From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #709 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Saturday, 21 September 1996 Volume 05 : Number 709 In this issue: Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting Aurora? Not! Re: F117/HARM Re: F117/HARM Re: F117/HARM Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting Re: Aurora? Not! Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting Re: Aurora? Not! Hi-Spot and Lockmart LTA Disappearing fast, the Stealth's reputation... Re: Disappearing fast, the Stealth's reputation... (NOT) Re: F117/HARM Re: Hi-Spot and Lockmart LTA Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting 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: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 00:45:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting Andreas said: > I got the following email on June 29, 1996, from , > which I believe sounds like a pretty similar encounter. The only aircraft I > could think of at the time, resembling that mystery plane, would have been a > Beech Starship or maybe a Rutan VariEze or LongEZ. The engines of those > aircraft are definitely on top, and not below the wings, though, and they > are both propeller driven. Also, the canards are not on the very front of > the planes, especially on the Starship. > > One of the differences, with respect to the XB-70-like aircraft, are the > winglets, pointing up, rather than down, and the apparent black color. > Does anyone have other suggestions? The sighting you quoted sounds exactly like a Beech Starship, and i'd say there is a pretty good chance that another one was responsible for the current sighting question. This aircraft has a proven track record of eliciting these kind of reports, and the description seems close enough to be well within the margin of error for visual sightings. ------------------------------ From: (Jay Waller) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 7:47:07 EDT Subject: Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting I have seen a Rutan LongEZ fly into the airport here, observing it from directly below while it was still a few hundred feet up. To me the wings looked long and thin, not delta. You could also hear the drone of the engines very well. I realize the craft in question was apparently at a higher altitude, but even with this, I can't imagine an aerospace engineer mistaking a Rutan for what he saw (speaking only as an armchair pilot and novice). Just my less than two cents worth. Regards, Jay - ------------- Original Text From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl , on 9/19/96 7:12 PM: To: "Skunk Works List" I got the following email on June 29, 1996, from , which I believe sounds like a pretty similar encounter. The only aircraft I could think of at the time, resembling that mystery plane, would have been a Beech Starship or maybe a Rutan VariEze or LongEZ. The engines of those aircraft are definitely on top, and not below the wings, though, and they are both propeller driven. Also, the canards are not on the very front of the planes, especially on the Starship. One of the differences, with respect to the XB-70-like aircraft, are the winglets, pointing up, rather than down, and the apparent black color. Does anyone have other suggestions? - -- Andreas >From: pcstone >Subject: Mysterious plane I saw >I live in the countryside of Maryland. Last week my wife and I were out >on the driveway and overhead flew a black military looking plane. The >design was such that is had a set of smaller wings extruding from the >front of the plane. These wings came from the very tip. That is to say, >there was no part of the nose protruding out in front to the wings. The >main large wings started about half way down the fuselage and swept at >about 45 degrees till it was even with the rear of the fuselage. The rear >wings tipped up sharply at the ends. There was no upright tail section at >the rear. The only vertical members were the flipped up portion of the >swept back wings. From directly below the plane, the rear main wings >formed a delta shape. Like a triangle, the back portion of the wings were >straight from tip to tip. The egines were in a horizontal allignment >clustered at the rear of the plane directly under the fuselage. >This plane looked a bit larger than a standard fighter plane, but not as >large as something like a B-2. >Any ideas? I would love to find a picture and get some info. - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:29:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Aurora? Not! Actually, my theory about the "doughnuts on a rope" is that they are nothing unusual. One of the Hemholtz vortex laws is that every vortex is continous. What this means is that it never begins or ends. Theory says that the tip vortices formed by an aircraft are connected at the downstream end by a "starting vortex" and at the upstream end by the "bound vorticity" of the wing. When a vortex trail gets very long, the only way for it to shorten, and obey this law, is for the vortex trail to "snap" and form vortex doughnuts. Frank Sanders used to do an airshow routine in his Sea Fury, with wingtip smoke generators. Though not intended probably, this served to illustrate this phenomona perfectly - I saw the doughnuts form several times. I have also seen airliner contrails do just this too. On a different/related matter, the "XB-70" like spotting sounds a lot like a Rutan VariViggen SP. This aircraft has a forward mounted canard, delta wing, winglets and outboard mounted vertical fins that could be mistaken from below as engine pods. What would a black aircraft be doing at 3-5k feet over Illinois? - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 ------------------------------ From: Mike.Mueller@jpl.nasa.gov (Mike Mueller) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:10:38 -0700 Subject: Re: F117/HARM >If you look at Holloman's web area, you can find the two pictures below, >(dated May 8, 1996) showing an F-117A of Det 1, 57th Wing (probably 804 or >maybe 813), firing what appears to be 2 AIM-120A AMRAAM missiles. The Texas > ... >The photos I mentioned of the F-117A firing AMRAAMs are located at: >http://openview.holloman.af.mil/images/pic_03.gif >http://openview.holloman.af.mil/images/pic_14.gif Not to be too skeptical but the pic_03 shot looks faked and the pic_14 is also suspect. Photoshop can do wonders, and we all remember Forrest Gump taking to Kennedy, right? The flame in pic_03 looks artificial and cropped, there's no smoke, and the missile was apparently dropped before ignition (otherwise there would be a launch rail visible hanging down from the open weapons bay). I don't know much about the AMMRAM, but doesn't it launch off a rail? The other shot looks better but again the launch rail is not visible. Since I couldn't find the the link to these pictures, I'm not sure the context that they are being shown but I no longer believe everything I see. Why would they be faked? Maybe they did the test but couldn't use the actual photos for some reason. I wouldn't suggest that there would be any other reason. ;-) ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 9:46:41  Subject: Re: F117/HARM AMRAAM can be launched in a number ways. It can be carried on a wing pylon, on a wing tip, semi-submerged and pushed off, released from a rail lowered from an internal bay (that's how the F-22 will launch it) or just dropped from an internal bay. The real question would be how the AIM-120 is cued and/or guided. This would normally have to be from another platform. The other way is if the target is close enough, the AIM-120 could be lowered on its rail until the missile's own seeker head acquired the target. The only thing is that the F-117 would be "un-stealthy" during this period and given that a F-117 is no match for any modern fighter that can see it, I'm not all that sure I'd want to make a habit of that. Of course, the pics could simply be of experimental weapons trials. Art Hanley My employer has nothing to do with anything in this message [except to make me write this] ------------------------------ From: mrw@netdirect.net (Mark Wilson) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:53:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: F117/HARM What is the black attachment at: http://openview.holloman.af.mil/images/pic_08.gif ??? At 9:10 AM 9/20/96, Mike Mueller wrote: >>If you look at Holloman's web area, you can find the two pictures below, >>(dated May 8, 1996) showing an F-117A of Det 1, 57th Wing (probably 804 or >>maybe 813), firing what appears to be 2 AIM-120A AMRAAM missiles. The Texas >> ... >>The photos I mentioned of the F-117A firing AMRAAMs are located at: >>http://openview.holloman.af.mil/images/pic_03.gif >>http://openview.holloman.af.mil/images/pic_14.gif > >Not to be too skeptical but the pic_03 shot looks faked and the pic_14 is >also suspect. Photoshop can do wonders, and we all remember Forrest Gump >taking to Kennedy, right? The flame in pic_03 looks artificial and cropped, >there's no smoke, and the missile was apparently dropped before ignition >(otherwise there would be a launch rail visible hanging down from the open >weapons bay). I don't know much about the AMMRAM, but doesn't it launch off >a rail? The other shot looks better but again the launch rail is not >visible. > >Since I couldn't find the the link to these pictures, I'm not sure the >context that they are being shown but I no longer believe everything I see. >Why would they be faked? Maybe they did the test but couldn't use the >actual photos for some reason. I wouldn't suggest that there would be any >other reason. ;-) ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 10:03:49  Subject: Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting I'd vote with Andreas and company on a Starship or Rutan product. Appearances can indeed be deceiving, even to knowledgable personnel. For example, look at a MiG-21 and a F-4. Seeing them on the ground or close up you'd think they bear no resemblence to each other. Yet I can tell you for a fact that in the air, especially when you have nothing to scale them against, they look virtually identical. Art Hanley Despite what you might want to Believe, none of any of the above Even remotely has anything to do With my employer. ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:13:19 PDT Subject: Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting Art Hanley- without any input from his employers wrote: >I'd vote with Andreas and company on a Starship or Rutan product. Appearances >can indeed be deceiving, even to knowledgable personnel. .... Size is the most difficult. I got a real surprise on day down in Texas. I remember walking off the ramp and realizing that the Phantom next to a C47 was LONGER than the Goon. I just don`t think of a F4 as bigger than a DC3! Chuck The observer never mentioned noise if I remember. If it WAS a B-70 type aircraft I`m sure it would have been noticed! Probably a Long EZ or even a Defiant. ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:01:19 -0700 Subject: Re: Aurora? Not! > Actually, my theory about the "doughnuts on a rope" is that they >are nothing unusual. Some of the sightings, at lower altitude, report a pulsed engine sound. > One of the Hemholtz vortex laws is that every >vortex is continous. What this means is that it never begins or ends. >Theory says that the tip vortices formed by an aircraft are connected at >the downstream end by a "starting vortex" and at the upstream end by the >"bound vorticity" of the wing. When a vortex trail gets very long, the >only way for it to shorten, and obey this law, is for the vortex trail to >"snap" and form vortex doughnuts. This is very interesting David! > Frank Sanders used to do an airshow >routine in his Sea Fury, with wingtip smoke generators. Though not >intended probably, this served to illustrate this phenomona perfectly - I >saw the doughnuts form several times. So in other words, if I understand you David, there are two things that cause the vortex to snap. One, it becomes too long, and even though Hemholtz says it wants to remain continuous, other forces along the continuous vortex break it like a string under tension breaks. The broken off piece, no longer attached to the "bound vorticity", will now attempt to form a doughnut. Two, the bound vorticity may no longer be bound, as in part of a wingtip flow (the wingtip smoke (oil?) part only) being turned off (the pilot turns off smoke)? This is very interesting! >I have also seen airliner contrails do just this too. I assume we're now talking engine flow and not wingtip vortices. Yes, I have seen airliner contrails fo this over time. The shear layer between two flows (the air and the engine exhaust) does cause vortices. I also wonder what the angular momentum of a turbine does to the flow in the exhaust as well. I have seen these continuous airliner contrails form what looks very much like doughnuts on a rope as well. Also, upper atmosphere winds can accentuate this as well I expect. But, since we've seen what normal airliner contrails can do, it's been part of our questioning process to ask when witnesses have seen the doughnuts form. Their answer has always been, immediately, it comes out that way! Now, witnesses do lie! But, we can't prove they're lying, and we've had several, from different parts of the US, tell us this. These people don't know each other. So again, who knows. I actually don't trust witnesses (don't take that the wrong way you witnesses), but why should I? I've been burned once really bad by a guy who claimed X, and he suckered me in. I felt X was probably true. Later I found out that X could NOT POSSIBLY be true. I was dumbstruck! I wondered why he would invent this story but he obviously did. So the lesson to me was, OK, listen to what they say, check out the story if possible, but if it leads nowhere, keep it on the books and don't be surprised if the government later announces it. But usually, the story just dies and you never find out whether they were telling the truth and if they were accurate. Oh well. The sightings can also lead us to interesting technical ideas. Your vortex stuff here David is a perfect example. Also, the doughnuts on a rope contrail begot the AW&ST article on Pulsed Detonation Engines (PDEs), which begot a lot of research done on PDEs. In essence, the pulser, whether it exists or not, caused some productive results! Larry ------------------------------ From: tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com (Tom Robison) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:32:47 +0000 Subject: Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting >The observer never mentioned noise if I remember. If it WAS >a B-70 type aircraft I`m sure it would have been noticed! >Probably a Long EZ or even a Defiant. I recall seeing a Starship go over at about 3k feet. Not only was the sound very noticeable, but unusual as well. No doubt it was prop-driven, but a very unusual sound for a turbo-prop (due to the pusher arrangement?) The first report of this said it was black... Are there some black Starships out there? What would Darth Vader give for one of those? Tom Robison Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com (work) tcrobi@fortwayne.infi.net (home) ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:18:25 PDT Subject: Re: Aurora? Not! Doesn`t the vortex damp since the viscous forces overcome the kinetic? Chuck ------------------------------ From: OnLine Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 23:45:52 Subject: Hi-Spot and Lockmart LTA I was told recently about a project called Hi-Spot that involved Lockheed a few years ago. It was an LTA vehicle. Does anyone have any information on that programme ? It's clear that they're working on LTA stuff...Ben Rich mentioned their interest, but no-one seems to know what they're doing...though they seem to have been doing it for a long time now.. whatever is...paint it black - fly it at night perhaps ? I had a look for Theme Castle at the FAS sight, but keep getting a 404 error..can anyone fill me in on what the general consensus is on that ? Thanks Best David ------------------------------ From: James Easton <100626.2242@Compuserve.com> Date: 20 Sep 96 19:25:48 EDT Subject: Disappearing fast, the Stealth's reputation... List members may be interested in the following article, reproduced in a UK mailing list: Source: Daily Mail newspaper. Date: Friday 6th September 1996. Disappearing fast, the Stealth's reputation "It is the invisible destroyer - a bomber that can strike without being picked up by radar. At least, that was the theory. But British scientists have blown a hole in the 2.2 billion dollar technology behind the American Stealth bomber by claiming to have tracked it as it flew over the Farnborough air show. British missile manufacturers saw Monday's flypast as the ideal opportunity to test their systems against the bomber - seen by many as the most advanced aircraft in the world. Experts operating a Rapier FSC system at RAF Honington in Suffolk managed the feat and later provided video evidence to the Americans. British Aerospace, which manufactures the Rapier, was jubilant and said it proved how effective it was against all types of aircraft. The Pentagon fired back, saying it had allowed the Stealth - known as the USAF Northrop Gruman B2 Spirit - to be tracked for safety reasons and that it could disappear off the screen again whenever it wanted. However, some doubt was cast on the explanation by the fact that other British systems had failed to track the plane. The Rapier works by using infra-red systems to look for changed in heat in the atmosphere. Although the B2 is supposed to be able to disguise its heat emissions, sufficient traces must have remained for the Rapier to lock on". James Internet; 100626.2242@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 16:56:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Disappearing fast, the Stealth's reputation... (NOT) > List members may be interested in the following article, reproduced in a UK > mailing list: Not very interesting, and it's old news. This is nothing but a case of BAe exploiting the technical ignorance of the press, to enable themselves to get some free (undeserved) publicity. It seems to have succeeded brilliantly. > But British scientists have blown a hole in the 2.2 billion dollar > technology behind the American Stealth bomber by claiming to have tracked it > as it flew over the Farnborough air show. > > British missile manufacturers saw Monday's flypast as the ideal opportunity > to test their systems against the bomber - seen by many as the most advanced > aircraft in the world. > > Experts operating a Rapier FSC system at RAF Honington in Suffolk managed > the feat and later provided video evidence to the Americans. What they showed was a close-up InfraRed view of the B-2, taken as it flew directly overhead for the airshow. Totally meaningless, and it demonstrates nothing of it's ability to engage the aircraft in a true combat situation. > British Aerospace, which manufactures the Rapier, was jubilant and said it > proved how effective it was against all types of aircraft. Wow, so it is effective against aircraft flying overhead at almost rock-throwing distance! :> That doesn't sound like anything to be very jubilant about... but this little PR scheme of theirs, now there is reason for jubilation! ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:23:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: F117/HARM On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Mike Mueller wrote: > Not to be too skeptical but the pic_03 shot looks faked and the pic_14 is > also suspect. Photoshop can do wonders, and we all remember Forrest Gump > taking to Kennedy, right? The flame in pic_03 looks artificial and cropped, > there's no smoke, and the missile was apparently dropped before ignition > (otherwise there would be a launch rail visible hanging down from the open > weapons bay). I don't know much about the AMMRAM, but doesn't it launch off > a rail? The other shot looks better but again the launch rail is not > visible. > > Since I couldn't find the the link to these pictures, I'm not sure the > context that they are being shown but I no longer believe everything I see. > Why would they be faked? Maybe they did the test but couldn't use the > actual photos for some reason. I wouldn't suggest that there would be any > other reason. ;-) For a official military page... I don't think they are fake pics. For the peoples that still does not believe the F-117 can carry HARM, here is the article that I mention before from AW&ST of F-117/HARM. It is from the official AW&ST homepage: http://www.awgnet.com/awst/avi_news.htm#f117 May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@barney.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ From: Christopher Paul Diehl Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 22:17:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Hi-Spot and Lockmart LTA Although I know next to nothing about Hi-Spot, I know for a fact that the program dates back more than a few years. More than 10 years ago, my father worked for the AF. One day I was in his office when he was throwing out stuff. One thing he was about to throw out was this artist conception of this LTA with Hi-Spot painted on the side. The picture showed the craft tracking some aircraft flying far below. I thought the picture looked cool so I asked if I could have it. He said sure so I took it home and hung it on my wall. I may still have it at home. I know there was a cutaway of the craft showing a radar inside on the back side of the picture. I'll look through my pictures next time I'm home and see if I have it... Chris ------------------------------ From: jwp@lubrizol.com Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 12:00:28 +0000 Subject: Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > > I got the following email on June 29, 1996, from , > which I believe sounds like a pretty similar encounter. The only aircraft I > could think of at the time, resembling that mystery plane, would have been a > Beech Starship or maybe a Rutan VariEze or LongEZ. The engines of those > aircraft are definitely on top, and not below the wings, though, and they > are both propeller driven. Also, the canards are not on the very front of > the planes, especially on the Starship. > > One of the differences, with respect to the XB-70-like aircraft, are the > winglets, pointing up, rather than down, and the apparent black color. > > Does anyone have other suggestions? > > -- Andreas > > >From: pcstone > >Subject: Mysterious plane I saw > > >I live in the countryside of Maryland. Last week my wife and I were out > >on the driveway and overhead flew a black military looking plane. The > >design was such that is had a set of smaller wings extruding from the > >front of the plane. These wings came from the very tip. That is to say, > >there was no part of the nose protruding out in front to the wings. The > >main large wings started about half way down the fuselage and swept at > >about 45 degrees till it was even with the rear of the fuselage. The rear > >wings tipped up sharply at the ends. There was no upright tail section at > >the rear. The only vertical members were the flipped up portion of the > >swept back wings. From directly below the plane, the rear main wings > >formed a delta shape. Like a triangle, the back portion of the wings were > >straight from tip to tip. The egines were in a horizontal allignment > >clustered at the rear of the plane directly under the fuselage. > > >This plane looked a bit larger than a standard fighter plane, but not as > >large as something like a B-2. > > >Any ideas? I would love to find a picture and get some info. > > --- --- > Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org > 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu > Flint, MI 48502-1239 > Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ > --- --- This reminds me a little of a report I saw in the electronic archive of the Journal of Electron Defense. The report mentioned a group of sightings (1992?) of a plane that looked like a cross between a B-70 Valkyrie and the SR-71 Blackbird. The journal claimed they had a source that confirmed its existance and called it Brillient Buzzard. At leat one of the sightings was in the Midwest. Joe Pialet jwp@lubrizol.com ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #709 ********************************* 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).