >Larry >------------------------------ and Kathy: >Is everybody in this country going to see one of these things before I do? >My father lives 20 miles from Whiteman, and I'm back there twice a year, >and I STILL haven't had so much as a glimpse of one. Larry and Kathy: Take a trip out here to So. Cal some day. Find a reason to visit LA area, then drive up around Edwards and north and east of there. Keep your eyes on the sky however, and you will probably see one! We see them nearly every time we drive through that area(on weekdays)-it is a sparsely populated area (sometimes called 'desert'! ;-)) and the AF, NASA, and the Navy from here at China Lake frequently fly around down there running flight tests. Bring your sunscreen, a scanner, binoculars, and spend a day. You likely won't be disappointed! I still get a thrill from seeing them. A few months ago, I passed through there and was 'buzzed' by one near the Federal prison at Boron. He couldn't have been over 500' AGL and when you think about the 172' wingspan, he was _really_ close to the ground, and me! He came up so fast from my front left corner, that I didn't even see him until the last few seconds before he passed over. If he were bombing me at low level, then I was toast almost before I knew it! Much too fast for me to get out my camera!... Clarence Dent - -Computer Scientist, Systems Engineer, Recording/Concert Sound Engineer, Photographer, Woodworker, and Modeller. I'm looking for work in S. Colorado, or Seattle areas. email: clarence@spooky.chinalake.navy.mil 226 Springside st. Ridgecrest, CA 93555 Home address of the Eastern Sierra Railroad Club Why is it that "common sense" isn't very common?... This world is not my home........I'm just ...passin' ...through..... ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #683 ********************************* 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).