From: owner-skunk-works-digest@ (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V6 #48 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@ Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@ Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Monday, May 5 1997 Volume 06 : Number 048 In this issue: Re: X-30 NASP Construction at Cannon AFB re: Construction at Cannon AFB Whatsa U-2S and a U-2T? What is different about these models? Re: Whatsa U-2S and a U-2T? What is different about these models? c4i-pro Flying [A-10 related] c4i-pro Lost A-10 ?Are we alive? Re: ?Are we alive? Re: ?Are we alive? classified reccon pics "A-17" and Cannon and Stuff Nellis Airshow News? F-117 at Airshows Air Force realignment "Golden Air Tattoo" "Golden Air Tattoo" Off-topic YF-22 re: "Golden Air Tattoo" 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 18:12:28 -0400 From: Ron and Louise Crawford Subject: Re: X-30 NASP > Ron wrote: > >Can anyone supply me with the approximate dimensions of the proposed > >X-30 "NASP"? Just span and/or length would be fine. > > > >Many thanks. > > Larry@ichips.intel.com responded > You do know that the program has been cancelled, don't you? Yes. Just trying to scale drawings for some X-plane models. Jay Miller's X-planes book does not give dimensions for exactly that reason. Janes 1992-93 indicates a length of 150-200 feet. The issue is whether the design reached a stage where a more definitive estimate of the dimensions was made. Anyone else have thoughts on that? Thanks for posting the info on the cancellation. Ron ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 10:38:54 -0500 (EST) From: ROTRAMELJE%AM4@mr.nawcad.navy.mil Subject: Construction at Cannon AFB After the 1989(?) BRAC, it was decided to consolidate all F-111 operations at Cannon and close Mountain Home. The decision on Mt. Home was later reversed. Meanwhile, a lot of new construction began at Cannon for the care and feeding of over 100 F-111s. I remember some consternation about two of the new hangars that got started before it was realized that the F-111Gs (FB-111As with the SRAM, astrotracker, and AFSATCOM equipment removed) were coming too. The hangars had been designed for the shorter wingspan of the tactical variants and couldn't be used with the long-wing Gs. As the defense budget continued in free-fall, the Varks became expendable (don't get me on that soap box--I'll go on forever!), but the construction continued, including something like 800 new homes in neighboring Clovis. Most of the construction contracts had already been let by the time by the time the generals finally figured out how to get rid of the Vark (thus preserving more pilot and general officer jobs by flying more of the cheaper F-16s). In short, I wouldn't read anything into construction boom at Cannon AFB, except as an example of the military's inability to foresee just how drastically their budgets would be cut by the end of the Cold War. No one would be happier to see a true successor to the F-111 than me, nor more shocked. How could it be justified to the Congress and public, and (more importantly) where would the money come from? The defacto successor to the F-111 is the B-1B, albeit without any LGB capability (and damned proud of that lack of capability, from what I hear). For contingency operations against 'rogue nation' chemical factories, nuclear facilities etc., I would expect to see the B-2 used. I don't think the release of photos of the B-2 dropping the 'GAM-113' the same week we signed up to the chemical weapons treaty was completely coincidental. Back to work. Jim Rotramel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 97 17:24:21 nA From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: Construction at Cannon AFB Jim, Here's some info you might find interesting: The original aircraft planned to replace the F-111 was the B-1A. That's why they planned to build 244 of them. It was designed to perform the tactical as well as strategic mission. It would have been cleared for virtually every type of air-to-ground ordnance in USAF iventory, including Maverick. In the wing roots were two retractable sensor systems, a very streamlined FLIR/LLTV pod and a multisensor turret similar to the TRAM on the A-6E. I believe that turret would have had laser ranging and designation capability. These capabilities were not built into the B-1B to reduce costa and to focus on the nuclear delivery role. Although more tactical capability is being added to the B-1B, it won't have all that was planned for the A. There are no plans for the sensors I just mentioned. The B-1 crews I've had ocassion to talk to lament that fact. They've even asked for LANTIRN and been told there was no money for that... Art Hanley Once again, do not make the mistake of believing that whatever I droned on about above has anything to do with I am authorized to drone on about. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 21:33:32 -0700 From: santiagoj@delphi.com Subject: Whatsa U-2S and a U-2T? What is different about these models? I can't find anything about these models of U-2 S,T. Can someone give me any kind of answer? quick and dirty? Blow me away with your knowledge if you want. I don't have access to the "Aircraft Upgrades" edition of Jane's. My info stops at the R-models and ex-TR models. The closeset clue I get is about the re-engine program. Simply what is a U-2S and what is a U-2T? I know what the U-2U will/might be- a heavy payload packing UAV. Can someone fill in the blanks. If this is too easy or boring for the others send all replies to santiagoj@delphi.com Thank You, J.E. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 08:48:00 -0400 (EDT) From: "Joseph F. Donoghue" Subject: Re: Whatsa U-2S and a U-2T? What is different about these models? The Spring (#28) issue of World Air Power Journal has a long article on the U-2R/S models by Chris Pocock. The U-2S IS the re-engined model. It also has a new autopilot and some new digital instruments. All U-2Rs are supposed to become U-2Ss by 1998. The new engine is the F118-GE-101. It is about 1300 pounds lighter and more fuel-efficient than the J-75 engine. More info in Chris's article. I don't recall anything about a U-2T. Perhaps it was skipped to avoid confusion with the trainers which are being called U-2ST after the mods. Or, possibly the 'T' is reserved for the proposed Royal Air Force version. Just guessing here. Joe Donoghue ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 May 97 08:17:18 GMT From: "Terry Colvin" Subject: c4i-pro Flying [A-10 related] ____________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: c4i-pro Flying Author: Corkum D Capt 2OSS/OSTC at smtp-fhu Date: 01/05/1997 08:33 Corkum D Capt 2OSS/OSTC "Both the A-10's transponder and the autopilot appeared to have been turned off. Perhaps there is a simple technical explanation why no one noticed anything at first." Let me try and fill in a few of the holes for non-flyers: When aircraft fly in close formation typically only the lead aircraft has a transponder turned on. This is due to limitations with Air Traffic Control (ATC) systems. These systems are designed to prevent two aircraft from getting too close together thereby preventing possible midair collisions. Unfortunately the computers can't distinguish between aircraft that are on a collision course and aircraft in formation that are intentionally close together. For this reason ATC operators often request wingmen to turn off their transponders. Once the A-10 dropped back he was not easily visible to the lead aircraft who would be concentrating on entering the bombing range, working coordination with ATC and the range controllers etc. Inside the range ATC no longer maintains operational control of the aircraft and would not be following any of the aircraft directly. The first indication of the aircraft missing would be a failure of the wingman to respond to a radio call. When this happened it would first be assumed that he was on the wrong frequency. The lead aircraft would try to find him on another frequency, then attempt to call him on the emergency frequency "Guard". When this failed the lead would likely assume that the wingman had radio problems and would attempt to locate him visually. Only after he failed to locate him visually would he begin to worry that something happened. His first thought would be that the aircraft had a major malfunction such as complete loss of electrical power, that forced the pilot to abort the mission and return to base, but also prevented him from calling to the lead aircraft. The other possibility would be that the aircraft was down due to pilot error or aircraft malfunction. The idea that the wingman simply took the aircraft would likely never occur to the lead pilot. The lead pilot at this point would abort his mission and attempt to ascertain what happened to his wingman. He would contact ATC and ask if they had a transponder track on the aircraft or reports of an aircraft down. He would also perform a visual search of the area and attempt to call back to the home base to see if they knew what happened. By this time the rogue pilot may have been gone for at least 30 minutes and was actually 200 miles away. The reason ATC could not track him is a technical issue. Modern ATC radars rely primarily on the aircraft transponder to provide location and altitude information. The actual radar returns "know as raw data" are only used as a secondary means to track aircraft when their transponders have failed. This must be performed manually since the computer has no way to distinguish one radar return from another without the transponder. This method is only used when an ATC controller knows an aircraft transponder has failed and must be manually tracked. Since the A-10 was not supposed to have his transponder on, no-one would notice when he broke formation. Only after the fact when the FAA reviewed the taped radar returns were they able to piece together the likely course of the A-10. I hope this explained some of the more technical reasons for what happened. David Corkum ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 May 97 08:15:54 GMT From: "Terry Colvin" Subject: c4i-pro Lost A-10 ____________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: c4i-pro Lost A-10 Author: Corkum D Capt 2OSS/OSTC at smtp-fhu Date: 01/05/1997 08:33 Corkum D Capt 2OSS/OSTC While it may seem odd to non-flyers that the A-10 could be gone for so long without anyone knowing it, it is a realistic part of modern warfare. Current Air Force training emphasizes EMCON, or Emissions Control. Essentially communications are kept to absolute essential communications only. For a peacetime flight this could include the elimination of all communications except those required for Air Traffic Control or other Safety issues. Large aircraft like B-52s often go for hours without any communications between aircraft in formation and unlike small aircraft, they can't simply look over their shoulder to verify their wingmen are there, it is simply a matter of trust. Reacting to a single incident out of hundreds of thousand of flights would be ridiculous and would likely hurt our mission capability. We must rely on the professionalism of our forces and the extensive training/screening they received to protect us from incidents like the A-10. David Corkum ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 13:42:13 +0100 (BST) From: stevenb@xpedite.com (Steven Barber) Subject: ?Are we alive? I've seen no traffic for over 2 weeks. Is the list still alive? - -- Steven Barber Tel: +44 (0)1904 690000 Database Administrator Fax: +44 (0)1904 345678 Xpedite Systems Ltd Clifton Moor Business Village York, England ~ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 09:30:21 -0400 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com (GREG WEIGOLD) Subject: Re: ?Are we alive? There's been some discussion about the X-30 NASP amongst other things. Don't know why you're not getting the posts.... ********************************************************************** * Greg Weigold, Prog/Analyst Supr. Columbia, SC * * Supr. Tech Support Life Services * * CyberLife Development (Columbia) * * 803-333-6952 803-333-5788(fax) gregweigold@pmsc.com * *++ My views are my own, my employer disavows any knowledge ++* ********************************************************************** ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: ?Are we alive? Author: stevenb@xpedite.com (Steven Barber) at INTERNET Date: 5/2/97 1:42 PM I've seen no traffic for over 2 weeks. Is the list still alive? - -- Steven Barber Tel: +44 (0)1904 690000 Database Administrator Fax: +44 (0)1904 345678 Xpedite Systems Ltd Clifton Moor Business Village York, England ~ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 09:04:15 -0700 From: habu@why.net Subject: Re: ?Are we alive? Steven Barber wrote: > > I've seen no traffic for over 2 weeks. Is the list still alive? > This is the first post I've received since ~Monday 4/28... A 'who' to majordomo shows I'm still subscribed, but no posts... Greg Fieser ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 20:36:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: classified reccon pics Here is the site of a classified reconnaissance satellite photo published by "The Washington Times" in January 1997. I don't remember if anyone post this site already... A little bit outdate but better now than never. http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/kh-12.htm May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 09:01:40 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: "A-17" and Cannon and Stuff Thanks to everyone for the clarifications on Cannon AFB. The march issue of Air Forces Monthly has finally arrived here. I managed to save myself some money by not buying it. Their article on the Boscombe Down incident is almost amusing. It's a classic example of the one-size-fits-all story: it's a spyplane, it's a bomber, it's an asphalt spreader, it's a lawnmower! But wait, there's more! How much would you expect to pay?! Just... etc etc etc. Well, I'm being unkind, but the article is rather extreme. After leafing through it, I think that this is what they were trying to say: It's the "A-17" but it's also "Aurora" and the "TR-3" and the "Brilliant Buzzard" also, or one aircraft is responsible for all of these reports. It's a co-op project between McDonnell Douglas, Northrop and Lockheed (Martin, I presume). The YF-23 wasn't a real ATF contender, but rather a derivative that was probably a de-speced version with turbofans stuffed in it. It's hypersonic and is propelled by Pulse-Detonation Wave Engines. Illustration of two-seater YF-23 with 70-degree sweep delta wings. I can't resist this I'm afraid... I can imagine the next issue having an article on a plane that has the Daedalus-type nuclear fusion engine, reaches 10% of the speed of light, is built by everyone on earth (but they're all sworn to secrecy: I was involved, so were all of you), is used by Santa Claus to deliver presents, carries Trident missiles, is piloted by Elvis on days that aren't Christmas Eve, somehow looks just like a slightly-modified Sopwith Camel and has Microsoft software so that it crashes everywhere and has to be carted away in specially-modified Greyhound buses by mysterious teams of soldiers led by a man in a polo-neck sweater (did I mention that before?), sank the Titanic by colliding with it (it's also a submarine and time machine), was responsible for the legend of Moby Dick (and you thought Melville just made that up?) (the Loch Ness Monster is actually a prototype laser battlestation) and will be used to replace the entire US Army, Navy, Air Force and IRS. Sorry, this morning's coffee was too strong. AFM is usually quite good. It does highlight the basic paradox/extremes of black aircraft research - either every sighting, because of apparent differences must refer to a different aircraft, or everything is the same plane seem from a different angle. Just how many categories/bins does one sort sightings into? - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 23:11:08 -0400 From: "Jeffrey L. Blue" Subject: Nellis Airshow News? Any news from the Nellis AFB airshow? There's not much to report from Thunder over Louisville. It had a real nice static display of the standard craft and many did a fly-by in the show. The Blackbird was not there. The B-2 was not on display, but did a fly-by. The F-117 and B-1 came with armed MPs, while the F-14 and F-15s, etc. had kids riding their drop tanks like horses. There was a nice private F-104, one of several that TransWorld Diversified Services has based out of St. Petersberg/Clearwater FL. The Predator UAV was on display. The C-17 was interesting. The brochure on the C-17 describes a "Rapid Tactical Descent" using inflight thrust reversers. That sounds like quite a ride, steep final into a 3000 ft. unimproved strip. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 21:46:23 -0700 From: patrick@e-z.net Subject: F-117 at Airshows The AF has regulations for securing aircraft on the ground. The F-117 has a special category. It specifically states it is a "touch sensitive" aircraft and when displayed to the public it is required to be surrounded by a rope 10 feet away from the plane and to be escorted by 2 or more armed guards. It mentions absolutely nothing about photographic restrictions. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 09:13:32 -0400 From: John Stone Subject: Air Force realignment Hello All, Just wondering if there are any thoughts in the recent press release by the Air Force News Service that contained this: >>>> Air Force announces force structure changes Released: May 2, 1997 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Air Force officials have announced changes in force structure affecting the location of people, aircraft and organizations throughout the United States. These changes, which are listed by state, are the result of changes in the mission, adjustments for efficiency and to meet congressional directives. <<<<<<<< and after snipping out some info we get to this tidbit: >>>> California At Beale AFB, the 13th Intelligence Squadron will receive an increase of six military authorizations associated with its unmanned aerial vehicle mission. <<<<<<<< I thought that the Af had based their unmanned recon aircraft in Nevada, or did I miss something? Best, John | / ^ \ ___|___ -(.)==<<.>==(.)- --------o---((.))---o-------- SR-71 Blackbird U-2 Dragon Lady John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web Page:http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 10:30:09 -0400 (EDT) From: MELUMAN@aol.com Subject: "Golden Air Tattoo" USAF 50th Anniversary International Airshow A fortunate friend, with camera, sent me photographs of the following aircraft displayed on the ramp at Nellis: F-5 ; F-15 ; F-16 ; F-22 (YF?) ; F-86 ; F-111 ; F-117 ....... B-1 ; B-2 ; B-17 ; B-24 ; B-25 ....... U-2 ; SR-71 ; A-6 ; A-10 ....... Also: A C-5 and other cargo and C3 birds plus a Blackhawk - (and others not photographed) - graced the crowded ramps and display areas. The show was a huge success, judging by the attendence numbers. Seeing the above listed photos was the next best thing to being there. The B-1 fly-by was reported to be "extremely quiet". meluman ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 10:46:22 -0400 (EDT) From: MELUMAN@aol.com Subject: "Golden Air Tattoo" ***CORRECTION ON THE NELLIS REPORT*** Should have read: "*B-2* fly-by was reported to be extremely quiet" Sorry. meluman ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 08:51:45 -0700 From: "Anderson, Richard W" Subject: Off-topic My apologies to the rest of the list for a totally off-topic post but I wanted to ask if possibly one of our English members who's up on airline information could provide (by private mail) a name(s) or snail mail address for British Airways upper management? Thank you in advance. Rick Anderson begin 600 winmail.dat M>)\^(@T/`0:0"``$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y`0```````#H``$(@`<` M&````$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0@36%I;"Y.;W1E`#$(`06``P`.````S0<%``4` M"``S`"T``0!'`0$@@`,`#@```,T'!0`%``@`-P`+``$`*0$!"8`!`"$```!" M,#,V,SA$.#1#0S-$,#$Q.$(P1C`P03!#.3!&-S,Q10`8!P$$@`$`"@```$]F M9BUT;W!I8P!G`P$-@`0``@````$``0`!`Y`&`!P%```@`````P`F``$````" M`0D0`0```(P!``"(`0``!0(``$Q:1G463"I``P`*`')C<&L"@P!0$P-4`@!C:`K`2!A\1D`:7(:X!\1"X`S&S$`P'1I(4$%H'5L)1VP M<`-@=FD.<"`HYF(8\",0:78B4!H``,`E`Q`I&V%N80>`*'-[))`%L7,DT`,1 M)%(9`&3N9!HA!"`;,D(%$")@(`'602&`'6!Y(/)P!)`D00TDT&<@0`GP=#\@ M(.I4$H!N'B!Y"&`AX28A820`;F-E+@J%"H52TPW@'B!!;@2!`'```0````H```!/9F8M=&]P:6,````"`7$``0```!8````!O%EKZ*$= MK%_#Q1<1T+<)`*`D??(C``!``#D`0&'>.VQ9O`$#`/$_"00``!X`,4`!```` M"P```%)704Y$15)33TX```,`&D``````'@`P0`$````+````4E=!3D1%4E-/ M3@```P`90``````#`/T_Y`0```,`-@```````@%'``$````N````8SU54SMA M/2`[<#U,34-/.VP]0D]83$E'2%0M.3``@0`0```&4```!-64%03TQ/1TE% M4U1/5$A%4D535$]&5$A%3$E35$9/4D%43U1!3$Q93T9&+51/4$E#4$]35$)5 M5$E704Y414143T%32TE&4$]34TE"3%E/3D5/1D]54D5.1TQ)4TA-14U"15)3 M``````(!?P`!````0````#Q$,4(V.3(W,#$X,45$,#$Q.$%&-S`P03!#.3!& E-S,Q13)%1CE&.4!B;WAL:6=H="YL;6US+FQM8V\N8V]M/@`V-@== ` end ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 09:03:40 -0700 From: "Anderson, Richard W" Subject: YF-22 Now that we've all had a few days to recover from windy Las Vegas a couple of questions about the YF-22... In the pictures I remember seeing, both of the YF-22s carried civil registration numbers, so has the serial number (84-022 I think) on the one displayed at Nellis been applied retroactively or did someone just get carried away when they gave the plane its new paint job? In spite of the P&W emblems on the intakes, wasn't the YF-22 at Nellis actually the aircraft that carried the GE engines during flight test? (Or did someone actually reconstruct the one that crashed?) And who's got the definitive list of serial/model numbers for all the aircraft displayed at the Nellis show? Rick Anderson begin 600 winmail.dat M>)\^(CD0`0:0"``$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y`0```````#H``$(@`<` M&````$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0@36%I;"Y.;W1E`#$(`06``P`.````S0<%``4` M"0`#`"@``0`3`0$@@`,`#@```,T'!0`%``D`!P`W``$`)@$!"8`!`"$````Q M13,W,SA$.#1#0S-$,#$Q.$(P1C`P03!#.3!&-S,Q10`=!P$$@`$`!@```%E& M+3(R`#`!`0V`!``"`````0`!``$#D`8`&`8``"`````#`"8``0````(!"1`! M````C@(``(H"``##`P``3%I&=?R&!Q@#``H`00@^'1O(!60!:`9H`7``U*#&6`+@&1Y($QA!""X5F5G''$:4`6@ M=0M001FP;V8@('$*4'/<=&D"(!SA!N!U!4`9(($9L%E&+3(R+A]@6PJ%"H5) M`Z`>TG`-X'3["'`'D4D;(0>`!M`;@1*PXF4+@&UP0@8PK` M"($:,&-IEG8#$1609P0`='(90%$>(2!N=2'2X1*P!R(E M=2#@*#@T+3`?0"%A&2!Y"X!K*1V`((0"(!FP9/L$``M1>20A&4$'P!G@!`#W M(I`)X1G`<`M0)!(5D"4`[F\`T!X0&:!L'$`%L2E@3QHP)A`'@"DB:G4>`"#F M9Q+`(\=A=QK`&6`>X'\@@QQ`',`9H2"C%R$9L&E^=`0@*3`'X`JP"X`%0&KX M;V(_'Y\I@#`P'7,>TK!0)E<@(<$=8&T$(',HM3#186L'D"*`+F!SW&XG'KDI M^2O!=1G1'$#K'M(+<'(%`&$!@!D4(]9Y'M)'13-@%T`+@`>19,\(<1=`&F`J M8&=H'K$=\?H_)Y!/+&PVIQLR`(`E`%YU(0`HUS@$)1!S'N!D-#\I,5Q!'"`N MD6\G_00@9R*P'L,.<0N`,#`K\=X@*F$%0!V1)L0O!&(G%O\$(`(0!<`9TC<[ M*6L>TBHUUSY0&/`Q35(-X&L_@B7!%P(@,5P4L0!)(```'@!P``$````&```` M648M,C(````"`7$``0```!8````!O%EMDP,=K%_'Q1<1T+<)`*`D??(C``!` M`#D`4`TLYFU9O`$#`/$_"00``!X`,4`!````"P```%)704Y$15)33TX```,` M&D``````'@`P0`$````+````4E=!3D1%4E-/3@```P`90``````#`/T_Y`0` M``,`-@```````@%'``$````N````8SU54SMA/2`[<#U,34-/.VP]0D]83$E' M2%0M.3&QI9VAT+FQM;7,N;&UC;RYC;VT^``L` M*0``````"P`C```````#``80Z7%"?`,`!Q`^`@```P`0$``````#`!$0```` M`!X`"!`!````90```$Y/5U1(0517159%04Q,2$%$049%5T1!65-43U)%0T]6 M15)&4D]-5TE.1%E,05-614=!4T%#3U503$5/1E%515-424].4T%"3U545$A% M648M,C))3E1(15!)0U154D5325)%344``````@%_``$```!`````/$0Q0C8Y M,C&QI9VAT+FQM /;7,N;&UC;RYC;VT^`/:& ` end ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 May 97 9:57:19 nA From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: "Golden Air Tattoo" I was at the El Toro MCAS air show on the 26th, and the B-2 made two passes there before proceeding on to Nellis. A couple of things: One thing that I note very time I see the B-2 at anairshow is the enormous amount of airspace it takes to make a turn. I don't know if that is a function of the way it's designed, or if they fly it Extremely conservatively because they don't want anything to happen to a plane that expensive at a display. Hope it's the latter. B-2 was quieter than many of the fighters, but not outstandingly so. It may partly suffer in my mind from comparison with a 757 from UPS that made some low passes that same afternoon. I was on the front line and I can tell you that the 757 was absolutely silent. Granted, there were people talking, but there was no audible engine noise whatsoever. When the B-2 went by, they were oohs and aahs from the crowd and the annoncer was talking, but you could hear it over them. When the 757 went by the crowd was quiet (how exiting is a Boeing freighter compared to a Harrier?), but you couldn't hear it at all. If you weren't looking at it, you'd never know it was there. Art Hanley Once again, do not make the mistake of believing that whatever I droned on about above has anything to do with I am authorized to drone on about. ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #48 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@netwrx1.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@netwrx1.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@netwrx1.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