From: skunk-works-digest-owner@pmihwy.com To: skunk-works-digest@pmihwy.com Subject: Skunk Works Digest V6 #8 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@pmihwy.com Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@pmihwy.com Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Friday, 17 January 1997 Volume 06 : Number 008 In this issue: FW: Re: F-16 Versions FW: Re: F-16 Versions FW: Re: SR-71 mystery... again Correction AREA 51: Aurora at Davis-Monthan?? Good article on black programs FW: Flying Triangle spotted? Re: FW: Flying Triangle spotted? Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #7 Re: Avro Arrow CF-105 D-21 Image Re: D-21 Image D-21/SR-71 Image Re: D-21 Image radio frequencies at Groom Lake? Nellis/Groom Lake Frequencies 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: Greg Phillips Date: Tue, 14 Jan 97 18:00:54 PST Subject: FW: Re: F-16 Versions Would the Japanese FSX also be considered a variant of the F-16 as well? Greg - --- On Tue, 14 Jan 1997 08:53:22 -0800 habu wrote: David Lednicer wrote: > Your F-16 variant list could be considered complete, but there are > two minor variants missing. The Israeli F-16Ds have a different spine > shape, for electronics. This is probably for Wild Weasel missions. This > same spine shape reappears on the NF-16D VISTA. Additionally, the > Norwegian F-16As introduced a lenghtened vertical tail base fairing, used > to contain a drag chute. This later reappeared as an electronics > container on Belgian and other F-16s. These are indeed differences, but they are more analogous to what I would call "bolt-on parts". There is more of a structural difference in a single seat and a two seat aircraft than there is between a USAF F-16D and an Israeli Peace Marble IV F-16D. In fact the VISTA airframe is the same as the Israeli PM IV F-16D. I guess it's really just a matter of semantics, "variants" vs. "versions". Other "variants" would include: (also probably not complete) YF-16 CCV - Control Configured Vehicle, with canards under the intake AFTI F-16 - smaller spine than PM IV, also originally had canards F-16/79 - a J-79 engine with a modified inlet, since converted to PW F-100-220, still a company demonstrator (75-752) F-16/101 - a GE F101 engine installed (75-745) F-16ES - aerodynamic shapes fitted, similar to F-15 FAST packs Also, those C/D models equipped with the GE F-110 engines have the MCID (Modular Common Inlet Duct, I think) "bigmouth" inlet. It's hard to tell the inlets apart unless you have the two right next to each other. I don't know if you would call this a variant, but there was an airframe called "Salty Falcon". The aircraft "crashed" and sank in the Gulf of Mexico after the pilot ejected. The airplane was susequently recovered and used for test programs by Texas Instruments, General Dynamics, and Lockheed. The aircraft arrived at TI in Dallas in 1984. (thanks to Joe Stout of Code One magazine for this one!) Greg Fieser - -----------------End of Original Message----------------- - ------------------------------------- E-mail: Greg Phillips Tel: (415)903-5200 URL : http//www.remedy.com Date: 1/14/97 Time: 6:00:54 PM "If it wasn't for the last minute, nothing would get done." - ------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Greg Phillips Date: Tue, 14 Jan 97 18:03:02 PST Subject: FW: Re: F-16 Versions Would the Japanese FSX also be considered an F-16 variant as well? Greg - --- On Tue, 14 Jan 1997 08:53:22 -0800 habu wrote: David Lednicer wrote: > Your F-16 variant list could be considered complete, but there are > two minor variants missing. The Israeli F-16Ds have a different spine > shape, for electronics. This is probably for Wild Weasel missions. This > same spine shape reappears on the NF-16D VISTA. Additionally, the > Norwegian F-16As introduced a lenghtened vertical tail base fairing, used > to contain a drag chute. This later reappeared as an electronics > container on Belgian and other F-16s. These are indeed differences, but they are more analogous to what I would call "bolt-on parts". There is more of a structural difference in a single seat and a two seat aircraft than there is between a USAF F-16D and an Israeli Peace Marble IV F-16D. In fact the VISTA airframe is the same as the Israeli PM IV F-16D. I guess it's really just a matter of semantics, "variants" vs. "versions". Other "variants" would include: (also probably not complete) YF-16 CCV - Control Configured Vehicle, with canards under the intake AFTI F-16 - smaller spine than PM IV, also originally had canards F-16/79 - a J-79 engine with a modified inlet, since converted to PW F-100-220, still a company demonstrator (75-752) F-16/101 - a GE F101 engine installed (75-745) F-16ES - aerodynamic shapes fitted, similar to F-15 FAST packs Also, those C/D models equipped with the GE F-110 engines have the MCID (Modular Common Inlet Duct, I think) "bigmouth" inlet. It's hard to tell the inlets apart unless you have the two right next to each other. I don't know if you would call this a variant, but there was an airframe called "Salty Falcon". The aircraft "crashed" and sank in the Gulf of Mexico after the pilot ejected. The airplane was susequently recovered and used for test programs by Texas Instruments, General Dynamics, and Lockheed. The aircraft arrived at TI in Dallas in 1984. (thanks to Joe Stout of Code One magazine for this one!) Greg Fieser - -----------------End of Original Message----------------- - ------------------------------------- E-mail: Greg Phillips Tel: (415)903-5200 URL : http//www.remedy.com Date: 1/14/97 Time: 6:03:02 PM "If it wasn't for the last minute, nothing would get done." - ------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Greg Phillips Date: Tue, 14 Jan 97 18:08:19 PST Subject: FW: Re: SR-71 mystery... again I bet if you asked him to find you a metric hammer he'd be gullible enough to believe they existed! Greg - --- On Mon, 13 Jan 1997 11:47:04 -0500 (EST) Mary Shafer wrote: You are so gullible that I suspect that your "friends" are just trying to find out exactly what's so preposterous that even you won't blindly believe it. This reminds me of the time I, with a little help, convinced a fellow engineer that Naugahyde was the hide of a large mammal, related to the elephant, that lived in South America. Of course, I even drew him a sketch and explained how different parts of the hide were used for different purposes. In a subsequent message, you mention that you've checked everything else they've told you, even stuff that is not in any books, and they're always right. How do you check it if it's not published? As for your signature quote, a vertical landing is still a landing. Mary Shafer Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > Well... coming back to the discussion of the SR-71 top speed. > Recently, I spoke to a PERSONAL FRIEND of mine whom flow in the back seat > of the SR-71 (RSO), he told me that the SR-71 can fly over Mach 10 and > over 95,000 ft. He flow from California to Japan in around one hour. So... > it is something wrong here or what??? If you remember my earlies posts... > at least three persons whom worked, flew, etc. the Blackbird claim > that this airplane can fly over Mach 10... hey, lies do not happen more > than twice and even with peoples that never met. > > May the Force be with you > > Su Wei-Jen > E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu > wjs@webspan.net > > "Take off is a option, landing is not... tell this to a Harrier > pilot" > > - -----------------End of Original Message----------------- - ------------------------------------- E-mail: Greg Phillips Tel: (415)903-5200 URL : http//www.remedy.com Date: 1/14/97 Time: 6:08:19 PM "If it wasn't for the last minute, nothing would get done." - ------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: "James J. Bjaloncik" Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 20:28:14 -0500 Subject: Correction To All Digest Readers: A minor correction regarding the D-21 at Wright-Pat. The D-21B UAV (#535) is located in the Annex of the Air Museum. However, it is parked in front of a YF-12A (60-06935) and not an A-12. There's an excellent photo in Lou Drendel's booklet "SR-71 Blackbird In Action" (Squadron/Signal Publications No.55, 1982, p.19) showing 06935 as it heads for its final landing at WPAFB, heading for the Museum. The plane is approx. 40-50 feet above the road that runs next to the base and has stopped all traffic in its tracks! The landing occurred in November, 1979. Jim ------------------------------ From: "A.J. Craddock" Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:25:21 -0800 Subject: AREA 51: Aurora at Davis-Monthan?? Found on the Area 51 list - thought it might fit skunkworks. Tony Craddock ************** >Return-Path: >From: Joseph C Yasinski >Subject: AREA 51: Aurora at Davis-Monthan?? >Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 11:40:30 -0700 (MST) >BestServHost: lists.best.com >Sender: area51-errors@lists.best.com >Errors-To: area51-errors@lists.best.com >To: area51@lists.best.com > > >I was riding south of Tucson with my Girlfriend last Wed. Morning when we >heard a really loud sonic boom. I mean REALLY loud. We had the radio >blasting and it shook our car really hard, I could clearly hear the crack >and >I almost swerved off the road. It was right after sunrise so the light >was just coming above the horizon. I got out of my car and saw doughnuts >on a rope, just like they have been described to me. My girlfriend >confirmed it when I made her get out of the car and look. Anyway, >obviously that >proves nothing, but Davis Monthan is just a few miles away. I have always >thought of the base as pretty simple, with little or no classified >operations going on there. can anyone else in the Tucson area confirm >this? > >Joe Yasinski > > > > ------------------------------ From: quellish@shore.intercom.net (Dan Zinngrabe) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 02:27:29 -0400 Subject: Good article on black programs http://www.metroactive.com/metro/cover/mil-spend1-9702.html Has a pretty good article on black programs, complete with fairly humorous illustrations. Paul McGinnis, one of our fellow skunkwatchers (and the guy nice enough to host my Groom Lake images!) is even quoted in the article. Definitely a must see. Dan Z ------------------------------ From: Andy C Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 09:28:19 -0000 Subject: FW: Flying Triangle spotted? Well, Any ideas ? Andy C - ---------- Sent: 15 January 1997 08:51 To: acobley@mic.dundee.ac.uk Subject: Flying Triangle spotted? > > >Can anyone help me ID the a/c spotted by aircrew recently...? > >The event took place early morning December 15th over the Lancs >coast...Callsign GEMSTONE he reported to ATC a visual on unidentified black >triangle shape hovering at around 11,000 ft. > >I understand ATC took this very seriously and made extensive enquiries but >were unable to come up with an explanation. > > >Any input gratefully received. > >Many thanks, > >John. >John Locker G7-MIZ > ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Wed, 15 Jan 97 15:54:06 MET Subject: Re: FW: Flying Triangle spotted? Andy Cobley forwards (Wed, 15 Jan 1997 09:28:19 -0000): >Can anyone help me ID the a/c spotted by aircrew recently...? > >The event took place early morning December 15th over the Lancs >coast...Callsign GEMSTONE he reported to ATC a visual on unidentified >black triangle shape hovering at around 11,000 ft. Is there any indication of size? Small could be hang-glider, microlight, or even kite. Big could be one of these hypothetical beasts: Aereon-like airship, TR-3A (nobody said it could not hover...), HALO British secret prototype, "Silent Vulcan"... If it was really hovering, definitely not F-117, B-2, Aurora. J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 20:11:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #7 A fairly Skunky show from time to time, new on TLC, at 2000 EST - Sea Tek. I mentioned last month the segment touring the Sea Shadow, today's show was on deep diving. regards, _____ BaDge ------------------------------ From: betnal@ns.net Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 04:42:24 GMT Subject: Re: Avro Arrow CF-105 Lech: That rumor has been around for some time. It'd be nice if it were so, but the problem is getting a plane that big airborne for even one flight, especially considering how the government hated it would be really hard to do stealthily. Too many people's lives would have been ruined through retribution for everybody to keep quiet. There were European proposals to use the aircraft, but the Government would have none of it. The same thing happened in Britain, with the TSR.2. In fact, the first flight of the second aircraft was to take place the day of the cancellation, and they wouldn't even let that happen. One thing that was kept quiet for many years is that the actual destruction was to take place in great secrecy, leading to the rumor that one had survived. However, in the mid to late '80s it was revealed that certain Avro employees had gone up in a light plane the day of destruction and secretly photographed the carnage. The pictures finally surfaced. I've seen them, and I believe that all the Arrows were there (sigh). There would have been one other unintended side effect of the Arrow making it into production. If our neighbors to the North had produced such an interceptor, US pride would overrule Robert McNamara's incompetence and ego, and I'd bet any of the money I don't have that the F-12B would have gone into production. Let someone other than USAF have the highest performance interceptor in the world? Never happen! Art ------------------------------ From: Wayne Busse Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:27:06 -0600 Subject: D-21 Image To all you skunkers interested in D-21, I found a really nice image of a SR-71/D21 from the POV of the refueling tanker. Here's the URL: http://www.holloman.af.mil/images/pic_01.gif - -- Wayne Busse wings@sky.net http://www.sky.net/~wings ------------------------------ From: blackbird@TELIS.ORG (Jon Price (PJ)) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 22:41:46 GMT Subject: Re: D-21 Image On Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:27:06 -0600, you wrote: Most excellent shot of a '117 doing what it does best, but most certainly not a D-21 ;-) >>To all you skunkers interested in D-21, I found >>a really nice image of a SR-71/D21 from the >>POV of the refueling tanker. >> >>Here's the URL: >> >>http://www.holloman.af.mil/images/pic_01.gif >> >> >>--=20 >>Wayne Busse >>wings@sky.net >>http://www.sky.net/~wings >> Jon Price (PJ) *From the Eastern Slopes of* *The Beautiful High Sierra* *Bishop, California, USA* ------------------------------ From: Wayne Busse Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:55:35 -0600 Subject: D-21/SR-71 Image This is the REAL URL for the D-21 Image: http://www.lmsw.external.lmco.com/lmsw/images/D21LNCH.GIF - -- Wayne Busse wings@sky.net http://www.sky.net/~wings ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:28:58 -0800 Subject: Re: D-21 Image Wayne Busse writes: >To all you skunkers interested in D-21, I found >a really nice image of a SR-71/D21 from the >POV of the refueling tanker. Actually it's not an SR-71/D-21 but an MD-21, which is the marriage of a M-21 (more like an A-12 than an SR-71) and a D-21A. >This is the REAL URL for the D-21 Image: Thanks that old one looked suspiciously like an F-117A to me! :) >http://www.lmsw.external.lmco.com/lmsw/images/D21LNCH.GIF If you'd like to see that SAME M-21 airplane as it is today, check out: http://www.airfax.com/mof/photo8.html Larry ------------------------------ From: "Paul Heinrich" Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:49:54 +0000 Subject: radio frequencies at Groom Lake? Hello, I remember seeing some radio frequencies for Groom Lake posted here a year or so ago. Could anyone point me to a website or re-post the information? thanks, Paul ------------------------------ From: wings@sky.net (Wayne Busse) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:58:09 -0600 Subject: Nellis/Groom Lake Frequencies >From: "Paul Heinrich" >Organization: Bodega Marine Laboratory >To: skunk-works@pmihwy.com >Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:49:54 +0000 >Subject: radio frequencies at Groom Lake? >Hello, >I remember seeing some radio frequencies for Groom Lake posted >here a year or so ago. Could anyone point me to a website or re-post >the information? >thanks, Paul Glenn Campbell has one posted at: http://www.ufomind.com:80/area51/orgs/nellis/ref/freqs_cravens.html Wayne Busse wings@sky.net http://www.sky.net/~wings ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V6 #8 ******************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@pmihwy.com". 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@pmihwy.com" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "georgek@netwrx1.com". 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 e-mail request by sending a message to majordomo@pmihwy.com with no subject and a line containing "get skunk-works-digest vNN.nMMM" (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number). You can get a list of all available digests by sending the one line command "index skunk-works-digest". If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R, Kasica