From:      skunk-works-digest-owner@pmihwy.com
To:        skunk-works-digest@pmihwy.com
Subject:   Skunk Works Digest V6 #19
Reply-To:  skunk-works-digest@pmihwy.com
Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@pmihwy.com
Precedence: 


Skunk Works Digest        Monday, 24 February 1997      Volume 06 : Number 019

In this issue:

	Re: The Boscombe Down incident
	Re: The Chris Gibson sighting
	Re: The Chris Gibson sighting
	Suyev post - V6, #17 reply
	Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #18
	Multiple Mailings
	Re: "Take-off gear"
	Re: The Chris Gibson sighting
	Re: The Chris Gibson sighting
	Re: Suyev post - V6, #17 reply
	Re: The Chris Gibson sighting
	[none]
	Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #18
	Re: The Chris Gibson sighting
	Silent Vulcan

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: David <win@writer.win-uk.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 11:56:22
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.

Interesting post, but it raises a few questions:

1) How does a single fin Tornado manage to look like a twin-inward canted
   finned a/c with a forward hinged canopy because it had a target drone
   stowed in any position ? 

2) I wonder if anyone from the BARG ( who exactly are they ?) was present
   at the incident ?

3) Would BARG have access to classified a/c movement anyway. If they did,
   they would hardly admit it was a black a/c and if they don't, how did
   they arrive at their conclusion ?

I don't have an opinion on what happened, because I haven't spoken to the
tail spotters/radio buffs who were actually there. 

I'll have to get a copy of AFM and make some calls !

David.


 


------------------------------

From: David <win@writer.win-uk.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 12:16:30
Subject: Re: The Chris Gibson sighting

Mike wrote: 

<edit>

>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?  

<edit>

FWIW, I've thought this for some time. Chris as you know has only ever
stated what he saw with no attempt to elaborate. He has never claimed it 
to be Aurora, a '57 Buick or anything else, just a black triangular a/c.

Things get complicated when people try for a 'one size fits all'
explanation of these triangles...my feeling is there are more than one
of these a/c with the silent/hovering type possibly being some form of
hybrid LTA...Ben Rich did mention LTA work @ Skunk Works in his
book...link that to Lockheed's SRA airship proposal of the 80s which had a
composite, aerodynamic, rigid hull rather than a cigar shape and...hmmm. 

David 




------------------------------

From: Dan Zinngrabe <quellish@shore.intercom.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 08:04:40 -0500
Subject: Re: 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?
>

As one of the hypersonics geeks on the list, I thought I'd add my 2 cents
(or pence). I personally don't think that the Chris Gibson sighting was a
hypersonic aircraft. I've always regarded the sighting as a bit.... cheesy,
for want of a better term. He only recalled it years after, etc. with a
photographic memory, etc. I've talked to people who've seen lights in the
sky, strange a/c and such (and I've *been* one) and drawing from that
experience I'm hesitant to consider the North Sea sighting as reliable as a
number of people have thought it. And keep in mind that a great deal of the
material I've found pertaining to the "Aurora" or "Pulser" supports the
sighting (as far as the flight profile, configuration, etc.). I really do
think that Sweetman placed far too much emphasis on that sighting in his
Aurora book, and I think a number of other people on the list will agree.

As for the Boscome Down incident, I wasn't there, but I do know someone who
*supposedly* was. I have not been able to cross check with a 2nd witness,
etc. so take this with a grain of salt. A big grain of salt. Supposedly the
aircraft was participating in an exercise, had an engine problem, attempted
to land with some loss of hydraulics, and ended up being in more pieces
than it took off in. And, supposedly, it was a Northrop aircraft, which
doesn't seem to work with the idea that a Lockheed corporate aircraft was
assisting in whatever cleanup took place. (Unless some info that Peter
Merlin passed on to me a while back about Blue Streak is correct).
Hopefully an old friend from the Regiment who was on hand at the time (now
retired) can help me out, but I haven't been able to track him down.
Only more questions, few answers.
Dan




------------------------------

From: MELUMAN@aol.com
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:17:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Suyev post - V6, #17 reply

Sorry, Diane...

Anybody else wretch at the story of "hero defector" Zuyev and the missing mig
29? When he makes his movie, here's hoping it'll be a flop. Could he have
been tech advisor to the recent Nova - "Russian Top Gun"? 

		This sensation of nausea in no 
		way reflects the views or condition
		of my employer's stomach. It's
		strictly my own problem.

meluman@aol.com, American

------------------------------

From: Jon Jenkins <jonj@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 11:27:29 -0800
Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #18

>
>> If he *knows* the mission he also knows that they should be called
>> "take-off gear"
>
>freeman@netcom.com (Jay Reynolds Freeman) wrote:
>
>  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...
>

Sorry, Jay.  Guess while I was being flip I wasn't being too clear.  My
off-topic point was that the nuclear-delivery mission of the B-2 does not
involve the return of the aircraft to any base.  Not to mention that if
they did get to a base, odds are it's already gone anyway.  Whoops!

Jon



------------------------------

From: Mallory Smith <malsmith@mail.cafe.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 16:10:16 -0800
Subject: Multiple Mailings

Could I please receive only one issue of each digest?  On Vol 6, Number 16 I
received two; on Vol 6 Num 17 I received three and on Vol 6, Num 18 I
received three---- exact duplicates each time.  

I thank you in advance for looking after the problem.

Ever your obedient reader,

Mal Smith


------------------------------

From: Earl Needham <needhame@3lefties.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 18:36:56 -0800
Subject: Re: "Take-off gear"

>  From: Jon Jenkins <jonj@netcom.com>, on 2/22/97 11:27 AM:
>  Sorry, Jay.  Guess while I was being flip I wasn't being too clear.  My
>  off-topic point was that the nuclear-delivery mission of the B-2 does not
>  involve the return of the aircraft to any base.  Not to mention that if
>  they did get to a base, odds are it's already gone anyway.  Whoops!

	You mean the aircrew is ordered to commit suicide?  I don' tthink so!

Earl Needham
Clovis, NM
KD5XB@AMSAT.ORG

------------------------------

From: Brett Davidson <brett@arch.vuw.ac.nz>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 13:57:18 +1300 (NZDT)
Subject: Re: The Chris Gibson sighting

On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, David wrote:

> Mike wrote: 
> 
> >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"
> 
> Things get complicated when people try for a 'one size fits all'

For what it's worth, bearing in mind the uncertainty of witnesses recall
etc... Gibson described a 70+ degree sweep and a straight trailing edge, while
anonymous witnesses of the "Omega/A-17/Lets-call-it-Humphrey" have described a
serrated trailing edge with three points.  

Mind you, the "A-17 etc" is also supposed to be a swing-wing YF-23 cousin. 
Those two features are exclusive - do a few drawings and see if you can
make YF-23 inlet ducts and swing-wings work.  

In any case, a high-speed or fixed geometry stealth plane would have a
simple planform, and either a YF-23 derivative or a swing-wing would have a
more complex silhouette.  

If the Gibson sighting description is accurate (and he certainly looks like a
reliable witness - Royal Observer Corps etc), then it is unlikely to be of a
low-speed aircraft with such an extreme sweep - even the F-117 has a 67
degree sweep, and all other stealth proposals that I have seen, even
supersonic ones, and the naval F-117 proposal, have a reduced sweep.

I would guess then, that the Gibson sighting is probably of a high speed
"Aurora" type vehicle (prototype?), and that the "A-17," for which I find
the stories to be vaguer and less consistent, is possibly a stealthy
supersonic (Mach <2.2) attack plane.  Emphasis on the "probably" and
"possibly."

The "Silent Vulcan" and its cousins, I would suppose to be something like
a rigid LTA / Senior Citizen as described by Paul McGinnis.  The trouble I
have with that, however, is that it is too good an idea.  Of course an
LTA!  Brilliant!... but real men don't fly balloons, just like they have
to have their F-117s painted matt black ;-)  Never underestimate the
effects of testosterone poisoning.

What lurks at the back of my mind is that I have seen a lot of UFOs
myself... or rather IFOs, and some of quite banal source and spectacular
appearance.  Eg: three pinkish-white spheres of light that I saw once,
flying in a perfect equilateral triangle formation gliding along smoothly
and silently turned out to be the light of the setting sun reflecting off
the bellies of three seagulls!  Ones mind can create very precise descriptions
that also happen to be completely wrong.  We know for a fact that there
are unidentified aircraft, and demonstrate rational scepticism, but in some
ways we can fall into the trap of clustering information in support of
articles of faith, like Boscombe Down - is it a "TR-3", an "A-17" or a
Tiger Moth?

Sorry about the brief note turning into a rather patronising rant.

It would be interesting to attempt some sort of taxonomy of sightings, but
I feel that it might be something like trying to herd cats.  As an
exercise, however, perhaps we could consider each putting forward lists in
descending order of probability, with supporting arguments, of our pet
black planes?

Thus Spake Davidson



------------------------------

From: Brett Davidson <brett@arch.vuw.ac.nz>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 13:57:18 +1300 (NZDT)
Subject: Re: The Chris Gibson sighting

On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, David wrote:

> Mike wrote: 
> 
> >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"
> 
> Things get complicated when people try for a 'one size fits all'

For what it's worth, bearing in mind the uncertainty of witnesses recall
etc... Gibson described a 70+ degree sweep and a straight trailing edge, while
anonymous witnesses of the "Omega/A-17/Lets-call-it-Humphrey" have described a
serrated trailing edge with three points.  

Mind you, the "A-17 etc" is also supposed to be a swing-wing YF-23 cousin. 
Those two features are exclusive - do a few drawings and see if you can
make YF-23 inlet ducts and swing-wings work.  

In any case, a high-speed or fixed geometry stealth plane would have a
simple planform, and either a YF-23 derivative or a swing-wing would have a
more complex silhouette.  

If the Gibson sighting description is accurate (and he certainly looks like a
reliable witness - Royal Observer Corps etc), then it is unlikely to be of a
low-speed aircraft with such an extreme sweep - even the F-117 has a 67
degree sweep, and all other stealth proposals that I have seen, even
supersonic ones, and the naval F-117 proposal, have a reduced sweep.

I would guess then, that the Gibson sighting is probably of a high speed
"Aurora" type vehicle (prototype?), and that the "A-17," for which I find
the stories to be vaguer and less consistent, is possibly a stealthy
supersonic (Mach <2.2) attack plane.  Emphasis on the "probably" and
"possibly."

The "Silent Vulcan" and its cousins, I would suppose to be something like
a rigid LTA / Senior Citizen as described by Paul McGinnis.  The trouble I
have with that, however, is that it is too good an idea.  Of course an
LTA!  Brilliant!... but real men don't fly balloons, just like they have
to have their F-117s painted matt black ;-)  Never underestimate the
effects of testosterone poisoning.

What lurks at the back of my mind is that I have seen a lot of UFOs
myself... or rather IFOs, and some of quite banal source and spectacular
appearance.  Eg: three pinkish-white spheres of light that I saw once,
flying in a perfect equilateral triangle formation gliding along smoothly
and silently turned out to be the light of the setting sun reflecting off
the bellies of three seagulls!  Ones mind can create very precise descriptions
that also happen to be completely wrong.  We know for a fact that there
are unidentified aircraft, and demonstrate rational scepticism, but in some
ways we can fall into the trap of clustering information in support of
articles of faith, like Boscombe Down - is it a "TR-3", an "A-17" or a
Tiger Moth?

Sorry about the brief note turning into a rather patronising rant.

It would be interesting to attempt some sort of taxonomy of sightings, but
I feel that it might be something like trying to herd cats.  As an
exercise, however, perhaps we could consider each putting forward lists in
descending order of probability, with supporting arguments, of our pet
black planes?

Thus Spake Davidson



------------------------------

From: Albert H Dobyns <ahdobyns@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:07:34 -0600
Subject: Re: Suyev post - V6, #17 reply

MELUMAN@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Sorry, Diane...
> 
> Anybody else wretch at the story of "hero defector" Zuyev and the missing mig
> 29? When he makes his movie, here's hoping it'll be a flop. Could he have
> been tech advisor to the recent Nova - "Russian Top Gun"?
> 
>                 This sensation of nausea in no
>                 way reflects the views or condition
>                 of my employer's stomach. It's
>                 strictly my own problem.
> 
> meluman@aol.com, American

And what is your problem with someone like Mr. Zuyev??
It's obvious that you have strong feelings against him
but you don't say why.  Why don't you tell us why you
feel the way you do???

------------------------------

From: David <win@writer.win-uk.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 10:49:23
Subject: Re: The Chris Gibson sighting

Dan writes:

>...I personally don't think that the Chris Gibson sighting was a
>hypersonic aircraft. I've always regarded the sighting as a bit.... cheesy,
>for want of a better term. He only recalled it years after, etc. with a
>photographic memory, etc. 

<edit>

I'm not sure where you got this information. The accurate version is:
Chris Gibson contacted Bill Sweetman in Autumn '92 by letter enclosing a
sketch of his Summer '89 NS sighting made shortly after he witnessed it
whilst on a rig located under an AARA.

Perhaps this might change your mind regarding it being 'cheesy'. Gibson
would be described under any other other circumstances, as an expert
witness. He was after all an specialist in a/c recognition whilst with the
ROC. 


Hope this helps

David



------------------------------

From: George de Peyster <pangaea@sonic.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 08:58:31 -0700
Subject: [none]

I'm not sure what's happening with your mailing system, but I frequently
get more than one copy of your Skunk Works Digest.  Recently, I've been
getting two copies and this morning I found  three copies of Skunk Works
Digest V6 #18.
I DO wish to continue receiving the digest, but I did want you to be aware
of the fact that I often get multiple copies.

Thanks,
George de Peyster

___________
George de Peyster
pangaea@sonic.net
Snail mail:
P.O. Box 292
Santa Rosa  CA  USA 95402-0202
Tel & Fax: +1 707.545.0700



------------------------------

From: betnal@ns.net
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 97 04:59:02 GMT
Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #18

Mary, 

     I was at Edwards Thrus and Fri of last week, and I saw the YF-23 sitting way 
out on the apron down towards the Air Force side.  They trying to take it back?

                                             Art


------------------------------

From: "J. Pharabod" <PHARABOD@frcpn11.in2p3.fr>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 97 10:27:33 MET
Subject: Re: The Chris Gibson sighting

>>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!!!).
>>Michael Crutch (Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:33:54 GMT)

>The "Silent Vulcan" and its cousins, I would suppose to be something
>like a rigid LTA / Senior Citizen as described by Paul McGinnis.  [...]
>Brett Davidson (Sun, 23 Feb 1997 13:57:18 +1300 (NZDT))

What do BARG think about the "Silent Vulcan" ?

J. Pharabod

------------------------------

From: Dan Zinngrabe <quellish@shore.intercom.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 05:05:55 -0500
Subject: Silent Vulcan

Here's the *short* list of _suspected_ projects that could match the
"Silent Vulcan" profile, from my own research (yes, I have far too much
free time), as well as that of others

*Tier-3 Prototype. Aka "Q" (for "Quantum leap in technology"), Ghost. Looks
like a B-2, though with one sawtooth on the trailing edge. Roughly B-2
size, though sweep angle is not quite as great and may be a scaled down
prototype. Can be manned, possibly capably of EXTREMELY slow flight for
extended overhead coverage. Primary contractor Lockheed ADC/Loral, based on
Lockheed ADC Advanced Technology Bomber design.

*Navy UAV. Only know by brief mention in AvWeek and E-ring Pentagon rumors,
a 200 foot span high endurance UAV for over the horizon targeting-
essentially a replacement for 1980s airship missions. Internal politics
killed it. Configuration is thought to be a large "all wing" aircraft with
high aspect ratio.

*Senior Citizen. SpecOps V/STOL transport. Probable contractors
Lockheed/Boeing. Not much is know of the aircraft, though there has been
one possible sighting in the PacNorthwest last year. Generally thought to
be a triangular aircraft with planform similar to that of the Boeing JAST
design, which checks with sightings of VSTOL vehicles seen operating in and
around Groom Lake, Nevada. Northrop Hawthorne competed for the contract
with a diamond-shaped B-2 derivative aircraft (ostensibly to cut costs).

*Northrop "TR-3". Well, you're all probably pretty familiar with this one.
Also known as Tactical Survivable Aircraft. Though smaller than the
reported size of Silent Vulcan, it is very possible that it may be the
cause of some of the sightings. Published photos and eyewitness accounts of
SV have shown remarkable similarities to the TR-3. One photograph taken in
Belgium is almost certainly a "TR-3".

Hopefully soon I'll have some web space to assemble a lot of the data I
ahve into something digestable, but until then I'll post periodically to
the list as threads warrant- ie I won't post a long dissertation on the
"Aurora" here is people are discussing the F-117!
Dan



------------------------------

End of Skunk Works Digest V6 #19
********************************

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