From: skunk-works-digest-owner@pmihwy.com To: skunk-works-digest@pmihwy.com Subject: Skunk Works Digest V6 #18 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@pmihwy.com Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@pmihwy.com Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Saturday, 22 February 1997 Volume 06 : Number 018 In this issue: Re: F-117 Noise Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #16 "take-off gear" Socks????? must be the silly season Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #16 Re: "take-off gear" Re[2]: "take-off gear" Re: Blackbird Lecture Schedule YF-23 at Dryden Re: YF-23 at Dryden Boscombe Down revisited re: Boscombe Down revisited re: Boscombe Down revisited The Boscombe Down incident Re: The Boscombe Down incident Re: The Boscombe Down incident The Chris Gibson 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: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:19:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: F-117 Noise Precisely. The stealth aircraft are stealthy to radar and IR sensors. They're not particularly quiet. I think that the quiet airliners required by civil authorities leads people to expect the stealth planes to be equally quiet. They're actually pretty noisy. They're just hard to detect with radar or IR sensors. The flight profiles for both keep them high enough that people on the ground aren't going to hear them coming. Regards, Mary 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 Fri, 14 Feb 1997 patrick@e-z.net wrote: > I believe "stealthiness" is a relative term. After designing the > exhaust system for the F-117 I suspect the quieter sound to be a > byproduct of a more important objective, a cooler infrared signature. > While in fact the noise reduction was minor and possibly insignificant. > The plane is definitely not quiet. But in reality if the first sound > the Iraqi's heard was a 2,000 lb. bomb literally whistling down the > building's central air shaft, then this dicussion becomes somewhat > academic. > > patrick cullumber > patrick@e-z.net > ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:41:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #16 Speaking of the B-2 mission profile, I've got a really good friend who's flying them here at EDW right now. He loves the plane, particularly with the new FCS control laws. To give this a tiny bit of Skunk Works relevance, he was one of the USAF pilots on the YF-23, which lost to the YF-22, the latter being built by one of the divisions of Lockheed, which also owns the Skunkworks, of course. (Talk about reaching for a connection!) Regards, Mary 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 Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Jon Jenkins wrote: > >From: Phillip Young > >Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 16:28:02 -0800 > >Subject: B-2 > > > >Here's something that has been puzzling me. Perhaps someone can > >pooh-pooh or pooh-bah this but --- If the "stealthy" B-2 is supposed to > >be so undetectable, why am I always able to tell when one is going over? > > Those dudes are really loud. It would seem pretty easy to me to rig > >some type of audio detection device to search and destroy. > > > snip! > > Takeoff and landing noise is not a major consideration since you are > generally doing those things in a friendly territory. In the same vein a > person could say "how come when I look at one I can see it? It's supposed > to be stealthy!" > > Think of the purpose of the B-2 (mission) and you'll realize that there are > lots of little "problems" (like takeoff/landing noise) that don't matter at > all. > > Ask someone who knows the mission why they call those little wheels on the > bottom "landing gear" and he'll laugh out loud, pat you on the back, and > think you know what you're talking about. > > If he *knows* the mission he also knows that they should be called > "take-off gear" > > > Jon > > > ------------------------------ From: freeman@netcom.com (Jay Reynolds Freeman) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:24:49 -0800 Subject: "take-off gear" > If he *knows* the mission he also knows that they should be called > "take-off gear" Well, I don't know the mission. Are you folks who do implying that (1) the aircraft is unlikely to come back, or (2) takeoff is very dicey (because of gross weight or whatever), or (3) other... ------------------------------ From: "S.K. Whiteman" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 97 13:45:09 EST Subject: Socks????? must be the silly season All this time I thought that Clecos were the larval stage of coat hangers. Very funny Mr. Scott, now beam down my pants......... Sam ------------------------------ From: Albert H Dobyns Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 00:06:28 -0600 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #16 Mary Shafer wrote: > > Speaking of the B-2 mission profile, I've got a really good friend who's > flying them here at EDW right now. He loves the plane, particularly with > the new FCS control laws. To give this a tiny bit of Skunk Works > relevance, he was one of the USAF pilots on the YF-23, which lost to the > YF-22, the latter being built by one of the divisions of Lockheed, which > also owns the Skunkworks, of course. (Talk about reaching for a > connection!) > > Regards, > Mary > > 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.... Mary, my guess is anything you post is of sufficient interest that no one will make a fuss if it isn't related to the skunk-works. Al ------------------------------ From: Ron and Louise Crawford Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:02:18 +0000 Subject: Re: "take-off gear" Strikes me that 'take-off' gear is at least as appropriate as 'put-on' gear. 'Undercarriage' might be less susceptible to misinterpretation, however. On another note, the March 1997 issue of Air Forces Monthly has a lengthy article on the Boscombe crash, in which they speculate about SR-71 successors. Ron Crawford ------------------------------ From: gregweigold@pmsc.com (GREG WEIGOLD) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:22:31 -0500 Subject: Re[2]: "take-off gear" It seems to me that 'take-off' gear is more appropriate than 'landing' gear. Everybody lands, whether they have gear or not! It might not always be pleasant.... Taking off would be difficult at best without wheels or skids of some kind. Like a pilot friend of mine says, 'Take offs are always a matter of chance, but landings happen 100% of the time. One way or another you've got to come down, but you don't have to go up!'. Greg Weigold Columbia, SC gregweigold@pmsc.com ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: "take-off gear" Author: Ron and Louise Crawford at Internet Date: 2/20/97 9:02 AM Strikes me that 'take-off' gear is at least as appropriate as 'put-on' gear. 'Undercarriage' might be less susceptible to misinterpretation, however. On another note, the March 1997 issue of Air Forces Monthly has a lengthy article on the Boscombe crash, in which they speculate about SR-71 successors. Ron Crawford ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:33:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Blackbird Lecture Schedule I forgot to mention that the subject of my lecture is "SR-71 Flight Research at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center", which is why I mention it here. Sorry about that. Hinting in the Subject line isn't enough. Mary 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 Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Mary Shafer wrote: > This is my second (and last) year as an AIAA Distinguished Lecturer. I > know some of the subscribers to this list have caught my gig, and I just > realized that it's false modesty that kept me from giving the whole list > my schedule. Admittedly, I don't have a lot of lectures left, but I will > be covering a lot of territory giving them. > > March 18--San Diego Aerospace Museum (call Chris Root at 619 545-3941) > March 19--China Lake NAS (attendence may be limited to people with base > access--I'll check if anyone is interested) > > April 1--Raleigh, NC (at or near NCSU) > April 2--Buffalo, NY (at or near one of the universities, I think) > > April 29--Dayton, OH (I think this chapter has a Web page) > April 30--East Hartford, CT > May 1--Binghampton, NY > > I don't know many details, because someone from the local AIAA chapter > will be handling all of them for me; I just tell them what plane I'll be > on and they collect me and save me from knowing what I'm doing. If you're > interested, you can get information from the local chapter. > > Regards, > Mary > > 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.... > > > ------------------------------ From: Wayne Busse Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 13:31:43 -0600 Subject: YF-23 at Dryden Hi Mary In a previous message you mentioned the YF-23, and that reminded me that I had heard that 1 of the YF-23's was at Edwards for structural testing of the composite wing for strength/longevity. Anything to this? Hope this is not destructive testing, would be a shame to lose one of two in existence. Follows precedence, for a loser in an Air Force bidding war, for Northrop though. Wayne Busse wings@sky.net wbusse@johnco.cc.ks.us http://www.sky.net/~wings ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:05:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: YF-23 at Dryden This was the plan, but we couldn't get the research funding and have abandoned it. (Actually, we were going to damage the composite structure and see if we could find the damage on GVTs, etc.) One of the planes has gone to Hawthorne to a museum and the other is now part of the museum here at Edwards. It's viewable on the EDW tour. Regards, Mary 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 Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Wayne Busse wrote: > Hi Mary > > In a previous message you mentioned the YF-23, and that > reminded me that I had heard that 1 of the YF-23's was > at Edwards for structural testing of the composite wing > for strength/longevity. > > Anything to this? > Hope this is not destructive testing, would be a shame to > lose one of two in existence. > > Follows precedence, for a loser in an Air Force bidding war, > for Northrop though. > > Wayne Busse > wings@sky.net > wbusse@johnco.cc.ks.us > http://www.sky.net/~wings > ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Fri, 21 Feb 97 11:55:01 MET Subject: Boscombe Down revisited Has anybody read the current issue of _Air Forces Monthly_ ? They write about the Boscombe Down incident, September 26, 1994: [...] "the incident involved the USA's most highly-classified black project aircraft" [...] "The most prominent features were the inward canting fins and chines extending rearwards from the nose. The canopy was open and particularly noticeable because it was hinged at the front and not the rear. The aircraft was large fighter size, and was painted charcoal grey." [...] J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: (Jay Waller) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 97 9:04:51 EST Subject: re: Boscombe Down revisited Check out: http://www.keymags.co.uk/afm/stories.html#story2 They have some of the story there with a small (I would call it a teaser) picture of the plane. Anyone know if the magazine itself has any more illustrations? Regards, Jay - ------------- Original Text From: "J. Pharabod" , on 2/21/97 11:55 AM: To: Has anybody read the current issue of _Air Forces Monthly_ ? They write about the Boscombe Down incident, September 26, 1994: [...] "the incident involved the USA's most highly-classified black project aircraft" [...] "The most prominent features were the inward canting fins and chines extending rearwards from the nose. The canopy was open and particularly noticeable because it was hinged at the front and not the rear. The aircraft was large fighter size, and was painted charcoal grey." [...] J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: (Jay Waller) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 97 9:23:09 EST Subject: re: Boscombe Down revisited After zooming in and sharpening the image that is on the _Air Force Monthly_ web page, I seem to think the picture is of a YF-23. The description they give though does not match the YF-23. Classic use of a stock image I guess. Jay - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (previous message) Check out: http://www.keymags.co.uk/afm/stories.html#story2 They have some of the story there with a small (I would call it a teaser) picture of the plane. Anyone know if the magazine itself has any more illustrations? Regards, Jay - ------------------ ------------------------------ From: michael.crutch@ukonline.co.uk Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 18:43:29 GMT Subject: The Boscombe Down incident Hi all The article in Air Forces Monthly here in the UK takes everything, and I mean everything that has ever been rumoured or in the slightest bit connected with the accident which (in itself only a rumour) took place on Sep 26, 1994. Boscombe Down, for the unaware, is basically the UK's equivalent to Edwards AFB although obviously on a much smaller scale. The authors of the article have come out with some wild statements, for example the report of a "mysterious Boeing 737", callsign N1178X being in attendance at the airfield in the days after the incident. They are quick to point out the N1178X is a Piper single, but they failed to mention that this very aircraft was seen on several occasions in southern England during 1994/5 and therefore the appearance of the callsign on an ATC centre frequency is not as unusual as one would imagine. The fact that they then go one to highlight that CIA-operated U-2's also had "X" suffixes to the their callsigns/registrations (ie N803X is one I can remember), and is therefore conclusive proof that the boys from the farm are involved! There are numerous other "simple" mistakes (such as that the two 60th Airlift Wing C-5C Galaxies are based at Palmdale, when they're actually based at Travis AFB). If you get a chance to read the article, by all means draw your own conclusions. That's enough from me! Best regards Mike London, UK ------------------------------ From: drbob@creighton.edu Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:13:33 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: The Boscombe Down incident The British Aviation Research Group (BARG), one of the most reliable and authoritative private organizations that track global military aviation, did a short piece on this incident, and effectively quashed the rumors. Incidentally, when I first heard about the crash at B.D. I was told the airplane was not American, but in fact a DEFECTING Soviet stealth aircraft. As I recall, the final conclusion was that a Tornado carrying a target drone was forced to land with the drone in other than the stowed position, which gave the appearance of this goofy stealth airplane. Robert Hopkins ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 17:00:15 -0800 Subject: Re: The Boscombe Down incident >The British Aviation Research Group (BARG), one of the most reliable and >authoritative private organizations that track global military aviation, >did a short piece on this incident, and effectively quashed the rumors. Interesting! Did BARG have anything to say about the 1989 Chris Gibson North Sea sighting? Larry ------------------------------ From: michael.crutch@ukonline.co.uk Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:33:54 GMT Subject: The Chris Gibson sighting Hi all Following on from Larry's comments on the above which happened from an oil platform in the North Sea, the answer is no - BARG have never commented on the matter (I should know, I'm on of the editors and now the Chairman!!!). With our so-called knowledge of a possible stealthy F-111 replacement (A-17, Omega or whatever its called this week), and considering the triangle was seen in company with two Aardvarks, do the list members now believe that it was actually something like this as opposed to an "Aurora" for want of a better name? If the YF-23 was actually a development of the A-17 (etc.), then the timescale of the 1989 sighting would be about right. There is a chance, no matter how small, that if an aircraft did crash at Boscombe Down in 1994 it was actually in operational service. Food for thought I know, especially when one considers that the F-111's of the then 27thTFW regularly deployed to Boscombe for exercises. Best regards Mike ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V6 #18 ******************************** 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