From: skunk-works-digest-owner@pmihwy.com To: skunk-works-digest@pmihwy.com Subject: Skunk Works Digest V6 #21 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@pmihwy.com Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@pmihwy.com Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 25 February 1997 Volume 06 : Number 021 In this issue: Re: contrail MC-X Re: F-111 Replacement Re: contrail F-111 replacement Re: "take-off gear" Re: The Boscombe Down incident Re: contrail Re: Ben Rich comments Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #18 Unofficial Names RE:Ben Rich comments Re: 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: gregweigold@pmsc.com (GREG WEIGOLD) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 17:06:51 -0500 Subject: Re: contrail I vote for the last 2 options! ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: contrail Author: Tom Robison at Internet Date: 2/24/97 3:31 PM What's the lastest theory/opinion on the "donuts on a rope" contrail? Has anyone reported one recently over CONUS? atmospheric anomaly? Too much coffee? Psychotherapy in order? Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne IN Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone, and do not reflect the views or opinions of whoever might own me at the moment. ------------------------------ From: Kerry Ferrand Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:11:40 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: MC-X Talking of things like SENIOR CITIZEN, this little snippet was in last weeks online version of AvWeek: USAF's Special Operations Command Seeks MC-X Funding Several years after the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command stated a need for a stealthy transport aircraft, it is still struggling to fund a development and acquisition program. AFSOC told industry nearly three years ago that it wants a stealthy replacement for its C-130 airlifters, and now says it would like to field the new plane by 2015 when its last MC-130s would retire. AFSOC isn't sure yet how many of the new MC-X transporters it may need, according to Maj. Ronald F. Richard. Its modernization plan cites a need for 24, but, Richards acknowledged, that isn't supported by much analysis. Funding for MC-X has eluded AFSOC so far, Richard told an American Defense Preparedness Association forum on Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict on Wednesday in Washington. It has tried repeatedly to get the program into the Air Force program objective memorandum, but has not been successful. ------------------------------ From: drbob@creighton.edu Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 16:22:08 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: F-111 Replacement The A-7 SLUF acronym stands for Short Little Ugly F*******, or, more politely, Short Little Ugly Fella. Lawn Dart is the contemptible nickname for the F-16, which has the tendency (real or perceived) to crash nose first, much like the American game of Lawn Darts. Stink Bugs, aka, "Cockroaches," describe the F-117's appearance. There are many other nicknames for airplanes, but these few listed may help clarify the immediate issue. DrBob On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Stephen F Donnelly wrote: > Randal L. Marbury wrote: > > > Jim Rotramel > > I'm sorry, was that..."Stink Bugs"?!? I'm assuming that's the "in" > > appellative for an A-7 (by the context). SLUF, 'Vark, and "lawn dart" > > make sense, but is there a story behind "Stink Bug"? (And if they were > > Yes, I assumed the 'Stink Bug' part, but I'm afraid the 'Lawn Dart', and SLUF > bits got past too. Not being in the states, and without 'contact' with the US > military people, I have no idea what the nicknames are. Anyone care to explain > it > to the poor foreigner? > > Stephen Donnelly > (delurking for a brief moment) > ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 18:48:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: contrail I think the "donuts on a rope" sightings are actually blown-out contrails from any of a variety of aircraft. I've never heard of one being sighted while being made, which fits with my observations of the various stages contrails go through as they dissipate. I spent over a month out in the desert with ground-based equipment; for most of the day the most exciting thing to do was to study contrails, most of them from airliners going north out of LAX around R-4508. I saw a lot of "donuts on a rope", as this is a common phenomenon just before a contrail stops looking like a contrail. There's enough vorticity left to wrap chunks up into donuts and a faint central core, or rope, visible. The next step is for the rope to vanish, followed by the donuts fading out more slowly. 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: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Mon, 24 Feb 97 15:52:28 nA Subject: F-111 replacement The F-16 isn't really a replacement for the F-111, it's just what the 111 units were assigned when their birds were retired. The F-16 is the Air Force's Designated Wonderplane, much like the Hornet is for the Navy. The original plan for the F-111 replacement was the B-1A, which had an enormous amount of tactical and conventional weapons capability and performance. This capability was not put into the B-1B because of cost. Although there are plans to add conventional capability to the B model, it will never have the capability of the A. The A-12 was next supposed to replace the 111. Aside from its problems, USAF wasn't too happy about buying a Navy aircraft and said what they really wanted was more F-15Es (the "interim" replacement) and F-16s. They ended up with neither A-12s nor more F-15Es and F-16s. When the A-12 died, USAF said they would support the A/FX as a joint program. However, they soon started saying that what the country Really needed was not some strange Navy A/FX but more B-2s, and could they have them instead, please? Without strong USAF support and because of competition from the F/A-18E/F, the A/FX died. USAF ended up with no A/FXs and no more B-2s. Officially, the F-15E is the F-111 replacement, and USAF is now pushing for a stealthy follow-on strike aircraft to replace it and the F-117 in the 2012-2015 timeframe. Art Hanley Confess! Are these really his employer's positions? No! No! A Thousand times No! ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 20:17:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: "take-off gear" Jon Jenkins wrote: >If he *knows* the mission he also knows that they should be called >"take-off gear" and later: >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. I'd like to point out that the B-2 has (at least currently), a conventional/ precision guided weapons role, besides nuclear deterrence, and the USAF does not want to lose a single one of their precious 21 half billion dollar B-2As due to a landing accident after one of their long endurance missions. The "mission" definitely includes returning and landing safely, as evident in the following recent AFNS article: >B-2 pilots break simulator records >WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE, Mo. (AFNS) -- Two B-2 bomber pilots emerged Feb. 1 >from what Armstrong Laboratory officials are hailing as the longest >simulator flight in Air Force history. >Maj. Steve Moulton and Capt. Jeff Long completed the record-setting B-2 >simulator flight, called Vigilant Spirit II, in 44.4 hours. >Two cassette recorders were attached to each pilot by a series of nine wires >to report brain electrical activity, heart rate, head movement and eye >blinking. The purpose behind the analysis is to determine how fatigue >impacts pilots' abilities to perform their mission and return safely, said >Capt. Steve Armstrong, B-2 human factors test engineer. >Pilots can usually make it to their targets, but it's the return trip, >through possibly a second sunrise and sunset, that is the most hazardous. >These tests help pilots learn to recognize and adapt to fatigue, and >diminish its consequences, Armstrong explained. >Reducing the impact of fatigue can be done by teaching crews how to take >"power naps," said John French, a research physiologist from the Sustained >Operations Branch of Armstrong Lab. Naps lasting 20 to 30 minutes or three >to four hours are much easier to wake from than deeper stages of sleep. >Sleep, dietary strategies and seat exercises play a key role in the success >of the long missions, added French. Each crew member is allowed to sleep in >a prone position (each carried a sleeping bag and pillow) and use a chemical >toilet. >Besides taking "power naps," both pilots thought two of the keys to feeling >as well as they did were their ability to tend to personal hygiene with >moist towelettes and changing into fresh clothes they took with them. >This is the 509th Bomb Wing's third endurance simulator flight. Capt. Tony >Monetti and Maj. Chris Inman flew the first one Oct. 7 that lasted for 34 >hours; and Captains Scott Vander Hamm and Scott Hughes flew the second >flight Nov. 11 that lasted 38 hours. - -- Andreas - --- --- 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: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 20:18:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: The Boscombe Down incident Dan Zinngrabe wrote: >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). The AFM article says the aircraft was attempting to take off, and might have suffered from a front gear collapse. The article concurs that the aircraft was a Northrop product, but never mentions a Lockheed corporate aircraft; instead it notes several USAF (C-5 Galaxy, C-12, EC-137D "67-19417") and US Government-operated aircraft (Gulfstream IV "N604M", Boeing 737/T-43, and the mystery "N1178X"-callsign user). Actually, the article is very "light" on facts and even if the reported observations are authentic and accurate, the authors don't bother to give any sources for any of their speculations and "facts". On the contrary, the article includes several obvious errors and most of the rest is conjecture. Even though the authors sometimes say that the reported piece of information is actually irrelevant and only connected to the incident by (what I would call) "a leap of faith", they don't clearly distinguish between facts, eye-witness reports, educated guesses, speculation and fantasy. It is difficult to believe that based on a couple of (anonymous) eye-witness reports and (also anonymous) radio scanner ear-witness reports, the authors could possibly determine that: * the aircraft is the 6th production vehicle, msn "AV-6"; * of the Northrop-built (with MDC involvement); * secret "ASTRA" (Advanced Stealth Technology Reconnaissance Aircraft); * with the USAF Fiscal Year Serial Number "90-2414"; * using the callsign "Blackbuck 11"; * having a crew of two; * and being capable of hypersonic (Mach 5 - Mach 8) speeds; No concrete source for any of those "facts" is given. Also, several errors and "strange" assumptions are made, including: * EG&G operated Boeing 737s/T-43s are "used exclusively" supporting "black projects operating from the Groom Lake and Papoose Lake bases" in Nevada. Besides the point that there is no evidence of any base at Papoose Lake, those aircraft are also used to support black projects as well as (not so black) SNL (Sandia National Laboratory, not Saturday Night Live) operations at the Tonopah Test Range (TTR) and other places. * the C-5 at Boscombe Down was "one of two C-5C operated from Palmdale". Besides the before mentioned fact that they are based at Travis AFB, they were specifically modified to carry very wide and high cargo, specifically MILSTAR and other, more classified, satellites. The so-called "Space Mod." does not have anything to do with transporting "secret" aircraft around, at least in my opinion. * It also seems to be implied at one point, that Northrop purposefully lost the ATF competition to conceal the existance of the ASTRA. Sometimes it seems the authors believe ASTRA is based on the YF-23 ATF while at other times they seem to believe the YF-23 was based on the ASTRA. * I am not totally clear if they suggest the aircraft has a thrust vectoring PDWE or RBCC (Pulse-Detonation Wave Engine or Rocket-Based Combined Cycle) engine based on the YF120-GE, or why "Aurora", "Gaspipe", "Copper Canyon", "NASP", "Tacit Blue", the SR-71 retirement and SR-71 re-activation, are all somehow cover stories for the ASTRA project, though. ;) Maybe someone else wants to comment on that? - -- Andreas - --- --- 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: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 18:33:11 -0800 Subject: Re: contrail Mary writes: >I think the "donuts on a rope" sightings are actually blown-out contrails >from any of a variety of aircraft. I've never heard of one being sighted >while being made, which fits with my observations of the various stages >contrails go through as they dissipate. Nope. The original sighting of the doughnuts-on-a-rope contrail by Mr. D.C. Card of Denver Colo., sometime in the first half of 1990, was made while the contrail was being laid. You're excused however for not knowing this as the article in the 10/28/91 AW&ST pg. 68-69 wasn't really clear as it said: "D.C. Card, a mechanical engineer who saw it forming at high altitude over Denver in 1989". That rather weak statement on AW&ST's part, could be interpreted as you took it. In fact Mr. Card was a retired Mining Engineer and he saw it sometime in the first half of 1990, not 1989. He told me that it was sometime in the first six months after the announcement of the retirement of the SR-71. AW&ST ran a cover page story on the retirement of the SR-71 in their 1/22/90 issue. Mr. Card's sighting was quite spectacular. It occurred at dusk while he was in his backyard watching 3-to-4 commercial contrails, turned gold by the setting sun, make their way west and southwest over the Rockies. The unknown aircraft's unusual contrail came out of the east, which was getting dark, and overtook the commercial contrails by the time they all disappeared into the west. Mr. Card estimated that the unusual contrail was at least half again as high as the commercial contrails. When I asked him to describe the contrail, he eventually used the term "donuts on a rope". I thought that was quite an unusual but descriptive comment. Mr. Card therefore invented that term. I asked him many times if he saw it coming out the back of the source that way, and he indicated yes each time. If you look at Steve Douglass's contrail photo, you can see a crispness in feature size that indicates a recently laid contrail instead of one that has expanded and smeared possibly due to wind shear over a long period of time. I have also seen other photographs of crisp clean and thin "donuts on a rope" contrails taken by others. I have also seen the relatively thick ones that can form from a normal contrail over time, as you saw. One thing that is possible perhaps is that Mr. Card was wrong about his altitude estimate. If the aircraft was much lower, it might explain the apparent speed. It might also then indicate some kind of UAV, which a PDE could be a very definite engine for. However, that is another hypothesis. Believing in Aurora is not a fashionable thing any longer, but I consider Mr. Card a good witness as well. So here we have another anomoly. Who knows what it was. I hope time will tell. Larry ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 22:48:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Ben Rich comments > Some interesting comments made by a dying Ben Rich to a CSETI member were > discussed by Dr. Steven Greer, International Director of CSETI Given the fact that CSETI represents nothing but the very extreme of the far-out new age lunatic fringe, it seems rather questionable that "a dying Ben Rich" would have anything to do with them... but whatever the case, they are good for little more than comic relief and are not taken seriously even by many of their fellow UFO believers. So is Greer still in telepathic contact with the mothership? :> ------------------------------ From: "Andreas C. Haselbacher" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:04:20 +0000 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V6 #18 Hello, could you please stop sending each digest at least two times? A. Haselbacher - -- ******************************************************************** Andreas C. Haselbacher * Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Research Student in CFD * Loughborough University, tel: [+44](0)1509 228164 * Loughborough, Leics. LE11 3TU, fax: [+44](0)1509 223946 * United Kingdom ******************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: ROTRAMELJE%AM4@mr.nawcad.navy.mil Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:11:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Unofficial Names Real, quick, I'm pretty busy today: lawn dart = F-16 (because that's what they best simulate) SLUF = A-7 (Short Little Ugly F****r) BUFF = B-52 (Big Ugly Fat F****r) Beagle = F-15E (Bomber Eagle) Bone = B-1 and (to keep it relevant) Stink Bug = F-117 (cause that's what it looks like, I guess) Cheers, Jim ------------------------------ From: David Linthwaite Date: Tue, 25 Feb 97 13:51:32 PST Subject: RE:Ben Rich comments With regard to the "dying words of Ben Rich" : 1. Is Ben Rich dead, if so when anh how ? 2. What were the comments ? ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 97 15:59:23 MET Subject: Re: Silent Vulcan >*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". >Dan Zinngrabe (Mon, 24 Feb 1997 05:05:55 -0500) I think you mean the one which can be seen on: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/triangle.htm This is the only good photograph of the Belgian object. There have been several video films, but quality of commercial video is far worse than good old photograph, and these films are completely useless: you see only three of four lights in the dark sky. For a number of reasons, which I could give if people were interested, I think that this photograph (which I have seen being studied at the Royal Military School, Brussels) is authentic. It has been said that some skeptics managed to reproduce it: as far as I know, this is not true. When studied in red, green and blue "false colors", the lights of the object are bigger in red and smaller in blue on the "real" photograph, while they have the same size in every color on the fake. The exposure time was about 2 seconds, and the object was hovering not horizontally, but practically vertically (nose towards the photographer's right, rear towards his left), which makes me think that it could be only a Lighter-Than-Air (but maybe the TR-3 is a LTA ?). The quality of the photograph as seen on the net is not good. I have reproductions in books and reviews, and it is better. There is still some fuzziness, most of which can be explained because the object slightly rotated around an axis non-orthogonal to its basis during the exposure time (the parameters of this rotation have been calculated). On the other hand, the photographer was leaning with his back against a wall, and practically did not move. J. Pharabod ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V6 #21 ******************************** 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