From: owner-skunk-works-digest@ (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V6 #54 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@ Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@ Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Friday, May 30 1997 Volume 06 : Number 054 In this issue: Today in history Black Dawn site update Northrop Hawthorne Groom commuter flights Re: Northrop Hawthorne Groom commuter flights Northrup Hawthorne Groom commuter flights Re: Northrup Hawthorne Groom commuter flights Re: Northrup Hawthorne Groom commuter flights Re: Northrup Hawthorne Groom commuter flights Re: Northrup Hawthorne Groom commuter flights SR-71 book and X-33 articles. Groom Lake Article Re: Northrop Hawthorne Groom commuter flights Re: Northrop Hawthorne Groom commuter flights Re: Northrup Hawthorne Groom commuter flights How do I subscribe? Re[2]: Groom Lake Article 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: Sun, 25 May 1997 20:13:06 -0400 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com (Greg Weigold) Subject: Today in history Hi all! Ran across some interesting notes about today in history and immediately thought about the people on this list. Have a good Memorial Day! Today in history (May 25): - - 1945: Arthur C. Clark proposed relay satellites in geosynchronous orbit. - - 1953: The first atomic cannon was electronically fired in Nevada. - - 1961: President John Kennedy asked the nation to work to put a man on the moon before the decade ended. - - 1973: Skylab 2's first mission was launched. Greg Weigold Columbia SC gregweigold@pmsc.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 16:41:09 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Black Dawn site update Black Dawn was given a major overhaul over the weekend. Some changes include- More links More info on bases New Groom Lake images Groom Lake QuickTimeVR movies Graphic of Tier-3 and Lockheed demonstrator UAV Some info on the BAe HALO New (experimental) feedback system Revised graphics and text formatting on some pages More JavaScript descriptors for links Other goodies And there will (probably) be 2 new pages up at the end of this week- Tier-3 UFOs The URL, as always- http://www.macconnect.com/~quellish Dan Z http://www.macconnect.com/~quellish Black Dawn ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 17:56:52 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Northrop Hawthorne Groom commuter flights Today I had an unplanned and unexpected chance to watch a turboprop land at Northrop's Hawthorne, CA complex. After missing my exit on the 105 freeway I got off right near the complex as I new how to get hom from there easily. As I took the offramp what appeared to be an unmarked white Jetsream bizprop lined up on the runway. I sat at the light and waited for it to land. I paralleled the runway as i drove, watching the turboprop taxi up to a small building and empty out passengers. The plane was a T-tailed twin low-wing turboprop pained overall white with some blue stipes (i was keeping my eyes on the road and passengers) and had a rather obvious registration number on the tail in blue. All of the passengers were showing exposure to the sun on their upper surfaces and cheeks, and were dressed for the most part in "business casual", with small carry-on luggage. I boxed around the airport on Prairie and Crenshaw to catch the workers as they exited to drive home. I got a good look at several- it was obvious that they had been in the desert from their tans and dust accumulation on the insides of their cars and on their bodies (yes, I'm THAT observant- analizing satellite photos does that to you), and two had security badges. One of those two had one which looked corporate, and another badge which from my experience was US Gov't issue- colored white with a pinkish panel over the good old ID numbers and what was either a bar code or magnetic sripe. This was all around 3:45pm today. Of course this raises some qustions- - -What is Northrop working on at Groom? I can only see two possibilities other than, of course, UFOs- SENIOR CITIZEN (which would mean that it went into production and northrop won- kinda a longshot according to paul Mcginnis and my own research) and B-2 testing. it could easily be work on the B-2 weapons trests being done on the Tonopah and Nellis ranges or some of the RCS work- though neither would really justify the 45-50 people (guesstimate- I couldn't count them and drive at the same time!) - -Does each contractor use different airlines to ferry workers into Groom? We know about Janet bringing in EG&G, Raytheon E-Systems, hughes, and Lockheed people. Why does Northrop use it's own planes? And of course, if anyone can help me get the flight plans filed for a certain aircraft for today (5/27/97) I would be most appreciative! On a sidenote- At Hawthorne there is the Western Museam of Flight- which has odd hours but a great selction of aircraft. Mostly Northrop designs but those you'll find nowhere else, like flying wing prototypes and a YF-23. Seems well worth a visit if you're in the area. Dan http://www.macconnect.com/~quellish Black Dawn ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 19:10:45 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Northrop Hawthorne Groom commuter flights At 05:56 PM 5/27/97 -0700, you wrote: > it was obvious >that they had been in the desert from their tans and dust accumulation on >the insides of their cars and on their bodies (yes, I'm THAT observant- >analizing satellite photos does that to you).....Of course this raises some >qustions-(sp)...... Wouldn't you have to observe them at Groom getting on the same airplane to ask this question? And wouldn't you have to analyze the dust in the car with dust from Groom Lake? (yes, I'm THAT skeptical!) I think these questions need to be answered first. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 00:59:40 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Northrup Hawthorne Groom commuter flights Dan, I am skeptical of your claim that you saw a plane that is the "Northrup Hawthorne Groom commuter" flight. There is no evidence whatever in your description of the people disembarking from an airplane as to where the flight originated. The condition of the passengers skin, be it tanned and dusty, the cleanliness of the cars interior, the passengers attire, whether they wore badges or not, the time of arrival, absolutely none of these attributes indicates the flights point of origination. You present no flight plan, no tape recorded conversations of air traffic controllers and or pilots, no sighting of this plane outside of California, no interviews or comments from anyone on the plane or its ground crew. You have presented us with no evidence as to where these people flew in from. Only their condition upon arrival. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 03:48:33 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Northrup Hawthorne Groom commuter flights >Dan, I am skeptical of your claim that you saw a plane that is the >"Northrup Hawthorne Groom commuter" flight. Hey there horsey! i never "claimed" anything. That's assumption on your part. What I did was write down my observations, distribute them, and present a possible analysis. Never said it was dead on- I'm still too much in an NIO mindset to do THAT. There is no evidence whatever >in your description of the people disembarking from an airplane as to where >the flight originated. The condition of the passengers skin, be it tanned >and dusty, the cleanliness of the cars interior, the passengers attire, >whether they wore badges or not, the time of arrival, absolutely none of >these attributes indicates the flights point of origination. 1. not the cleanliness, but what the dust was composed of, was important. 2. skin condition is often a good indicator of whop's been where when. check the weather for today in SoCal and Nevada, especially the UV indexes. Cross-compare and take into account the passengers' attire. 3. Most of the details are interesting, and may well provevaluable to someone as leads in the future, but other than that not much more than curiosity items. 4. Time of arrival can tell you a lot if you put it into a narrower context. 5. individually they do not point to where that plane had been. When taken as a whole and within the correct context they'll make a lot more sense. Never take what someone writes as e-mail as "gospel". It's nowhere near the same as reading, say, AvLeak even. As you may have noticed, I wrote that e-mail pretty much just as I got home. I wanted to get my observations down, write up my thoughts, and see if anyone else had a different perspective on what I saw. I've been in the engineering, science, and analysis games long enough to know the value of peer review, in whatever form. Glenn Campbell has already given me significant information suggesting that what i saw was something else, and I have no reservations about discarding my original analysis. People tend to quote what they read in Popular mechanics, etc. as fact- which is troubling in itself, but now this trend has extended to the internet. I have been attacked by people claiming this or that as fact, when, in fact (no pun intended) it isn't. i've heard everything from "the SR-71 went mach 4" to "aurora doesn't exist- i read all about it in Dark Eagles". And don't get me started on that book- the author has rather good lawers from what I hear. And, of course, there's the problem of web-surfing being viewed as "another 100000 channels"- essentailly web surfing habits are becoming more and more like TV habits- iof it's over a paragraph and has no porn, it doen't get read. Don't get me started on that either. you'd be surprised how little feedback I had from the website, untill 2 hours one night when Alta vista screwed up during indexing and had Black Dawn labelled as a porn site. You present >no flight plan, no tape recorded conversations of air traffic controllers >and or pilots, no sighting of this plane outside of California, no >interviews or comments from anyone on the plane or its ground crew. You >have presented us with no evidence as to where these people flew in from. >Only their condition upon arrival. Because that's all the data I have right now. I'd like to get a flight plan, etc. and anyone with the resources to do so availiable to them should e-mail me so I can give them the N-number, etc. so far, i have not been able to set aside enough time to establish such a research support infrastructure here in LA- I've been here 2 weeks, which has mostly been job hunting (as the Skunk Works well knows!). And i've seen those mysterious contrails, and agree with Mary's post of many months ago on a significant portion being "natural". I'm trying to borrow a digital camera so I can show people how they get created. Chances are that if you're on the list you've seen some of my posts. i don't speak up unless it's eaither well researched and I am willing to stake what little reputation I have on it, or I'm asking for help/peer review on it. In this case it's the latter. Hopefully that clears things up. Thankfully tonight, I finally got back on the list after a several month argument with the server. Dan http://www.macconnect.com/~quellish Black Dawn ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 13:55:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Northrup Hawthorne Groom commuter flights The following is a list of aircraft, currently registered to Northrop Grumman Corp., including Northrop aircraft from Hawthorne and Los Angeles, CA, and Grumman aircraft from Melbourne, FL, and Bethpage, NY. The AG-Cats and other Gulfstream/Grumman aircraft, as well as Northrop University and Northrop Institute aircraft, are not listed. However, I don't know anything about Northrup planes! :) The 3 Grumman-owned Boeing 707s are E-8C J-STARS conversions, while the Albatross seems to be a warbird or museum piece, rather than a transport or research aircraft. The Jetstream and the similar Fairchild/Swearingen Metro/Metroliner do not really have a T-tail -- the horizontal stabilizer/elevator is at about mid-point of the vertical stabilizer/rudder, rather than on top of it. Other possible candidates of low-wing, t-tail, turboprops, include the Embraer EMB-120 Brazilia, as well as the Beech Model 200, 350 and 1900. Most others would be even smaller. None of the above can carry more than about 30 passengers, and definitely not 45 to 50. For such increased passenger capacity, you either need a low-wing/low-tail or high-wing/t-tail turboprop, or even a jet. Here is a list of the standard passenger capacity for those turboprops: Beech 200/350 ==> 11 seats Metro SA226/227 ==> 12 seats Beech 1900 ==> 19 seats Jetstream 31 ==> 19 seats Metro SA226-T ==> 29 seats Jetstream 41 ==> 29 seats EMB-120 Brazilia ==> 32 seats Northrop has two Beech 200 and one Beech 1900, and I would make an educated guess, that it was the Beech 1900C, registered N19NG -- which would have had room for less than 20, rather than 45 to 50 passenger. It could have been also a chartered plane, maybe a Metro (maybe even an ex-US military C-26). I have no way of finding out where the aircraft was, but they could have been at all sorts of places in the Southwest (for all sorts of reasons) -- one of which could be of course Area 51. Their range would be at least around 600 to 700 nm, and up to 1,500 nm for some models. I would still like to get the registration anyway, though. :) - -- Andreas Owner: NORTHRUP GRUMMAN AVIATION INC 1 NORTHROP AVE 2860/65 HAWTHORNE, CA, 90250 Aircraft Type msn Reg. Date Type Use ========================================================================= Sabreliner NA-265-60 306-43 N115CR 09 Feb 1993 Exp. R&D Beech 200 BB-581 N12NG 24 Oct 1979 Stan. Norm. Beech 200 BB-666 N15NG 07 May 1980 Stan. Norm. DHC-6 Twin Otter 596 N16NG 07 Apr 1986 Stan. Norm. Beech 1900C UC-2 N19NG 25 May 1988 Stan. Norm. Learjet 35A 343 N21NG 30 May 1985 Stan. Transp. Cessna TU-206G U20603561 N8898Q 28 Apr 1995 Stan. Norm. Owner: NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION 1840 CENTURY PARK E LOS ANGELES, CA, 90067-2101 Aircraft Type msn Reg. Date Type Use ========================================================================= Sabreliner NA-265-40 282-101 N160W 18 Jun 1996 Restr. Other BAC (BAe) 1-11 401/AK 087 N162W 20 Jun 1996 Exp. R&D BAC (BAe) 1-11 401/AK 090 N164W 03 Jun 1996 Exp. R&D Boeing 737-247 19605 N165W 17 Jun 1996 Stan. Transp. Sabreliner NA-265-40 282-33 N168W 18 Jun 1996 Exp. R&D Islander BN-2T-4R 2143 N360TL 03 Jun 1996 Exp. R&D Owner: GRUMMAN CORPORATION 2000 W NASA BOULEVARD BLDG 222 MELBOURNE, FL, 32904 Aircraft Type msn Reg. Date Type Use ========================================================================= Boeing 707-338C 19621 N526SJ 11 Jun 1990 Exp. FAR Comp. Boeing 707-338C 19626 N770JS 30 Mar 1988 Exp. R&D Boeing 707-323C 19574 N8411 06 Jan 1989 Exp. R&D Owner: GRUMMAN AEROSPACE CORP SOUTH OYSTER BAY RD BETHPAGE, NY, 11714 Aircraft Type msn Reg. Date Type Use ========================================================================= HU-16B Albatross 51-014 N8497N 06 Oct 1980 --- --- - --- --- 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/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 15:17:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Northrup Hawthorne Groom commuter flights Ooops, I made a little error. I wrote: >Metro SA226-T ==> 29 seats [but meant 22 seats] I also wrote: >However, I don't know anything about Northrup planes! :) and later: >Owner: NORTHRUP GRUMMAN AVIATION INC > 1 NORTHROP AVE 2860/65 > HAWTHORNE, CA, 90250 Which was copied without correcting it from the FAA database. Duhhh! - -- 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/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 12:56:28 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Northrup Hawthorne Groom commuter flights At 01:55 PM 5/28/97 -0400, you wrote: >Owner: NORTHRUP GRUMMAN AVIATION INC > 1 NORTHROP AVE 2860/65 > HAWTHORNE, CA, 90250 ================================================ Andreas-- I find the issue of misspelling Northrop (or is it Northrup?) humorous. I certainly have found myself using the incorrect spelling! A possible explanation for this confusion can actually be placed on Northrop's doorstep. In the late 40's, Northrop Aviation Corporation built a landing strip at White Sands Missile Range(the old Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range). Its purpose was to be a landing area for target drones they were contracted to operate over the range. When they issued a press release with a typographical error in it, the name "Northrup Strip" became associated with the location for many years. WSMR acquired the strip in 1952. Today the area had been well developed and is known as White Sands Space Harbor. The third ever Space Shuttle flight ended here when the "Columbia" landed in 1982. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 May 97 05:37:12 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: SR-71 book and X-33 articles. Since the list is kind of slow right now, I'd like to plug two publications, neither of which I have any involvement with: Paul Crickmore has released a revised edition of his "Lockheed SR-71: the Secret Missions exposed. Although basically the same, there are revisions throughout, and it's about 40 pages longer. There are new photos, updates on the flights since reactivation and discussion of the trials and tribulations of the Blackbird since its retirement. One particular coup is that he prints a copy of AF Chief of Staff Gen Fogelman's infamous Feb 7 '95 memo showing that he really doesn't want the plane back, considers it a one year program and doesn't want AF people on the net promoting the aircraft. I hope whoever leaked the memo to Paul wasn't planning for a continued AF career! The second publication is two articles by G. Harry Stine appearing in the April and June 1997 issues of Analog magazine in the "Alternate View" section. Although most know as a science fiction magazine, Analog has quite an extensive science section as well, with a bias towards aerospace. Mr. Stine is an aerospace engineer who has been involved in the space program for quite some time. The relevance to this list is that he discusses in these articles his observations and reasoning why the Skunk Works' design for X-33 was selected. Without going into great detail here, his contention is that it was not for efficiency or cost benefit, but because NASA traditionally goes for the biggest and highest tech concept around rather than pursuing something that may not have quite as much theoretical potential but is less risky and available sooner. He doesn't put Lockheed's technology down. Rather he says that it was the fact that their proposal most played to NASA's traditional paradigm that got it selected. What NASA wants, according to him, is a giant Shuttle II program. It's a very interesting read. I'm not saying I agree with him, but Mr. Stine and Analog shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. He was the person who noticed that NASA had not plotted the abort footprint of a Shuttle departing Vandenberg. His calculations showed that once past the point of the dubious Return To Launch Site abort, it was not possible,given NASA's planned operations at the time, for a Shuttle departing Vandenberg to have any survivable abort options prior to reaching orbit (it couldn't reach any airfields, and in fact would normally go into the drink). It was based on his work that the US funded an airport on Easter Island that we gave to the Argentineans with the supposed proviso that we could land a Shuttle there and recover it without prior permission. He also did some very interesting calculations on what happens if a Shuttle does land at an alternate sit even out of the Cape. The range of the 747 with the Shuttle on top isn't great enough to fly it out of some of those sites. It'll have to be brought back by barge, exposed to marine air for an extended period. Analog also was one of the few places where information on NASA's rather dubious plan to fly fueled Centaur stages in the cargo bay of the Shuttle was discussed. Basically, this plan meant that the Shuttle would be essentially carrying a large bomb in the bay that it couldn't get rid of in an abort. They showed an alternate way to accomplish the same thing with the same components that eliminated the danger. NASA insisted they were incorrect, but it's worthy of note that in the wake of the Challenger disaster they quietly canceled wet Centaur. The last two paragraphs are not to rag on NASA. They're just to indicate why I think Mr. Stine's article is worthy of consideration. Art ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 12:08:11 -0400 From: Hank_Lapa@signalcorp.com Subject: Groom Lake Article Gang, The 1997 USAF Yearbook (got mine yesterday), which along with the annual RAF Yearbook is put out by RAF Benevolent Fund Enterprises, has an article by Chris Pocock on Groom Lake, well illustrated with photos of mostly Lockheed stuff, but also including a 1991 Russian overhead. Haven't read it yet, but reference is made to Soviet stuff flown from there and Tonopah, a recent thread. Another article on early supersonics is of some Lockheed interest, as is an F-22 article. All-in-all a good souvenir issue highlighting the 50th of the Air Force. Hank ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 16:56:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: Northrop Hawthorne Groom commuter flights Why would the dust on or in the cars be any evidence of the people being at Groom Lake? Since that airplane, a KingAir, isn't big enough to carry cars, presumably the cars remained in the Hawthorne airport parking lot. The dust, therefore, would be characteristic of Hawthorne, not Groom. Even if we assume that these people work for Northrop, which is not a foregone conclusion despite your seeing badges, since my mother wears a badge much like the one you describe because she's a volunteer at the local hospital, your assumptions are much too far-reaching. For example, they may have been up here at EDW or Plant 42 working on the B-2; I see the Northrop KingAir here in the Antelope Valley, both at Plant 42 and EDW, regularly. One high desert location's dust is much like another's. As for the tans, the Antelope Valley is a great place for them. I've already got a nice tan just from walking back and fort between buildings. And we're equally good at dust production. I don't think you've got any sort of evidence of anything except that tanned dusty people flew into Hawthorne in a KingAir and got into dusty cars. Isn't there some aphorism about making bricks without straw that applies here? 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.... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 17:04:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: Northrop Hawthorne Groom commuter flights Oops--the corporate plane that Northrop-Grumman flies isn't a KingAir but a Beech 1900. I was just chatting about it with one of the Northrop B-2 pilots today as we both flew up from LAX on the UAL Exp noon flight. However, cars won't fit into a 1900 either. Sorry--I was thinking about the NASA KingAir, N7NA, which we'd also discussed. 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.... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 17:14:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: Northrup Hawthorne Groom commuter flights The people who sell seed corn are Northrup King; the folks who sell airplanes are Northrop Grumman. Notice the difference in spelling. 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 Wed, 28 May 1997, Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > Ooops, I made a little error. I wrote: > > >Metro SA226-T ==> 29 seats [but meant 22 seats] > > I also wrote: > > >However, I don't know anything about Northrup planes! :) > > and later: > > >Owner: NORTHRUP GRUMMAN AVIATION INC > > 1 NORTHROP AVE 2860/65 > > HAWTHORNE, CA, 90250 > > Which was copied without correcting it from the FAA database. Duhhh! > > -- 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/ > --- --- > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 23:43:04 -0500 (CDT) From: jetguy1@ix.netcom.com (BRENT CLARK ) Subject: How do I subscribe? How does one go about subscribing to this newsgroup? Appreciate any info. Thanks Brent jetguy1@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 07:31:24 -0400 From: Hank_Lapa@signalcorp.com Subject: Re[2]: Groom Lake Article I get mine direct from UK even tho the cover quotes UK, USA, and Canada cover prices. I have occasionally seen them offered by US mail order places, but not reliably. United States Air Force Yearbook 1997 ISSN 0956-2826 Publisher's number is 44-01285-713300 (Remember that's east coast + 5 hours) I try to get both the USAF and RAF Yearbooks each year. Pretty glossy, well illustrated, good reference, and though not exactly scholarly, not the brain-dead pap that is usually found in several mainstream mags. Hank ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Groom Lake Article Author: Dan Zinngrabe at ZEUS Date: 05/29/97 08:03 PM > Gang, > > The 1997 USAF Yearbook (got mine yesterday), which along with the > annual RAF Yearbook is put out by RAF Benevolent Fund Enterprises, has > an article by Chris Pocock on Groom Lake, well illustrated with photos > of mostly Lockheed stuff, but also including a 1991 Russian overhead. > Haven't read it yet, but reference is made to Soviet stuff flown from > there and Tonopah, a recent thread. Another article on early > supersonics is of some Lockheed interest, as is an F-22 article. > All-in-all a good souvenir issue highlighting the 50th of the Air > Force. > > Hank Ah, but hank- where can us skunkers get the Yearbook? thanks Dan http://www.macconnect.com/~quellish Black Dawn ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #54 ******************************** 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